It would appear that lawmakers in Virginia have too much time on their hands.

Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.

The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."
Source (http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Home/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=64c332752b284a6c9c87 4f111e7a8ed7&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc)

What's next - jail sentences for women whose bra straps show? :rolleyes:

I'm biased because I think those low-riding trousers / high riding underwear outfits look ridiculous. It's more a public safety issue that they're going trip over the own poorly fitting jeans and cause an accident. So, in that sense, it's just like other safety laws (e.g. the speed limit).

We need lawmakers to save people from themselves.

What's next - jail sentences for women whose bra straps show? No, never! White suburban teenage girls are behind the visible bra strap trend. African-American teenage boys are behind the low-rise jeans trend, however, so it's fair game for Virginia lawmakers...

In my high school, there seems to be a number of normal suburban teenage boys who are smart, athletic, and let their boxers show because, apparently, it's a fashion statement. (I live 30 minutes from Virginia).

Seems like a quirky but unenforceable law.

[EDIT: okay, it's an insulting fashion statement. Or just a statement conveyed through clothing that is insulting. I wouldn't do it, but seeing an inch of someone's boxer's doesn't disturb me.]

[ February 09, 2005, 22:33: Message edited by: Oaz ]

It's not a safety issue, people are just getting sick of these young punks. And it's not a fasion statement, it's an in your face insult.

Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt. Oh admit it splunge, you're one of those people and that's why you're upset. :shake:

Seriously though this is completely ridicolous. If some people won't bother to use a belt or have their belts too loose it really is their problem if they look a bit stupid. I don't see why this should be against the law.

That is so impractical. How do they expect to enforce that anyways? On second thought, maybe I'd rather not know.

It's not a safety issue, people are just getting sick of these young punks. And it's not a fasion statement, it's an in your face insult.In your face insult? Insult for what?

And why is it not a fashion statement?

And people should stop creating laws to prevent youth freedom. One day, the youth will be the ones in charge. What if they then decides to ban all squared pants because it is an in your face insult?

What's next - jail sentences for women whose bra straps show?Don't be silly! They've got to ban navel-bearing first...THEN they go after the bra straps. :rolleyes:

I heard about this on the radio this afternoon where it was said that it is highly unlikely that this bill will be approved by the state senate.

@Caleb - It may not be insulting, but it can be kinda gross when the perpetrator doesn't practice good hygiene! :toofar: :grin:

Caleb, while I agree that restricting freedoms without sufficient need is no good, there is a difference between banning underwear exposure and, let's say, banning a certain colour or fabric.

The place of underwear is under one's trousers. It's underwear, after all.

Trousers should stay where they belong and not half way down one's pelvis. Guy who dress like that look like roaming beggars and women look like sluts (this is only because women tend to wear presentable underwear - otherwise they look like beggars, as well). It's awful and it offends me, as unclean clothes do. I don't talk to people who don't bother to keep tidy.

Let them all wear the damned belt. I'm not fully dressed without a belt.

Trousers should stay where they belong and not half way down one's pelvis. Guy who dress like that look like roaming beggars and women look like sluts (this is only because women tend to wear presentable underwear - otherwise they look like beggars, as well). It's awful and it offends me, as unclean clothes do. I don't talk to people who don't bother to keep tidy.Then let them! It doesn't hurt you or anyone else if someone wants to look like a beggar, so let them, for crying out loud.

...yeah chev; stay out of New Mexico for God's sake if you want to keep your sanity... :D

I'm with Caleb on this one. By what right do you or anyone else have to tell someone how they dress. To go around naked or revealing your more "private" parts is an exception of course, but other than that it's okay by me how people dress. Of course I don't feel comfortable around people with dirty clothes but then again I don't feel cofortable around people with bad breath, and I'm sure we can't force everyone to brush their teeth or take a regular mint to keep their breath fresh.

If you're against people being free to walk naked in public, you should already have one reason to outlaw underwear exposure.

