 Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky  But if I'm not mistaken, the law specifically outlaws baggy pants. I don't think it even extends the legal definition of indecent exposure. If the latter were true then you would get a lot of pissed-off campaign funds donors and lobbyists that represent companies that advertise underwear or otherwise have half-naked people in their product/advertisement (including the music industry, fashion industry, among others).
I think it's a good point that racism and sexism has a lot to do with it (if not, then 'culturism"?). Because if I'm not mistaken, lawmakers are being disgusted when they see rap city culture exposing their underwear but when pretty Maryjane is posing half-naked for her photoshoot to be posted on a huge 20 foot-high billboard, or when Martha can expose her cleavage or her bikini line in her skimpy outfit, they see nothing wrong with that.
In the end I'd be surprised if this actually becomes law. This is something I'd expect from the Taliban or Iran. Not the United States. | Now, I agree with Katcz. I think this proposal does unfairly target the youth and probably because it is thought that the wearing of the baggy pants (especially with young Blacks) is indicative of a gangbanger. To be effective, and not to target any one such group would be extremely difficult. The next time you need a plumber at your home to fix something; can they not be in violance of this rule? Why not? We joke about a plumber's crack incessantly. So then, what would be the guidelines, then? The showing of too much underwear? Do we not have advertisements on billboards, in print media, and on television that show men (and women) in their underwear without outer clothing at all? How about Victoria's Secret? |