First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Alabama town considering ban on saggy pants, short shorts and miniskirts
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
I actually like this, having said that even if it becomes a thing I don't see the cops actually enforcing this. It's really just sending a symbolic message that they prefer people who have their pants up. Reminds me of when New York tried to ban the n-word.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/01/usa.edpilkington
or toy guns "this one was actually enforced"
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/18/7892/new-york-city-issues-huge-fine-breaking-toy-gun-ban

really this is just symbolism nothing more
10 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / In the middle of...
Offline
Posted 9/13/15

Wobbuffetking wrote:


LadySerenityMage wrote:

Call me old-school, but I think this makes sense. You should dress to impress all the time. I'm not saying that you should dress in dress pants or dresses all the time, but you really never know when you're going to meet someone important or wind up networking with someone who has the potential to help you get into an internship or land the next job. I've met a lot of professional contacts while simply out and about. When you're an older teen or a young adult, you have to view every single situation as something that could potentially affect your ability to network and improve your lot in life. And these opportunities to network won't go so well if you have no respect for yourself or for others. It's not going to look very well on your part if you wear booty shorts on friday night and run into a person whose company you really want to work for. First impressions are everything and no amount of nice clothing at a job interview will let the person hiring you get past that first impression. Furthermore, there is something called common decency: just because you're comfortable walking down the street with your booty showing doesn't mean that the person passing you on the street feels the same way.


I agree, but should this be legally enforced on to people?


I'm a libertarian so I say it should become a moral that is taught rather than a law that is enforced. We want to, as a society, develop people with morals and standards so good that laws won't really matter to them because they are naturally extremely cultured, polite, presentable, etc. At least that's what I'll attempt to do when I become a teacher.
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
We can workout in front of a few hundred people in some glorified underwear without anyone batting an eye (and have it televised) but people can't have short cut shorts or skirts... yeah this makes perfect sense.
23186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
The question is: how baggy is too baggy?
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:

Personally, depending on the location, I can fully support laws like this.

As far as ZERO benefit.... no, it benefits us quite greatly by enforcing people to have common decency.

Of course... I guess I am wrong, to think people shouldn't have their boxers showing in public. I'm the bad guy. Leave these poor people alone... all they want to do is express themselves by looking like hoes and thugs, just like the majority of our "problem" children in America.

Hell... laws like this make more sense to me than a damned seat-belt law. Or Marijuana being illegal to smoke in your own home.


You say that your support is dependent upon the location miniskirts and loose-fitting slacks are not to be worn. Should this be taken to mean your support is limited to locations such as professional settings (including schools) where attire either impacts a firm's ability to conduct business effectively or impacts labourers' and consumers' safety (such as not allowing loose-fitting slacks near exposed moving machine parts, open flames, or where food is prepared)?

Posted 9/13/15 , edited 9/13/15


Is one of them on prozac, btw?



swiggity swag
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/14/15
How about this.

They are allowed to sag their pants, but they also legalize shooting people who sag in the ass with rock salt.

Fuck, they could sell permits to do this and make a killing.
6655 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / The moon
Offline
Posted 9/14/15
I personally don't care, it disgusting to me, but the "fashion" is slowly dying out anyway. Fashion and style always take over another to new generations. Hoodies, on the other hand, is nothing wrong and certain people shouldn't be discriminated over what they wear, I wear big hoddies too.
6655 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / The moon
Offline
Posted 9/14/15

TheDimmLight wrote:

The question is: how baggy is too baggy?


Damn, that's a good question.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/14/15 , edited 9/14/15

BlueOni wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

Personally, depending on the location, I can fully support laws like this.

As far as ZERO benefit.... no, it benefits us quite greatly by enforcing people to have common decency.

Of course... I guess I am wrong, to think people shouldn't have their boxers showing in public. I'm the bad guy. Leave these poor people alone... all they want to do is express themselves by looking like hoes and thugs, just like the majority of our "problem" children in America.

Hell... laws like this make more sense to me than a damned seat-belt law. Or Marijuana being illegal to smoke in your own home.


You say that your support is dependent upon the location miniskirts and loose-fitting slacks are not to be worn. Should this be taken to mean your support is limited to locations such as professional settings (including schools) where attire either impacts a firm's ability to conduct business effectively or impacts labourers' and consumers' safety (such as not allowing loose-fitting slacks near exposed moving machine parts, open flames, or where food is prepared)?



I would extend it as far as being enforceable anywhere public, and in any business, under the conditions that at a business, only the business owner (or manager for different franchise locations) could press charges. So... for example... Walmart might press charges for someone dressed in a miniskirt, with her butt hanging out... but a club owner will likely not.
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/14/15 , edited 9/14/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:

I would extend it as far as being enforceable anywhere public, and in any business, under the conditions that at a business, only the business owner (or manager for different franchise locations) could press charges. So... for example... Walmart might press charges for someone dressed in a miniskirt, with her butt hanging out... but a club owner will likely not.