I don't need to look on anyone's boxers other than mine. Except I don't wear boxers. Anyway, it's frowsy and unclean and I believe I have the right to demand people to dress decently and in a more or less tidy manner. I don't want them to walk around in transparent clothing, I don't want them to walk around in too tight clothing and I don't want them to show half their ass and an inch or five of some crappy underwear. It's not a fashion statement, it's a fashion rebellion statement and rebels have no right to except anything else than their pathetic rebellion being quelled.

And then perhaps they can finally finish puberty.

While I agree that the exposed underwear look is ridiculous, introducing a fine is even worse.

What I don't understand is the "lewd or indecent manner" part. Is it just the fact that you can see the underwear? If so, then they'd better start fining department stores for underwear-wearing mannequins, or for displaying see-through packages of underwear. And if it's something else, then I'd like to see a defintion that couldn't also be applied to, say, low-cut blouses or tight-fitting sweaters.

Edit:
I believe I have the right to demand people to dress decently and in a more or less tidy manner So basically, you're saying that you have the right to demand not to be offended, according to your own personal view of what you find to be offensive. So if I don't like the colour blue, I should be able to demand that anyone wearing blue be fined?

If you're against people being free to walk naked in public, you should already have one reason to outlaw underwear exposure. For some strange reason I don't think so.

Anyway, it's frowsy and unclean and I believe I have the right to demand people to dress decently and in a more or less tidy manner. I don't want them to walk around in transparent clothing, I don't want them to walk around in too tight clothing and I don't want them to show half their ass and an inch or five of some crappy underwear. There is a huge difference in between walking around in underwear and exposing a small part of your underwear, I'm sure you realize that. Just because someone has been a little careless when dressing up himself in the morning that does not make it something that should be illegal.

Another thing in your posts is that you state what you want. Perhaps someone else wants to walk around in dirty clothes. What makes the thing that you want superior from what the guy who wants to walk around in dirty clothes wants? Especially when we're talking about what he wears.

It's definently decent to make sure that your underwear does not show but as I have stated earlier in another thread, there is a big difference between what is undecent and what should be illegal.

Oh, guess what? A motion went before the state senate in Georgia to make a similar law, only with more severe consequences. Gosh, I love my state.

There is a huge difference in between walking around in underwear and exposing a small part of your underwear, I'm sure you realize that. Just because someone has been a little careless when dressing up himself in the morning that does not make it something that should be illegal.We aren't speaking about people who happen to be careless on one day but about those who make "fashion statements".

There's also that tricky little device known as mirror.

Perhaps someone else wants to walk around in dirty clothes. What makes the thing that you want superior from what the guy who wants to walk around in dirty clothes wants? Especially when we're talking about what he wears.We are actually not talking about what he wears, let alone especially that. We are talking about how he wears it.

So basically, you're saying that you have the right to demand not to be offended, according to your own personal view of what you find to be offensive. So if I don't like the colour blue, I should be able to demand that anyone wearing blue be fined?It's not just my personal view that dirty clothes are bad or that incomplete outfits are bad, which is one. There's also a huge difference between wearing a certain colour and wearing your trousers in such a way that, if you weren't wearing those exposed boxers, your jewels would be showing.

And what about people who are just generally sloppy dressers? Or wear clothees that clash? Do you want to fine them as well?
wearing your trousers in such a way that, if you weren't wearing those exposed boxers, your jewels would be showing. OK, now I'm confused. You want to ban exposed underwear because it covers something up? Then let's ban pants while we're at it, because they're exposed, and they cover up underwear (if underwear is actually being worn) which, in turn, covers the genitals. Heck, let's ban clothes altogether!

let's ban clothes altogether Oh no, Splunge is a nudist! We should have known.

Although I do dislike the whole 'low-riding' (at least what we call it in NZ, no not cars with hydrolics) look I can't understand why fines should be imposed. As long as people aren't walking around naked I don't mind. And if they're attractive females and walking around naked I still don't mind.

