a.k.a. The “We will tell you where your pants’ place is; don’t make us remind you of yours” law.
In yet another epic display of bloated superego shittery, Florida is on its way to passing a law that would make wearing baggy jeans a crime. As the clothing style is particularly popular among black youths, this seems like little more than another excuse to add to the immense list of Reasons for Police Officers to Approach and Incarcerate the Dread Negro. It is, after all, much better for us to be total crypto-racist fascists than for the sensibilities of elderly Florida retirees to have to be challenged by dealing with people who are different from them.
Here are some hilarious excerpts from the article:
Supporters say schools sometimes don’t properly police dress codes and parents are often “under aware” of what their kids are wearing to school.
Or maybe they just don’t subscribe to the idea that there is a unified standard for how people should live, and that everyone absolutely must abide by it.
Despite being the butt of jokes, the bill’s sponsor, Orlando Sen. Gary Siplin, a Democrat, has said the fashion statement has a back-story — it was made popular by rap artists after first appearing among prison inmates as a signal they were looking for sex.
Haha, “butt”, get it? Butt of jokes? What delightful wordplay! Oh, man. Somebody get these guys a sitcom or something.
Anyway, a) I question the validity of his little history report there. b) Since when does anybody give a good rat’s fuck where things originated? If they did, then “shit” would be considered the polite term for describing feces. What a bunch of hypocritical, self-righteous rustcunts.
The Florida city of Riviera Beach passed its own saggy pants law Tuesday, with a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail for repeat offenders.
Gah. Just stop. Stop it. Stop. If this is the kind of ludicrous, superego-heavy bullshit we evolved from apes to accomplish, maybe we ought all climb back up into the trees.
People this abjectly stupid really, really aren’t helping my superiority complex.
Wow. I’m not really against dress codes in school, but as to the rest of this? Go shove your nose into your own ass, fuckers.
Dress codes in school are fine, except that they tend to come down particularly hard on females and minorities in both code and execution. I clearly remember white male students walking around in tank tops which would have been used as grounds to detain a female student. I can’t even enumerate the number of dress code rules which directly addressed minute elements of the popular black style. Basically, if over a certain percent of black students wore a specific style, it was automatically assumed to be gang-related and banned.
And this was at a liberal school in a liberal city; I’ve heard of far more egregious rules, such as banning non-straightened black hairstyles, in other places around the country.
I dunno, are black people even still doing this? I figured that by now it’d be exclusively the domain of middle-class suburban white kids who wish they were “ganstas.”
Anyway, all the more reason to set a precedent for Florida as the first US state to be sold to a foreign country. Maybe a little time as a territory of Cuba would help the Florida legislature appreciate little things like, oh, I don’t know, LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF BAGGY-PANTSED HAPPINESS.
commodorejohn: As far as I can tell, sagging is old news. Loose-fitting, low-riding pants are still in fashion, but I haven’t seen the really low, slung-’round-the-thighs style in ages.
What’s interesting is that back in school, just wearing somewhat low-riding pants was treated as equivalent to wearing them around your knees. Of course, the only people punished were black males, reinforcing my belief that sagging is such a big deal not because of decency/hygiene/etc. but because of the fear of lurking black cock.
I think in the last month, I’ve seen maybe five black people visibly wearing this style, about less than that many whites, and hundreds of people of a variety of races and ethnicities not wearing it. ’Course, I don’t mix with teens on a regular basis, and I’m up in the Midwest, so take this observation as you will.
But the law is really helpful for racism, because it invites all kinds of subjective judgements, suggesting to me that if a crooked cop wishes to arrest a guy for being black, wearing relaxed fit jeans with nary a hint of undies or crack might still be enough evidence.
Maybe the dress codes mentioned in “The Handmaid’s Tale” would be a fitting solution is in Florida’s plans?
I’m a teenager, I live in a big city, and I know exactly no one of any race who still does the belted-around-the-knees thing. Still, though, it’s all completely ridiculous.
Speaking of, did y’all hear about that Dooney Da Priest guy who they hired to make a rap about how like, totally un-phat wearing baggy pants is? It was all homophobic bullshit. (I.E. wearing low-down pants allows other men to see your undergarments, and thus you are gay).
http://www.ericdsnider.com/downloads/Pull-Your-Pants-Up.mp3
I almost felt sorry for those involved in this.
I remember back in 2004 hearing about how ABC was planning to show Saving Private Ryan on Vetrens day only for a bunch of people to go balistic because the movie was “Too Violent” for kids to see. And they won, forcing ABC to not show a movie about vetrens on vetrens day. I remember thinking “Could these “Protect the Children” idiots have their heads any further up their asses?