Here's the problem: in order to get to the club where miniskirts are welcome a woman must first travel through public space. You have eliminated the option to wear such attire in public space. Let's think about an evening on the town under your proposed scheme:

A woman dons clothing you consider acceptable for public space and travels to a venue where the clothing she actually wants to wear is allowed. She then finds somewhere to change (probably a restroom stall) and changes into the clothing she intended to wear in the first place, putting the extraneous outfit somewhere for storage (probably a messenger bag since going to put it into her vehicle would require entering public space in attire you have banned). She then enjoys her evening and subsequently returns to her changing place to restore the articles of clothing you demand she wear in public space. She must repeat this process for each venue she wishes to visit that evening until she decides to go home.

Does that sound reasonable to you now that you've seen your proposal laid out in concrete terms?
23186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/14/15
After fully explaining the nitty gritty details, I might be able to back this as well. I am a relatively thin person and well above average height. Most clothes are considered "baggy" due to my physique, unless I order custom made clothes. Since that does not really work, then I would be considered a law breaker. My clothes cover myself of course, but they are baggy regardless.

Then there is the other extreme, too tight of clothing. Unlike baggy clothes, this poses a health risk due to the lack of blood circulation. Anyway, there is rather large holes in this law, which may force clothing companies to make "normal" clothes, defeating the purpose of a free market.

Things to think about...
2345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/14/15

LadySerenityMage wrote:

Call me old-school, but I think this makes sense. You should dress to impress all the time. I'm not saying that you should dress in dress pants or dresses all the time, but you really never know when you're going to meet someone important or wind up networking with someone who has the potential to help you get into an internship or land the next job. I've met a lot of professional contacts while simply out and about. When you're an older teen or a young adult, you have to view every single situation as something that could potentially affect your ability to network and improve your lot in life. And these opportunities to network won't go so well if you have no respect for yourself or for others. It's not going to look very well on your part if you wear booty shorts on friday night and run into a person whose company you really want to work for. First impressions are everything and no amount of nice clothing at a job interview will let the person hiring you get past that first impression. Furthermore, there is something called common decency: just because you're comfortable walking down the street with your booty showing doesn't mean that the person passing you on the street feels the same way.


1. Most people dont usually go out on the town in booty shorts or sagging pants when their looking for a job.
2. Most clubs today usually have a dress code to get in, that usually means no bandanas, hats, sports team logos. ect.
3. If you happen to run into a person in a city thats going to interview you, they cant legally deny someone based off their appearance.
4. Too much focus on the clothing for a job, I turned down a job interview for a gym because they wanted me to dress up in a button down dress shirt slacks and dress shoes for the interview when the clothing you wear at the place is a t shirt and casual clothing. One can wear ragged t shirts, booty shorts or the likes and be an extremely hard worker. On the other hand you could have a reasonably dressed person, presentable thats a thief, slacker or even a drug addicts.

I will dress however I want on my own time, If someone has a problem with the way I dress then they can get a clue and learn to not judge based upon clothing.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/14/15

Haruna-kai wrote:
3. If you happen to run into a person in a city thats going to interview you, they cant legally deny someone based off their appearance.


Yes.... yes, they can. In fact, they can fire you, if they like, given they follow disciplinary procedures. The law is actually a lot more flexible than people want to think.

Basically, if you do ANYTHING that can in any way affect their ability to make profit, you can be fired. Basically the same for hiring. If they think you'll present the wrong image of their company on your "own" time, don't be surprised that they pass you up.

And dressing up for a job interview is professionalism. Your inability to demonstrate that based on some snowflake syndrome/ false sense of entitlement is a failure on your part, not theirs.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/14/15

BlueOni wrote:
Here's the problem: in order to get to the club where miniskirts are welcome a woman must first travel through public space. You have eliminated the option to wear such attire in public space. Let's think about an evening on the town under your proposed scheme:

A woman dons clothing you consider acceptable for public space and travels to a venue where the clothing she actually wants to wear is allowed. She then finds somewhere to change (probably a restroom stall) and changes into the clothing she intended to wear in the first place, putting the extraneous outfit somewhere for storage (probably a messenger bag since going to put it into her vehicle would require entering public space in attire you have banned). She then enjoys her evening and subsequently returns to her changing place to restore the articles of clothing you demand she wear in public space. She must repeat this process for each venue she wishes to visit that evening until she decides to go home.

Does that sound reasonable to you now that you've seen your proposal laid out in concrete terms?


*shrug* Yeah, it sounds reasonable. People aren't allowed to walk naked just because they are headed to a nude beach. Also, they could use private transportation, if they just INSISTED on wearing inappropriate clothing.

Forgive me for thinking that others' ability to express themselves through clothing does not trump my desire to not see other people's asses.

Opinions vary. I support the law.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.