If people want to dress like idiots then let them. I find it to be a good way of judging someone's character before actually having to talk to them.

There's also that tricky little device known as mirror. Well some of us don't enjoy watching ourselves on the mirror all the time. :p

We are actually not talking about what he wears, let alone especially that. We are talking about how he wears it. Well I'm a bit confused now. Do you think that this should be made illegal or are you just judging it as something "distasteful". If you want it to be illegal then where do you draw the line when it becomes a fashion statement and when it's careless dressing?

There's also a huge difference between wearing a certain colour and wearing your trousers in such a way that, if you weren't wearing those exposed boxers, your jewels would be showing. I'll echo Splunge on this one (except the part about encouraging all to take their clothes off, I'm no nudist ;) ). I find your logic in that statement just weird.

And if they're attractive females and walking around naked I still don't mind.
Neither do I! :D

I hate doing this.

People have the right to wear their pants this way if they want to. There is nothing indecent about it.

Besides, we should all be thankful they do, it helps us identify them for what they are...and if they aren't a part of that subculture they should stop their false advertising. It is really easy, just pull your pants up!

By the way, before I get flamed, that is not a racist statement.

It is a culturally bigoted statement. This has nothing to do with race, as it is not just members of one race who are wearing their pants this way.

Its very trashy but then again, I used to wear shell suits in my early teenage years!

Lightning strikes twice! I agree with Darkwolf!

Especially with the identity part. If you fine someone for wearing their pants differently we might as well cut the foreplay and let the government supply us with our, "morally acceptable uniforms."

Let people be trashy, let people be prude.

As a side note... if you (khazadman, chev) get so bent out of shape over seeing someone's underwear, how do you ever go to the beach (pool, etc.)?

I must admit to appearing with my trousers in said postition quite often recently. However, this is not a fashion statement, it seems that attending university has caused a (fairly surprisingly) rapid reduction in girth, and as such, I need to procure either some new trousers or a belt that actually fits.

if you (khazadman, chev) get so bent out of shape over seeing someone's underwear, how do you ever go to the beach (pool, etc.)? Uh! Uh! Uh! Uh! *winks urgently from the last bench*

I know it! I know it!

[imposting chevalier] We aren't talking about people who behave naturally in a given environment. When you visit a beach you can expect to find someone wearing trunks or underwear (mind you, only acceptable during the act of changing from normal to bathing clothes. Abominable in all other circumstances.).

You don't, however, expect to find someone wearing underwear while taking a light-hearted stroll through the city. There's a place and time for everything. Play according to the rules and I'm fine.

Oh, and I don't visit nudist beaches, thank you so very much. [/imposting chevalier]

The thing is - and this regardless of your personal opinion on how people dress - it's completely unenforceable. Based on most state laws something that is "lewd or indecent" means something that reveals your genitals, your buttocks, or in the case of women, their breasts. Provided these are not exposed, I don't see how it can be classified as lewd or indecent. The one possible exception I can see in this is if the underwear in question is a thong. Thongs do in fact reveal a good portion of one's backside, so maybe in that case, but good luck prosecuting people wearing boxers.

@DW - your comment certainly isn't racial - I've seen people of all different races dress in this manner.

I think it is discriminating to us fat people! I have to wear my pants low so my gut can hang over them! If it is only my underwear showing in the back people should be grateful! :grin:

Here's an idea: say you're in Virginia, and there's this dude you don't like, and you see a cop walking around the corner...

...give the dude a wedgie and he gets fined $50!

OK, now I'm confused. You want to ban exposed underwear because it covers something up? Then let's ban pants while we're at it, because they're exposed, and they cover up underwear (if underwear is actually being worn) which, in turn, covers the genitals. Heck, let's ban clothes altogether!Easy, grandpa Splunge. :p The problem is not with it actually covering their genitals (thank for those boxers being there rather than thin air), but with how low the trousers are worn. It's only the underwear which keeps the private parts from showing and underwear is also private to a great extent.

