Yeah, it's pretty stupid and ridiculous looking, but is it really a "national nuisance"? Who is it actually hurting? I can understand where he is coming from with the indecent exposure thing, but that would only apply to seeing someone's butt. Otherwise, you're still looking at clothing, and that's not exposure. Part of what underwear does is keep you from exposing yourself.
So how could seeing boxers still be indecent exposure?
He goes on to say that it is "[an] immoral self expression [that] goes beyond freedom of expression." How is it immoral? I didn't realize that the height of one's pants determined their morality.
What really boggles me is the bit where he says that "the style also gives police probable cause to search those wearing no-rise jeans." How does that even work? You have saggy pants, therefore you must be hiding something, or engaging in some sort of illegality that you can contain in your pants?
I completely agree with the lawyer they quote in the article as saying that it's a waste of resources. Couldn't the time and law enforcement be spent on much better things? What will getting people to wear their pants at an "acceptable" achieve? Will it lower crime, or prevent violence, or drug trafficking?
I find it very much amusing that people think this is a huge deal that threatens them to the point where they needed legislation passed to keep it under control.
Quote:
"The sagging is out of control," she said. "It went from a style to a disruption. The chief has a good idea. I'm not saying people should go to jail, but maybe they should do community service.
"If you don't want to pick up your pants, pick up for the neighborhood. How's that sound?"
|
Again, how is this disruptive? The same principle that can solve this issue applies to so many things: stop looking if you don't want to see it. Why people have such an incredibly hard time implementing this is utterly beyond me. And why the woman I quoted seems to think that people should be made to do community service as punishment is beyond the realm of my logic, particularly her last line.
But I digress. The supposed necessity for people to face fines and jail time for wearing their pants in a certain way baffles me. I fully support dealing with people who are indecently exposing themselves, but indecent exposure can be dealt with under current legislation and does not need additional laws introduced to deal with it.
This seems to be a bit of a double standard, in my opinion. Men who wear their pants too low get fined/jailed for disorderly conduct and indecent exposure, but what about women who wear booty shorts which ride up past the bottom of their butts? Or a girl in a bikini shows as much, if not more, skin than a guy with his low riding pants.
To reiterate, because this has turned into a bit of a babbling rant: I think it's a stupid trend, it's ugly and ridiculous. But I don't think it is a massive, nationally-disruptive problem that needs to be dealt with using special legislation, nor do I think the consequences are appropriate for the given 'crime.'
All of this is, of course, nothing but my own humble opinion.
)
