Saving Our Youth From Baggy Pantas

[mwfanelli2]

Nanny government rises again. Atlanta is considering passing a law making the wearing of baggy pants illegal. This mindlessness is already in place in parts of Louisiana where the punishment can be as high as $500 or 6 months in jail.

http://www.9news.com/news/watercoole...?storyid=75980

[adina]

Across the board, this is dumb. To try and have a city wide dress code makes no sense. However, if this was about banning baggy pants with boxers hanging out or thongs out the top of your pants at school, I'd be all for that.

National dress code = stupid
School dress code = sadly necessary at times

[Sushigaijin]

However, if this was about banning baggy pants with boxers hanging out or thongs out the top of your pants at school, I'd be all for that.

Just to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with boxers hanging out or thongs out the top of your pants at school? Surely they should spend their meager time and money doing something constructive like making sure all of the students have the same version of the textbooks, or making sure there are quality teachers in place? Seems to me that the school systems have a lot more to worry about than baggy pants.

I went to two of the roughest high schools in chicago, and baggy pants were never a problem. Nor were thongs. Lack of respect for authority however, was an enormous problem. So was overcrowding, lack of resources, and poor quality of staff. I'm sure that the former problems caused the later. Overcrowding might be fixed by expanding the school system to accomodate the rediculous expansion of human population (fund it with the money we are wasting on a missile defense system), and lack of respect for authority is something that is learned at home first. I think the dress code "problem" is smoke and mirrors.

[Asylum Steve]

Silly. Now, if there were baggy PANDAS roaming the streets, ok. That I could see making a law against...

[JETA]

lack of respect for authority is something that is learned at home first. I think the dress code "problem" is smoke and mirrors.

Hi Erik,

I love all your points.

I couldn't agree more with the above statement. It starts at home. Someone hanging their rear end out imo is a lack of respect of those around you. Mind you I have 2 teenage boys (18 & 19) and four teenage nephews who practically live with me. They all have their boxers hanging out from time to time. They KNOW if it's around me I'm going up right behind them and jerk their pants up. They see me coming and every is pulling up their pants. The last thing I want to see are their rears.

I also have had many of my son's football team-mates swimming at my home all summer. They know..... My pants are pulled up or Brendan's Mom will jerk my 300 body out of the pool. They all love me as far as I know and respect my rules.

It's just bizarre to me that a Mom can look at her kids and think it's ok for their asses to be hanging out. If they don't get it at home they get it here.

Unfortunately, I agree. It's a symptom of a much larger problem.

[mwfanelli2]

Decades ago when I was in school, long hair on boys was a sign of disrespect. Now, no one thinks twice about it. I was a horrible teenager (why? I have no idea!) and had no respect for most of my teachers. I dressed "normally."

There is always some sort of excuse used by the old to try and make the young just like they were. Or, at least, the sanitized old-brain version of what they think they were!

Keep government out of the nanny business!

[Asylum Steve]

...is when these kids get older and look back on how goofy they looked in their "hip" outfits. Happens to every generation...

Me, I'm a jeans and t-shirt kind of guy. It's always been classic. Always will... :thumbsup:

[JSPhoto]

Baggy pants serve two purposes: 1: to show disrespect 2: to hide stuff you steal or hide your gun.

I still love the video of the kid running from the cops and watching all the stuff fall out of his pants that he stole shoplifting, but the best was when the cop was running out of gas the kids pants and shorts fell down and he went slidding face first (and other parts) on an asphalt road
Indianapolis Public Schools began a new dress code this year and it includes no baggy pants. Funny that they have a;ready seen a drop in fights and assaults and they aren't through the first month. Even sneakers that have logos are banned, colors are specific to the school, and wearing of gang colors at all. This is making teachers lives better as well as a better learning enviroment.

JS

[mwfanelli2]

Baggy pants serve two purposes: 1: to show disrespect 2: to hide stuff you steal or hide your gun.

I still love the video of the kid running from the cops and watching all the stuff fall out of his pants that he stole shoplifting, but the best was when the cop was running out of gas the kids pants and shorts fell down and he went slidding face first (and other parts) on an asphalt road
Indianapolis Public Schools began a new dress code this year and it includes no baggy pants. Funny that they have a;ready seen a drop in fights and assaults and they aren't through the first month. Even sneakers that have logos are banned, colors are specific to the school, and wearing of gang colors at all. This is making teachers lives better as well as a better learning enviroment.

JS

Well, I think you are making some very rash assumptions about cause and effect. The baggy pants were highly unlikely to be the cause of assaults and fights. Pants just don't have that type of psychological control over people! Also, students are not going to become calm and rational just because of clothes that fit. Much more likely is that the entire system was revamped to concentrate on the problems which in turn reduced the problems. This has happened in other schools even without a clothing law.

Baggy pants are worn by youngsters because they see it as a statement of independence. Kids have been doing this since the beginning of time. Saying that baggy pants are used to promote disrespect, aid theft, and conceal guns is just silly. Do people who buy vans do it to kidnap people?

Once again, having gone to high school in the late 60s, this type of nonsense was promoted all the time. Long hair on a boy meant you were a hippie who never showered and were anti-American. Bell bottom pants were the work of the devil (OK, that was in college). Concentrating on the "easy" solutions gives one a sense of doing something without actually having to think. As the old story goes, sort of like peeing in dark pants...