Well some of us don't enjoy watching ourselves on the mirror all the time.At least I'm the only guy I watch this way. :p

Seriously, though, some people on the street indeed look as if they had never seen a mirror in their life. Either that or as if they didn't care at all. Not caring about your looks when you go public is offensive.


Well I'm a bit confused now. Do you think that this should be made illegal or are you just judging it as something "distasteful". If you want it to be illegal then where do you draw the line when it becomes a fashion statement and when it's careless dressing?Good question. My biggest problem with it is it being distasteful. It can be lewd because of the sloppiness. Heck, I don't mind only a thong as much as I mind a thong showing from under low trousers. It's lewd in a distasteful way because it's messy.

I don't think it should be illegal in the sense of showing up in your sex offence record or get you into jail. But a fine is just fine. Where I draw a line is not careless dressing as in someone not caring how he or she looks when showing up in public, but something more along the lines of unintended exposure. If you don't care if it shows or not, it isn't unintended (it's just a special kind of intent and lawyers call it dolus eventualis ;) ). But if just a border of the boxers or panties shows when someone's sitting down which doesn't show normally, it's probably unintended. However, if half an ass shows and a couple of inches of a thong, it's probably intended and yes, this is indencent and possibly even lewd. If it's someone's casual not so presentable underwear, it's worse than indecent: it's distasteful. :toofar:

OK, OK, I admit that lewd is objectively worse than distasteful as it corrupts people at all, but distasteful pisses me off to a much greater extent.

I'll echo Splunge on this one (except the part about encouraging all to take their clothes off, I'm no nudist). I find your logic in that statement just weird.Perhaps my explanation above has already helped. If not, I'll just say that underwear is not supposed to be the only thing between your eye and someone's private parts. Clothing needs to cover underwear completely and underwear needs to cover private parts completely.

And, personally, I mind the thong and half a female bottom, or worse, some crappy unpresentable underwear showing, much more than I do a transparent blouse without underwear underneath (the popularity of it is decreasing, anyway) - the latter is not always distasteful. But thong and half a bottom showing is always distasteful, except maybe a beach thong sticking out when the girl puts on some trousers before getting out of the beach. It's quite reasonable, so it isn't as distasteful. Otherwise, it always or nearly always is.

As a side note... if you (khazadman, chev) get so bent out of shape over seeing someone's underwear, how do you ever go to the beach (pool, etc.)?No, not at all. Consult Darkthrone on this one. ;)

[imposting chevalier] We aren't talking about people who behave naturally in a given environment. When you visit a beach you can expect to find someone wearing trunks or underwear (mind you, only acceptable during the act of changing from normal to bathing clothes. Abominable in all other circumstances.).How do you visualise that? You mean, seeing people's underwear when they're changing on the beach? Heck, they should wear their swimsuits as underwear if they are living close, or go to a restroom or get a towel around themselves. I don't want to see their underwear. The boxers, briefs and bras worn on the beach need to be presentable. I don't want to see people in fatigued white briefs, thank you very much.

You don't, however, expect to find someone wearing underwear while taking a light-hearted stroll through the city. There's a place and time for everything. Play according to the rules and I'm fine.If it's summer, I don't really care if they are wearing boxers instead of normal trousers - although they'd better wear something at least knee-long if they're male. I don't care if they're wearing shorts if they're female, or a swimsuit bra as their only top. So long as it's presentable and it doesn't look like regular underwear. Regular underwear is still gross. A regular bra with lace border is much more gross than even two triangles of opaque fabric connected by a thin cord, which I only really mind if the chest is not presentable of itself.

