Georgia's fight with visable undergarments.

[alf2]

Stockbridge is the latest city in the metro Atlanta area to consider bagging saggy pants, Channel 2 Action News reports.

The Henry County city would join its neighbors of Jonesboro and Hampton in banning low-riding trousers if it approves the ban. A proposed ordinance would prohibit people from wearing clothes more than three inches below their hips, causing their underwear to be exposed.

Earlier this summer, Jonesboro enacted an ordinance that threatens violators with disorderly conduct charges. Hampton’s enforcement plan calls for warnings to first offenders and fines of $50 to $200 for future violations.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/news/henry/stockbridge-may-be-next-1160667.html

AJC = Atlanta Journal Constitution (our leading newspaper!)


Basically, I am so sick of seeing men wear their pants so low, their backside is hanging out. The other day a guy was trying to run across a busy highway, and his pants were so low, they just fell to his ankles. Ya Allah....:astag:

I am also tired of seeing women wear pants 10x too small and their undergarments are showing above their pants. Its not cute, its really gross.

 

[Just a Guy]

:salam2:

Yeah I don't get the whole gangbanger saggy pants look. It's kind of hard to hold a gun in one hand and your pants in the other.

 

[xAllahKnowsBestx]

Ughh, they should ban "saggin'". Today was the first day of school and wherever I looked, some dude's pants were sagging. Gross.

My teacher last year told me that this originated in prison because inmates weren't allowed to have belts and shoelaces. It's sad how this turned into a fashion trend.

 

[Aapa]

Assalaam walaikum,

And as usual the other side of the coin is skinny jeans. Saggy skinny..go figure

 

[Ahsen]

It's just gross.

 

[alf2]

Ughh, they should ban "saggin'". Today was the first day of school and wherever I looked, some dude's pants were sagging. Gross.

My teacher last year told me that this originated in prison because inmates weren't allowed to have belts and shoelaces. It's sad how this turned into a fashion trend.

Actually, my uncle was IN prison and told me a different story
He said it originates from prision, and when an inmate had his pants sagging it was a sign to other inmates letting them know he's gay

 

[Just a Guy]

:salam2:

Well, either way, it should tell you something about our society and the glorification of the thug lifestyle. Go to any high school and look at all of the little middle-class white boys trying to act like hardcore ghetto thugs.

I don't get this media obsession with gangsters and criminals.

 

[Janaan]

Assalaam walaikum,

And as usual the other side of the coin is skinny jeans. Saggy skinny..go figure

ugh! I still do not understand why "men" are wearing skinny jeans. I mean, I get it with females wearing it; they obviously want to put their 'curves', shapes, etc. on display...but men??

Alf, thanks for sharing this! I hope more states enforce this new addition to their laws..
Dudes: please, No one wants to see your behind. That's utterly disturbing!!

 

[Janaan]

:salam2:

Yeah I don't get the whole gangbanger saggy pants look. It's kind of hard to hold a gun in one hand and your pants in the other.

Lol! A gun in one hand..and pant in the other. Ridiculous!
I think the whole "gangbanger saggy pants" look is their definition of cool. But atleast its a 'baggy' trouser and not 'skinny'. this whole 'skinny jeans' trend with guys is, well, I'll repeat, Disturbing.

 

[Just a Guy]

:salam2:

Yeah, men dressing like women is not cool.

But that's just an offshoot of the feminization of men in our culture. The younger generation is a confused one with gender reversal. There are women who act like men and men who act like women.

 

[xAllahKnowsBestx]

Actually, my uncle was IN prison and told me a different story
He said it originates from prision, and when an inmate had his pants sagging it was a sign to other inmates letting them know he's gay

Oh yeah, I've heard of this as well! Apparently they made a documentary about this or something.. lol.

 

[Aapa]

Assalaam walaikum,

Somewhere buried in the archives of TTI we had a discussion on the reason why skinny jeans are promoted. It is an attempt to de-masculine men. It is an effort to promote homosexuality as a norm and family as abnormal. A lot of thought and money went into this folks.

 

[Shak78]

:salam2:

Good, I can not stand that look and I doubt that most guys who wear their pants saggy really understand what they are saying to other guys. I always shake my head when I see it and then can't understand when people complain they don't get any jobs and dress like that for interviews. It seems this generation (gen Y) is getting dumber, not all but many.

 

[Just a Guy]

:salam2:

Good, I can not stand that look and I doubt that most guys who wear their pants saggy really understand what they are saying to other guys. I always shake my head when I see it and then can't understand when people complain they don't get any jobs and dress like that for interviews. It seems this generation (gen Y) is getting dumber, not all but many.

:salam2:

My generation (Gen X) are for the most part terrible parents, and our kids (Gen Y) are even worse.

There are still some good parents out there, but they are few and far between.

 

[septithol]

I don't think any style of dress (or undress) should be a matter of law. The law should not ever tell you what to wear, or not wear, or how to wear it. It should be a matter of individual choice.

