I live in Louisiana, nobody even knows about this law.
It will just be one of those “retarded” laws that no one pays attention to… until a cop needs a reason to pick on you and legally screw you over.
[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
I hope you guys understand that this rule also extends to women who wear low rise jeans that show the top of the thong in the back. I personally find that sight to be very refreshing on a summer day.[/quote]
What if it’s your own teenaged daughter?
[quote]Sheepless wrote:
I live in Louisiana, nobody even knows about this law.[/quote]
False.
One of LSU’s campus newspaper:
http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2007/06/14/Opinion/La.Towns.saggy.Pants.Law.Is.Unfair-2915099.shtml
Local Baton Rouge Newspaper:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LA_SAGGY_BRITCHES_LAOL-?SITE=LABAT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
[quote]Rockscar wrote:…but I think it should be a rule in school.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]Xylene wrote:
Rockscar wrote:…but I think it should be a rule in school.
Why?
[/quote]
Because it’s distracting and associated to gang-like behavior or wannabe gantas.
Just like a Mowhawk colored red is distracting.
Kids should be there to learn, and not show their underwear to anyone who walks behind them.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
I hope you guys understand that this rule also extends to women who wear low rise jeans that show the top of the thong in the back. I personally find that sight to be very refreshing on a summer day.
What if it’s your own teenaged daughter?[/quote]
Good point, but if it was my teenage daughter, I would NOT want the govt. telling her what she can or can’t wear. It would not be allowed in my household, and that responsibility falls on the PARENT not the govt.
I don’t like looking at the overly baggy pants, and think they look a bit ridiculous wearing them that way, but I would fight for their right to do it, just like I’d fight for the right of people to dress Goth, or however else they wish to dress or look.
I also don’t like the look of a fat business man in a suit and tie. I’m not going to push for a law against it though.
I don’t buy into the distraction-in-school argument either.
If a kid wanted to learn what’s being taught, sitting next to another kid who looks different won’t prevent that, as long as the kid is behaving in class. The teacher should be able to keep the attention of the class and not fault a kid for how he/she looks.
Shit, a chick with a pretty face was a distraction to me in school, but I wouldn’t want the govt. or the school to enforce that she not be allowed to show her face.
I was also distracted by a chick showing any more than an ankle, or even if it was covered, and she had a decent body, I was distracted by what I imagined was under it.
Maybe they should all wear umpa-loompa suits, and masks so there’s no temptation.
Also, don’t allow much hip movement when they walk between classes. That also can get a young kid distracted, and ruin his whole day of learning.
All those kids with good grades must have been a-sexual.
Distraction my arse!
This is just old people getting upset because they don’t like the latest fashion trends.
Maybe we should ban rock and roll? Okay, nobody has kids who listen to that, but you get the point, right?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
keaster wrote:
This is also kinda strange coming from a guy who posts pics of his wife on the net.
Come again??? I guess some might find 34 F’s offensive? [/quote]
It wasnt to me, but I am sure there are some conservative persons that would find it offensive.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Xylene wrote:
Rockscar wrote:…but I think it should be a rule in school.
Why?
Because it’s distracting and associated to gang-like behavior or wannabe gantas.
Just like a Mowhawk colored red is distracting.
Kids should be there to learn, and not show their underwear to anyone who walks behind them.[/quote]
Come back to us Rockscar. The pain meds for your back are affecting your mangina and turning you conservative.
I also have to wonder if wearing your pants low is “gang like behavior”. Many articles of clothing could be considered gang affliated.
For example
Leather jackets
Bandana’s
certain colors
hats
etc.
Unless there is a gang in the area whose sign is wearing their pants low, I dont think this applies.
I also dont understand why a persons low slung pants would affect my learning. Anything could affect a persons ability to learn-for example
hot girl
fat person
human coat racks
disabled (includes mental and physical)
ugly people
loud people
weird people
etc.
Should we ban all of those people?
Frankly, if someone wearing their pants low and like an idiot impairs ones learning, they should be riding the short bus to school.
[quote]keaster wrote:
Frankly, if someone wearing their pants low and like an idiot impairs ones learning, they should be riding the short bus to school.
[/quote]
It’s discriminatory to make such people ride the short bus. The social stigma distracts them and they don’t learn in school…
Screw that. There must be a severe shortage of short buses these days.
Some while back, I was watching a prison documentary where a guard said this fad originated in prison. According to him, the cell block bitches designated themselves as such by wearing their pants low. LMAO!
[quote]gendou57 wrote:
What the hell is that “dress not becoming to his or her sex” part?
-Gendou[/quote]
It means a guy can’t wear a dress or women wear pants. In other words no crossdressing.
[quote]Madman2 wrote:
gendou57 wrote:
What the hell is that “dress not becoming to his or her sex” part?
-Gendou
It means a guy can’t wear a dress or women wear pants. In other words no crossdressing.[/quote]
…
So, no Rocky Horror Picture Shows?
-Gendou
[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
Some while back, I was watching a prison documentary where a guard said this fad originated in prison. According to him, the cell block bitches designated themselves as such by wearing their pants low. LMAO![/quote]
I have heard the same thing. Quick access.
[quote]gendou57 wrote:
Madman2 wrote:
gendou57 wrote:
What the hell is that “dress not becoming to his or her sex” part?
-Gendou
It means a guy can’t wear a dress or women wear pants. In other words no crossdressing.
…
So, no Rocky Horror Picture Shows?
-Gendou[/quote]
It don’t appear that way.
To agree with most on here this law is beyoud a bad idea, and a total invasion by the government.
I think I speak for a generation or two when I say screw you baby boomers, just wait till you try and depend on us for long-term care! Lol the old white men in congress are in the government in general are really starting to piss people off.
Anyway, to the guy that posted from England about all of the strange laws:
We have those because in lame attempts to get a bill dismissed. Elected officials stick those laws in there to a bill they don’t like, but when the bill is important enough, or popular enough it gets passed, and the dumb law along with it.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Anyway, to the guy that posted from England about all of the strange laws:
We have those because in lame attempts to get a bill dismissed. Elected officials stick those laws in there to a bill they don’t like, but when the bill is important enough, or popular enough it gets passed, and the dumb law along with it.[/quote]
sounds plausable.
did you know in england the police wear them stupid helmets that look like big black tits? well i heard that if a pregnant woman needs to she is legaly allowd to urinate in them. I’ve heard this a few times and i’d love the chance to test it out. (although i’m not pregnant, or a woman, so it might be difficult)