Does someone want to tell me what's wrong with this law?LYNWOOD, Ill. - Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.
Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic.
The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color.
Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer.
As much as it disturbes me to agree with a grown man who wears his pants around his knees, Mr. Klomes has an excellent, though accidental, point about the proper role of government.
The only place I've ever seen guys who wear pants like this working is the french-fry vat at Wendy's, which not coincidentally, represents the pennacle of upward economic mobility for these morons. That they look like utterly stupid jackasses will certainly prevent them from attaining any other job besides gas-station attendant, Huddle-House bus-boy, or drug mule. Eventually, the fad will go away like all fads and they'll find some other retarded way to limit themselves. It is impossible to legislate away the stupid lengths to which young people will go to totally screw up their lives.
14 comments:
Ed,
There are other people (other than your french fry boy) who wear their pants like that. You'll find them in prisons. As far as I know that's where it started. It seems these young people want to be every bit as cool as prison inmates. The fashion sense of aspiring felons.
Well either way, fashion do or don't, this is ridiculous. Why is it not okay show three inches of underwear but it is okay to show a bra strap or even some cleavage in public? I don't see anything wrong with showing some underwear in public, provided your parts aren't showing. I think wearing saggy pants looks pretty stupid but it shouldn't be illegal.
Yeah, I agree that it shouldn't be illegal. Butt crack probably shouldn't even be illegal (not that it is) with all the cleavage showing out there.
I'll have to plead guilty to a double standard when it comes to cleavage and butt crack. Evolutionarily, women have to attract men. That's the purpose of cleavage, and if a million years of evolution says it ok then who are we to criticize?
That they emulte the "prison" culture speaks volumes about what's wrong with the urban youth in general. 70%illigitimacy, education and lawfulness equates to being "like whitey", generational dependency, etc. all play a role too.
What about the uncovered upskirters out there(Britt and Paris). Are they in violation. Can they show 3" of the "arses". You better bet our bottom dolar that Mr. Williams wants thses fine upstanding young ladies parading around his fine town semi-clothed, regardless of whom it attracts, as long as there are lots of 'em. Its only about tax dollars. I hope that Lynwood will stick it where the sun don't shine, assuming it still doesn't shine there.
Does this rule also apply to beaches and pools and such?
I don't know exactly how the rule was worded but I imagine if you walked around with 3 inches of butt crack showing, you might get a fine...and you would deserve it. My guess is the ACLU will contest this ordinance, pro bono, the first time somebody gets a fine and it'll be overturned by an appelate court.
Ed - are you trying to get the feminists riled up?
Do women REALLY need cleavage to attract a man? Isn't a tight shirt or maybe a dress just low enough to be at the line of cleavage more appelaing? Sexy not slutty I always say.
So, back to the gangsta wanna be hoodlums... Do their boxers even show? They usually have big basketball jerseys, or hoodies like the boys in the picture that cover their undies.
Yeah but when they play basketball, they don't actually wear the basketball jerseys. Everything is oversized and not practical for everyday purposes.
tracie, maybe just a little bit....I never pass up an opportunity to irritate femenists. That said, the tradition of women making themselves alluring to men is a long one. Take high-heels for instance. They serve no practical purpose. In fact, from a serviceability standpoint, they're pretty ridiculous when you think about it but, name something that draws the attention of a man's eye to a woman's body more than her in high heels. Let's face it, high-heels serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than to objectify women in the eyes of men...and women know it. There are lots of examples like that. Showing a little cleavage has the exact same effect, as does tight jeans, sexy perfume, sheer tight tops. If women weren't in the business of attracting men, they'd wear business suits. I'm not criticizing women for this, I enjoy when women dress in an alluring way and I celebrate the differences between us. Trying to be attractive to the opposite sex is evolutionary at it's very core. One can go overboard into the realm of inappropriateness, however.
I'm not disputing the fact that women enjoy or naturally try attracting men. I'm just saying... how can boxers be illegal when women walk around falling out of their clothes?
I don't personally have a problem with a little bit of cleavage. It's nearly impossible to not show some at times. And yes, we choose to show some sometimes. I'm talking about the ones who fail to show skin tastefully.
tracie, you make a good point about the selectivity and arbitrariness of rules. You are right that if 3 inches of boxers is lewd, then surely 8 inches of cleavage, a girl's thong showing in back, bralessness, etc all should be outlawed on the same basis. I don't think anybody could argue that there's a difference. I'd like to hear it of somebody wants to take a stab at it.
It's difficult to ignore the possibility that these ordinances are aimed specifically at the "thug" appearance of many black kids, which seems to annoy city councilmen. As stupid as the idea of "prison couture" is, I'd rather put up with dumb youths showing their underwear if it means I get to also enjoy cleavage, bralessness, and thongs.
I'm just saying.
Just cap the mofo's and be done w/ it.
Post a Comment