I guess they can. This is so moronic that I don’t think I can refute it. How can you argue against the logic of a statement that contains no logic?
If I remember correctly, Shreveport, Louisiana just passed a “No saggy pants” law a few months ago for a section of town called the Boardwalk. Seems like the guys in Florida saw it and went “Well heck, why just settle for a city when we can make it a law for the whole state? Whoo, we’re smart!”.
Or maybe the law had something to do with the really long, baggy shirts that people were wearing to cover up their saggy pants.
One of the two.
As far as I know, it’s still in effect.
And this is why I laugh at “America, home of the free”.
I mean, REALLY. Next they’ll be mandating a national uniform.
This is fucking pathetic, if you’ll pardon the language.
1) No-one, as you pit, gives a rat’s-fuck, and I don’t even know if people know the original symbolism of the baggy pants.
2) It’s a waste of time and money; the teachers and safety officers, etc., have FAR more important things to worry about, like;
- making sure the Pledge is said with perfect tone, dictation and grammar, with “under God” emphasised;
- beating an English exchange student simply because he refused to cite the Pledge;
- making them go behind the appliances in the kitchen to gather all the cockroack corpses;
- making the students sort them all by mass and species;
- forcing their hands through the disc sander in industrial tech;
- giving them practical tutorials on how to pipe carbolic acid up their rectum;
- advising them on how to eat, what to do, and giving them manual handling courses for getting a book from the library (just in case someone accidentally hurts their wrisst picking up a heavy book and sues);
- using a dead magpie to wipe the shit off the headmaster’s car;
- not allowing the normal, decent majority of students to say anything or criticise anyone, even if they are right, and especially not the school board, for they are perfect and must be allowed to do as they please.
3) I don’t think many will wear baggy pants anyway – they look like bloody windsocks and most people have the sense to know that.
Jabberwock, I don’t think it’s necessarily an attempt to alienate the blacks, although it loks suspect, because wouldn’t they try something more, y’know, central to the rights of the blacks?
This is fucking pathetic, if you’ll pardon the language.
1) No-one, as you put it, gives a rat’s-fuck, and I don’t even know if people know the original symbolism of the baggy pants.
2) It’s a waste of time and money; the teachers and safety officers, etc., have FAR more important things to worry about, like;
- making sure the Pledge is said with perfect tone, dictation and grammar, with “under God” emphasised;
- beating an English exchange student simply because he refused to cite the Pledge;
- making them go behind the appliances in the kitchen to gather all the cockroack corpses;
- making the students sort them all by mass and species;
- forcing their hands through the disc sander in industrial tech;
- giving them practical tutorials on how to pipe carbolic acid up their rectum;
- advising them on how to eat, what to do, and giving them manual handling courses for getting a book from the library (just in case someone accidentally hurts their wrisst picking up a heavy book and sues);
- using a dead magpie to wipe the shit off the headmaster’s car;
- not allowing the normal, decent majority of students to say anything or criticise anyone, even if they are right, and especially not the school board, for they are perfect and must be allowed to do as they please.
3) I don’t think many will wear baggy pants anyway – they look like bloody windsocks and most people have the sense to know that.
Jabberwock, I don’t think it’s necessarily an attempt to alienate the blacks, although it loks suspect, because wouldn’t they try something more, y’know, central to the rights of the blacks?
Did the Dead Magpie thing really happen?
This is just depressing. I will say I support my son’s school uniforms only because it makes getting him dressed in the morning so much easier.
The only thing really wrong with baggy pants is that I’ve heard of thieves who’ve tried to run away from the police only to get tripped up by their own pants slipping down.
About the origin of the trend: yes, it mostly started with Inner City kids emulating their peers and older siblings that had copped the fashion from prison. No, the “looking for sex” thing isn’t true.
Actually, because prisoners are denied belts (for obvious reasons; but in case you weren’t paying attention, they tend to try to kill themselves or others with just about anything- mostly the former) their pants tended to fall down. The ‘sagging’ phenomenon probably originated out of post-prison comfort with the feel or ‘reclaiming’ the personality denied the prisoner (much as the gay population periodically ‘reclaims’ formerly offensive slang terms, e.g. ‘queer’).
Anyway, articles like this one and lawmakers such as those attempting to move this forward like to draw on the ‘looking for sex’ legend, as it suggests the implicit deviance of anyone sagging their pants- not only are they downtrodden youth, they’re downtrodden youth glorifying sodomy and prison life! gasp.
