Heeeere's A Belt

[tropicsgoddess]

My alma mater is taking a stand against saggy pants by giving the students with the saggy pants belts. Here's the story:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,2524087.story

and to summate mine and the rest of the sane world's feelings on this subject:

[DesignFox]

I think this is a great idea. Rather than creating stupid rules and laws against the problem, give kids the solution/words of encouragement.

While I find the whole saggy pants thing absurd, I think it's damn sad that communities are outlawing it. I mean, really? We're gonna chase people down for having saggy pants? Don't the cops have better shit they could be doing?

I think those reading teachers might be on to something.

[TheRoo]

Back in the day when I managed a gas station, a kid about 17 or 18 came in with his pants halfway down his ass like that and asked me "How old do you have to be to work here?" Without missing a beat, I replied "Old enough to buy a belt."

[Boozy]

While I find the whole saggy pants thing absurd, I think it's damn sad that communities are outlawing it.

Where has it been outlawed? I'm not questioning you, I'm just curious.

I know that some communities have serious issues with gangs and gang violence. If pants-down-to-the-knees is a look common for certain gangs in those areas, then laws banning that look would be geared towards eliminating the ability of gang members to represent themselves as such. Just as gang colours worn in the form of bandannas are against the law in many areas. Apparently laws preventing gang members from expressing their affiliations have cut down on drive-by shootings considerably in some neighbourhoods.

[lordlundar]

I mean, really? We're gonna chase people down for having saggy pants?

Shouldn't be too tough to chase them down, odds are they'll fall flat on their face after 20 feet!

[RecoveringKinkoid]

While I find the whole saggy pants thing absurd, I think it's damn sad that communities are outlawing it. I mean, really? We're gonna chase people down for having saggy pants? Don't the cops have better shit they could be doing?
.

It's been outlawed for a long time under "Indecent Exposure." Those pathetic idiots in the picture have their asses out and their underwear totally showing. If I left the house with MY ass out like that, I'd get picked up for public indencey, and rightly so.

Nobody would care if their pants didn't fit if said pants covered up the asses that pants are designed to cover up. It's not the fact that the pants are loose that is the issue.

Just because some moron covers his thighs with ill fitting pants does not make it okay for that moron to go around with his ass out. I don't want to see that guy's ass and most of the rest of us probably don't, either.

[tabbyblack13]

I heard this story from a cop.

A cop was chasing a suspect with the baggy pants. The pants were getting in the way of the suspect so he drops his pants and runs away in his boxers. The cop picks up the pants and finds the suspect's wallet. About a half an hour later the cop is sitting on the porch of the suspects house with the wallet and pants. The suspect walks up and sees the cop with the wallet and pants. The suspect gives up.

Whats worst is seeing a pasty white guy trying to do this with white briefs.

[Boozy]

It's been outlawed for a long time under "Indecent Exposure." Those pathetic idiots in the picture have their asses out and their underwear totally showing.

Can showing one's undergarments be considered indecent exposure? There's no skin showing.

I don't think it's very classy to walk around in public with your underpants exposed, but I don't know that the courts would consider it obscene.

[DesignFox]

Well, if showing off your boxers is indecent exposure, we better get out and arrest all those people on the beach/around the public pool in their bikinis and speedos...especially people walking around in thongs. /sarcasm

I guess I can understand the connection between gangs and the pants off the ass or the bandana colors, and how banning those may cut down on some of the gang violence...but...I don't know. It just sits wrong with me to be telling people that they can't wear something or express themself a certain way.

To my mind, outlawing it is less desirable of an answer.

Not every dumb kid with sagging pants belongs to a gang. But then, I haven't ever lived in a neighborhood I fear for my life in- so maybe if I was a scared person, I'd have no problem dumping off my personal freedoms so I could be safe. Afterall, it's not like *I* wear my pants hanging off my ass, so who cares if the law says I'm not allowed to? *I* don't wear bandanas (of any color) so who cares if the law says my neighbor can't?

But what's next? The gangs will only change their signals. Not eliminate them altogether.