Oh, and I don't visit nudist beaches, thank you so very much. [/imposting chevalier]I don't really care, so I don't go there. I don't think it's abominable so long as pervs are kept out of there. But nude sunbathing I'd rather do privately. I'm more of the "who cares" mind on this one unless the sexual tension factor comes in or the scandalising other people factor, making one responsible for wearing or not wearing something.

Thongs do in fact reveal a good portion of one's backside, so maybe in that case, but good luck prosecuting people wearing boxers.If we recognise underwear as private - and it surely is more private than trousers or shirt - then we could classify unmerited and unjustified display of it as indecent. Lewd if counted on inciting sexual tension. But it's always and I mean always trashy. And it makes me want to puke. I'm going to need to carry plastic bags with me if more people start walking around like that.

I can honestly say I wear my pants baggy. Nowheres near as baggy as some people I know, but baggy none-the-less. I find it much, much more comfortable, and because of this I guess I'll never go to Virginia . :p

listen, the bottom line is that if people want to wear their cloths like that, then let them, if you dont like it, dont look!

Suprisingly, that was very well put.

Embarrassed Virginia state Senate drops droopy-drawers ban bill (http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/OddNews/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=23b5e530b0e548869662 5f2e726205ab&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc)

So much for that idea.

Don't worry, chev - you'll get over it eventually. :p

Imagine - Senators from Virginia actually having some common sense. Who'd've thunk it? :p :D

The bill's sponsor, Democratic Delegate Algie Howell, declined to answer reporters' questions Thursday but issued a statement saying the bill "was in direct response to a number of my constituents who found this to be a very important issue." A "very important issue"? Good grief, don't these people have anything else to worry about? :rolleyes:

listen, the bottom line is that if people want to wear their cloths like that, then let them, if you dont like it, dont look!What if their clothes smelled?

"Listen, the bottom line is that if people want to wear their cloths like that, then let them, if you don't like it, don't sniff!"?

I'm quite certain this won't be the last brilliant idea that goes to the senate from these chuckle-heads around here.

Of course, this bill might get put back on the table if Senator Kenneth Stolle gets stuck in a line behind Skid-Mark Joe.

He has said the constituents included customers at his barber shop who were offended by exposed underwear.Never underestimate the power of barber shop banter! :shake:

Well I guess you can never know untill you hear the public's opinion about something and not everyone knows what the majority of people want.

Boooo! I wanted those stupid low-riding trousers banned permanently!

Hmm, it's election year in NZ. This year, my vote goes to the party that includes the banning of exposed boxer shorts in its manifesto.

(or failing that, the party with the most sensible economic policies - hopefully the same party!)

don't really bother me, altough all the guys at my school do it because they are really cool and all that. So i'm probaly used to it.

You're missing a few words there, Terthe. Allow me to insert them in bold. altough all the guys at my school do it because they lack the mental capacity in the art of belt operation and think they are really cool and all that

OK now, who's head of the Ministry of Coolness? Maybe those kids value the opinion of their friends higher than ours, eh? Ha, idiots.

I hope I will never grow up. Grown-ups tend to think in the way of "Jeez, will you look at the youth today!"

Imagine - Senators from Virginia actually having some common sense. Who'd've thunk it?Haven't you heard the next Virginian controversy:

Public school science curriculums are being altered to teach that droopy drawers were created by God rather than evolving from ape-pants! :eek:

@ Darkthrone

Yep, And I take great pleasure out of doing so.

It is amazing how much press stupid ideas get. Not that I am complaining, it keeps them from sneaking through...kind of like the Oklahoma State Representative or Senator who wanted to repeal the recently passed law criminalizing cock fighting (roosters, male chickens), but to put little boxing gloves on their feet to make it more humane. :rolleyes:

I think that one is dead (wish we had a dead or rest in peace graemlin), but it didn't die until it made the national press, and of course made Oklahoma the laughing stock of the nation until the Virginia Baggy Drawers bill came up. :hahaerr:

@Abominaton: thanks for pointing that out, I forgot, it is true.