Anyway, laws such as this reek very noticeably of Big Brother, and I think they don’t generally hold much water. Even conservative types recognize that legally regulating fashion (ostensibly for safety’s sake) is a very slippery slope. I think (perhaps wishfully) that this isn’t something that will catch on.
Okay then.If we’re going to start criminalizing people for outdated fashion trends then we should start fining and/or jailing those who don a mullet. I mean really, if anyone deserves to go to jail it’s those tools.
That’s a new one. I wonder: What will they outlaw next? And will it be as not-so-subtly racist?
Panda Rosa: No, thankfully. It was sarcasm. But still, it proves a point, yes?
“Under aware”… that almost sounds like… UNDERWEAR!!!!
HAW HAW HAW!
I really don’t see the logic to this one. Dress isn’t really something you can force unless you’re cruising the University campus in front of the campus police station in nothing more than a purple jock-strap.
Public decency laws outlawing that *kind of* make sense, though I know many people might disagree.
commodorejohn: Yes, at my school it was pretty much just dumb white kids trying to look like someone who was more popular than they were. But then again, I live in Canada, so who the hell knows. There weren’t many black people at my school to judge the trend by.
Fun fact: while in middle school, our vice-principal took it upon herself to create a dress code “do’s and dont’s” collage. Guess which side was dominated by white preppy magazine cutouts, and which side just happened to be composed of non-white singers and entertainers? My best friend wanted to wear a burka in protest, but, being not a Muslim, it would’ve violated the no-hats rule.
Has anyone else ever realized that “for the children”-justified actions are never in the interests of children? It’s called into play to somehow legitimize the fears and discomfort of adults who should have grown out of their paranoia and stodginess a few decades ago.
matsuda:
Dumb white kids trying to look like dumb black kids! HA!
Mind you, I can see the logic inasmuch as you need SOME sort of decent dress code, or the whole place just looks shabby. But still, baggy pants? They’re okay (if bloody ridiculous, but that’s just my opinion!).
I think there should be laws against Nehru jackets and leisure suits and sweat pants and anything NFL and mullet cuts and big hair and Armani and Coach bags and walking like a fashion model. All golf clothes should be banned, even Tiger’s.
Florida is where the north goes to become demented.
To barthol
Oh God, imagine if laws against “stupid” fashion were already in effect: they’d have had a record number of arrests on St. Patrick’s Day!
And imagine if it was THIS year’s St. Patrick’s. Oh God . . . not just the sea of green waiting to be arrested, but all those kids dressed in business suits and Guy Fawkes masks in the protests! Jesus.
And speaking of bad “black” fashion, what about in the ghetto? All those kids wearing hoodies, fake bling etc.! The cops would love it.
London would also be good – the amount of “chavs” there, in fake burberry caps and plastic jewellery. I hsve come to hate burberry as a result. Brisbane (where I live right now), too, because the amount of people wearing short shorts and sandles, backwards baseball caps, etc.
Anime and sci-fi conventions would also be banned, as well as goth and hip hop outfits (which is actually a good thing LOL).
But this would prevent any concerts starring Slash or Ozzy Osburne, which would be a sin.
And it would be the end of those poor old furries
.
Oh, matsuda.
Damn hat codes; seriously though, if people want to wear them for religious reasons, why can’t they do so for non-religious reasons.
I will wear a skullcap and a cardinal hat wrapped in a turban tomorrow at uni.
or what about one of Carmen Miranda’s fruitbowl hats?
Or should I wear a roadcone?
Any ideas?
What I find most curious is that from the correctional officers I’ve met they maintain that baggy clothing is barred in prisons because it’s easier to hide weapons in them than tighter fitting clothing.
I hate to do this, but Jabberwock, humans didn’t evolve from apes. Yes, I know you know that, but it doesn’t seem right to call out Chick and Friends’ contradictions without doing the same for ourselves. Also, there should be a law requiring all high school girls to don miniskirts in the summer. I mean, if we can ban certain dress, that means we can require others, right? I’ll go back to living a life of quiet desperation now.
And regarding the issues of gener differenes allowing males to wear certain clothing that females cannot: I agree.
Females should be allowed to wear tops that are as low-cut as they please, or even better, the rule that allows guys to go bare-chested should be extended to them, too.
and as punishment for their stupidity, which, by the way IS a felony, the proponents of the law should be forced to wear baggy pants and, who knows, they might actually like it and all the attention they get and they might begin to appreciate a different cultural perspective.
together we can.