However, I think the style of low pants and visible underwear would be far less popular if the boys who think they are so 'cool' by dressing that way knew how the style originated. It was originated in certain prisons, male prisoners would dress that way, in order to advertise to other male prisoners the fact that they were available to perform certain 'services' (which I will not specify here as it would offend people and violate the terms of the board) and would perform these 'services' in exchange for money, or things, or not getting beaten up.

 

[alf2]

I don't think any style of dress (or undress) should be a matter of law. The law should not ever tell you what to wear, or not wear, or how to wear it. It should be a matter of individual choice.

However, I think the style of low pants and visible underwear would be far less popular if the boys who think they are so 'cool' by dressing that way knew how the style originated. It was originated in certain prisons, male prisoners would dress that way, in order to advertise to other male prisoners the fact that they were available to perform certain 'services' (which I will not specify here as it would offend people and violate the terms of the board) and would perform these 'services' in exchange for money, or things, or not getting beaten up.

The law needs to step in where the style is bordering INDECENT EXPOSURE. These guys want to wear their pants below their ass yet they dont want a belt. It doesnt take much effort until the pants WILL fall down.

I've witnessed this. That is indecent. They need to wear their pants properly because no innocent person wants to see their underwear or more.

And I gave the same prison reason earlier in the thread.

 

[Wannabemuslim]

:salam2: At my school anyone who dosnt either where there pants so there boxers are exposed, wear something tight or short cut, Ie have self respect and modesty, are looked upon as unintelligiant morons, or they are those stereotypical computer nerds who dont get out enough to see the "latest style" in there minds . Just imagaine being a muslim... They always feel so sorry for me not acting stupid, listening to stupid music, and wearing stupid clothing. I laugh at them though, let them go off in there own direction and fall into every trap possible, just because they want to feel in a group and be "normal". one million blind men travelling together are just as useless as one.

Sorry if thats a little harsh^. Its just me exposing the "mob" rule of my school

 

[septithol]

Laws against 'indecent exposure'

The law needs to step in where the style is bordering INDECENT EXPOSURE. These guys want to wear their pants below their ass yet they dont want a belt. It doesnt take much effort until the pants WILL fall down.

I've witnessed this. That is indecent. They need to wear their pants properly because no innocent person wants to see their underwear or more.

And I gave the same prison reason earlier in the thread.

Alf, the trouble with what you propose is that the concept of 'indecent exposure' is entirely subjective. What you might regard as 'indecent' is entirely different than from what some other person might regard as 'indecent'. There are a lot of people who regard wearing Islamic clothing such as the hijab to be 'indecent'. Some people regard nudity as 'indecent'. Others don't see anything 'indecent' at all, about a naked human body. So who's version of 'indecent' should there be laws against?

My own opinion is that since the entire concept of 'indecent exposure' is subjective, and unprovable, it shouldn't be a matter for the law at all. How one person chooses to dress or not dress should not be a matter for the law, any more than the books they choose to read, or the food I choose to eat. I may think a person dresses in a manner I find personally distasteful, I may think the manner they dress in is foolish, if it is not in accordance with the current weather. Likewise, I may think the books they read to be in poor taste, or foolish, but it is not for me or the law to dictate what other's should wear or read.

Consider this: There are many very devout Muslims on here who wish to wear hijab or other such garments. I would not wear such a thing myself, but I support the right of others to do so. I do know that in some countries, there are laws proposed to outlaw the hijab, and I disagree with such laws.

However, if were one of the Muslims here, and I valued the right to wear Hijab, then I would fight strongly against any proposed laws to outlaw 'indecent exposure' or even total nudity. Why? Because if you support laws against 'indecent exposure' then you have just lost the best, strongest argument against future laws outlawing hijab, because you have agreed to the moral point that it is, in fact, the business of the law, rather than individual choice, to dictate how people should dress. Once you surrender that point, even if you win some war against 'indecent exposure' you have lost the battle, and will likely find your own chosen style of dress to be banned by law in the future. This is why I support the right of Muslims to dress in ways I might disagree with, and to read books I disagree with, so that I myself may retain the right to dress as I like and read what I like.

There is a good quote about this, from the play "A Man For All Seasons"

"Arrest him!"
"For what?" asked England's Lord High Chancellor, Sir Thomas More.

"He's dangerous!" said More's wife.

William Roper, Thomas More's son-in-law chimed in, "For all we know he's a spy!" to which his daughter added, "Father, that man's bad!"

Sir Thomas replied, "There's no law against that!"

"There is God's law!" countered the impetuous Roper.

"Then let God arrest him!"

More's wife saw the critical opportunity fading, "While you talk he's gone!"

More looked at his distraught wife. "And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

This was too much for the son-in-law, who mounted a second challenge: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

"Yes!" asserted Sir Thomas. "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"