I think the teachers hit on something good. Instead of ruling and regulating the kids to death, they gave them a positive alternative. This fosters encouragement to make the "right" decision and makes the kids feel like they did this of their own volition. As most of us know, because we were once there, forcing a teenager to do anything is almost instantly going to get you the opposite.

Shit, that attitude is still a part of me. The best example I can think of is with my customers. If they TELL me what I'm GOING TO DO for them, they almost instantly get shot down. Not because I can't do what they want, but because they TOLD me that I HAVE TO DO IT! Whereas the person who asks, or maybe doesn't even ask at all but just happens to be very nice might get exactly what I just told the asshole before them I couldn't/wouldn't do.

*shrug* best way I can think to explain my reasoning.

Also- I find that lessons tend to stick better when the kids *want* to do it for themselves.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Can showing one's undergarments be considered indecent exposure? There's no skin showing.

I don't think it's very classy to walk around in public with your underpants exposed, but I don't know that the courts would consider it obscene.

Like I said, I guaran-damn-tee you that if a woman did it, she would be arrested and the courts would consider it obscene. Can you imagine if I left the house wearing a bra for a shirt? Or my little "Tuesday" panties with the baby blue flowery butt proudly on display with my pants down under my ass? It would not fly.

[the_std]

Like I said, I guaran-damn-tee you that if a woman did it, she would be arrested and the courts would consider it obscene.

I actually was having a discussion with a friend about this, and asked him why it was okay for a dude to do it, but not a chick. He told me that, with women, the ass is a sexual part of the body, along with a myriad of other parts, which he then listed (breasts, stomach, face, vagina, legs). So obviously it should remain covered, because sexual parts being exposed is indecent. I asked him which parts of the man are sexual. His answer? The penis and that's it.

I wish I were making this up.

[Seshat]

Hands. Eyes. Lips. Ears. Cheekbones. Face in general. Neck. Shoulders (mmm, shoulders). Back. Waist. Chest. Butt. Belly. Arms. Legs. Feet.

Penis? Looks kinda funny. Rather silly, really. Probably the least sexual part of a guy, as far as I'm concerned.

You're welcome to cut/paste this for your friend. Though he'd probably say I was making it up, or in some other way dismiss it. Which would be a shame, if he did. He'd be wasting a lot of potential sexy trying too hard to shove socks down his undies, and not paying attention to sexiness he could be highlighting.

[Boozy]

Like I said, I guaran-damn-tee you that if a woman did it, she would be arrested and the courts would consider it obscene. Can you imagine if I left the house wearing a bra for a shirt? Or my little "Tuesday" panties with the baby blue flowery butt proudly on display with my pants down under my ass? It would not fly.

I think we're into geographical differences now. In my area, a woman dressed the way you describe would be stared at and thought unwell, but I'm virtually certain that she would not be charged with indecent exposure.

Almost every indecent exposure charge I've read about has involved a man exposing himself to a child. I think it's considered a rather serious crime here. Even the guy I knew who streaked on the last day of high school was only charged with "public mischief" or something like that, not indecent exposure. I think "indecent exposure" would have applied if he'd streaked through an elementary school instead.

But if I recall correctly, you live in a far more genteel area of the world than I do. I could see indecent exposure laws being worded and enforced differently there.

Side question: Do you really have a special pair of underpants reserved for Tuesdays?

[Yfandes]

If you wear your pants that low, expect this when you get frisked.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Side question: Do you really have a special pair of underpants reserved for Tuesdays?

Naw, I made that up to illustrate my point. Mine are plain beige or black with no seams and a nice cut. Very boring.

Yeah, that would not fly down here in my area of the country. Some of our politicians still wear white summer suits and straw hats. I shit you not.

The guy that thinks a man has no sexual areas other than his genitals is an idiot. He probably thinks a woman has no lustful or sexual thoughts and simply lies there and thinks of something pleasant when a a man is having sex with her. In fact, that guy probably wears a white summer suit and a straw hat.

Basically, men are not attracted to other men, therefore men have nothing sexy about them. Gays don't exist, and women have no libidos.

Tell him to enjoy his mint julep on the veranda.