At an area school, during homecoming “spirit week” a girl wore a Harley Davidson bandana on “bandana day”. She was told to take it off or go home because it was considered “gang related”. She had to remove the bandana. Another school banned hoodie sweatshirts because they are too bulky and could possibly hide weapons. Another school banned certain colors to be worn together because it was considered “gang related”. As stated before, what has happened to “Land of the Free”? I can see how wearing the waistband of your pants around your knees could be dangerous for possibly tripping but come on already, does it really change the person inside the pants? This is insane.
Felis: my vote is for the road cone, with something obscene yet unrecognizable drawn on it, as per your new religion. Or a colander with dead ferns stuck in it. Hell, just tape a dildo to your forehead and be a rhinoceros for a week. The biggest dildo your neck can support. Freedom of expression!
How about a large Goatse photo on the cone?
How about this idea: an old car tyre dead raccoons tied to it by their tails?
I call it Careless Driving.
Better yet: a milk crate, enclosed around your neck area in some fashion, filled with live pigeons. Or freshly-caught fish. Squirrels would be ideal, but are harder to catch.
I call it Perspective on the Environment.
#25 Felis – I couldn’t agree more, on both a logical and an aesthetic level ;D
So now, commodorejohn, we must RELEASE women from the shackles that are their tees, tanktops and bras!
I suggest we start burning said items of clothing in protest; we could start – ha ha ha – the first ever MALE FEMINIST GROUP.
Up with the FEMINIST GUYS’ BRIGADE!
Do protesters ever have anything better to do than burning undergarments? If yes, sign me up. If no, then I officially disown you all; there is cheaper and more flammable fun to be had in the realm of beach anarchy.
Beach anarchy? Explain.
My personal opinion is that just as much fun can also be had dancing to Never Gonna Give You Up outside the Church of Scientology at Clearwater.
This would not amount to much usually, but since Scientologists are generally a paranoid bunch, any celebrations going on at the time would be stopped as they draw the curtains, get the security goons out the front, board up windows, ready the automated sentry guns, etc.
This would be effectively gatecrashing the party, those pesky Anons . . .
By the way, that all happened, except the last one (having seen the videos).
I’ve just had another idea for hat art: a landlord’s car being vandalised by two yobbish kids in burberry, while their dad looks on, smiling, whilst standing by their illegally-erected, impromptu ‘caravan site’. I call it A Pikey’s Perspective on Land Ownership.
Yes, the Anon posters know how to party. Theirs may be the most entertaining activism I’ve seen in a long time – not least because of the massive overreaction from their shady, twitchy targets. My town has no org (oh, how unfortunate) so at some point I guess I should make a pilgrimage to an afflicted area. Good times for all.
Beach anarchy: a lifestyle generally consisting of hanging about the shoreline, around a pile of burning etcetera, from after dark until whenever you wake up the next day. Mostly illegal, often results in vandalism and unexplained injuries. Can be seen as an opportunity to do nothing whilst drinking someone else’s beer. Practiced by teenagers and the gainfully unemployed.
Your hat confuses me. I decide instead to wear a brioche in my left nostril. All the cool kids are doing it.
Well, I heard that the latest fashion is to wear it covered in icing.
Sideways.
No, the icing goes in your socks. Really, you’re going to look silly in front of the other dadaists. What WOULD Tristan Tzara say?
Jabberwock, may I suggest commuterbarnacle.com/gonterman/index for your dissecting pleasure? It’s been ages since the last Gonterthrashing was posted, and with his textual works, it’s just so easy to pick them apart. If you can stand to read them in the first place, that is… And there’s plenty more appalling “fan fict” where that came from. Just say the word.
Na send them to jail… cos you so disaprove you want to send these flirts with their low pants to a place where they can get som action!
ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE???
Na we’re not going out being gangstas tonight we can’t dress right?
If anything they are going to revive a defunct fashion as a form of protest!
As for the women should be able to go topless comment… I guess but then full nudity would be the follow on… I mean why not display scrotums if you can display breasts? I’ve seen guys being told to put a shirt on and frankly I don’t think you can get round the fact that breasts are secondary sexual characteristics…. by all means don’t wear a top but seriously expect to get oggled… and don’t sit around going oh god guys are so imature… breasts are the result of long evolution anddesiged to be a sexual signal replicating the effect of buttocks as a sexual enticement…
Its all about evolving to stand upright so unless you are cool with having to check out everyones junk while trying to eat lunch in a reasturand avoid that thin end of the wedge… I am really not prudish but go to a public place some time look around and tell me if you would really want to see all those people naked…