[JSPhoto]

[QUOTE=mwfanelli2]Well, I think you are making some very rash assumptions about cause and effect. The baggy pants were highly unlikely to be the cause of assaults and fights. Pants just don't have that type of psychological control over people! Also, students are not going to become calm and rational just because of clothes that fit. Much more likely is that the entire system was revamped to concentrate on the problems which in turn reduced the problems. This has happened in other schools even without a clothing law.

Baggy pants are worn by youngsters because they see it as a statement of independence. Kids have been doing this since the beginning of time. Saying that baggy pants are used to promote disrespect, aid theft, and conceal guns is just silly. Do people who buy vans do it to kidnap people?

QUOTE]

No assumptions in my comments, the baggy pants does have an effect on violence in school, and showing your underwear here is equal to showing your "colors" for the gangs, your gang is determined by the color of the underwear, now they cannot show their underwear and they have to wear school colors they don't have all the constant disruptions they had before. And gangs have no way to show to their colors at school.
One friends kid came home from school last year because he got jumped by 5 kids who beat him and stole his sneakers, now they have to wear plain sneakers with no designs or logos.
It has made a huge difference in the schools here just in the first few weeks.

As for people buying vans to kidnap people, yeah, SOME do. We just had a Hispanic who did just that two weeks ago. He was trying to grab young girls, and when the police got him they found the van set up and with everything from a club to tape to rape toys to a shovel.... and of course he's an illegal.... go figure.

[masdog]

No assumptions in my comments, the baggy pants does have an effect on violence in school, and showing your underwear here is equal to showing your "colors" for the gangs, your gang is determined by the color of the underwear, now they cannot show their underwear and they have to wear school colors they don't have all the constant disruptions they had before. And gangs have no way to show to their colors at school.

There's nothing new about any of that. Gangs have always found creative ways to show the colors, whether it was NFL team Starter Jackets from the early '90s to the color of the du-rag that they wore on their head to the color of their underwear.

Rules that stop people from "showing their colors" always fail because they can find creative ways to show their colors.

One friends kid came home from school last year because he got jumped by 5 kids who beat him and stole his sneakers, now they have to wear plain sneakers with no designs or logos.

Nothing new about this. Its been going on for many years, and I remember hearing stories over 15 years ago about kids being shot for their Air-Jordan's.

As for people buying vans to kidnap people, yeah, SOME do. We just had a Hispanic who did just that two weeks ago. He was trying to grab young girls, and when the police got him they found the van set up and with everything from a club to tape to rape toys to a shovel.... and of course he's an illegal.... go figure.

Some do, but they aren't the norm. Should we suspect every soccer mom who wants a mini-van as potentially driving around looking to kidnap young boys and girls?

[JSPhoto]

The bottom line is the dress code is working, whether you want to believe it or not, and the really surprising thing is many kids who did not want the dress code now agree that it is the best thing for them.
This next week they are starting a new policy, that being kids not meeting dress code will not be allowed on the bus. This will end on bus problems as well.

JS

[KenB]

They KNOW if it's around me I'm going up right behind them and jerk their pants up. They see me coming and every is pulling up their pants. The last thing I want to see are their rears.

Don't pull up their pants, pull up their boxers. As far as you can. A few atomic wedgies will get the point across nicely.

[adina]

It's not the baggy pants that I object to. School should be a safe learning enviroment (hey I live in the burbs, I can pretend)

Uniforms or dress codes take the competativeness and the obsesssion with clothes out of the picture.

[JSPhoto]

Adina is right, and it's worked so well that now the county is considering going to it as well, and we don't have too many wearing these clothes, yet they want to control it before it becomes an issue. It seems some kids managed to switch to county schools to avoid the dress code, and thats forcing the county schools to act, and I am sure other counties around Indy will jump in too.

JS

[mwfanelli2]

The laws I am talking about are not limited to schools! They apply to EVERYONE, kids, adults, community members, vacationers, grays from flying saucers, etc. Yes, the Supreme Court has rulled that schools have more leeway. I am not in school. If I want to wear baggy pants that is NO ONES'S CONCERN other than my own. How quickly people are willing to give up their freedoms!

[adina]

Like I said, dress code across the board = dumb

at schools = I'm all for that one.

In other news, imagine how much money I would have saved school shopping if they just needed some plaid skirts and white tops.

[JSPhoto]

The laws I am talking about are not limited to schools! They apply to EVERYONE, kids, adults, community members, vacationers, grays from flying saucers, etc. Yes, the Supreme Court has rulled that schools have more leeway. I am not in school. If I want to wear baggy pants that is NO ONES'S CONCERN other than my own. How quickly people are willing to give up their freedoms!

I have a right to smoke too, but you see whats happening there. I however do agree with banning baggy pants because I do not like seeing these peoples underwear or their a$$es. It is also a safety deal as you can hide weapons in those baggy clothes much easier. Of course on the good side it makes these people easier to catch because they run their pants fall down and the cops get their suspect.

JS

[mwfanelli2]

I have a right to smoke too, but you see whats happening there. I however do agree with banning baggy pants because I do not like seeing these peoples underwear or their a$$es. It is also a safety deal as you can hide weapons in those baggy clothes much easier. Of course on the good side it makes these people easier to catch because they run their pants fall down and the cops get their suspect.

JS

Smoking is not the same. When you smoke every one around you is forced to smoke as well. You take away their choice. If I wear baggy pants, no one is forcing you to wear baggy pants.

The Constitution protects us from people passing laws because they just "don't like" something. If you don't like the look of baggy pants then, quite simply, don't look. Liberal-inspired nanny laws will come back and get you eventually.

The "hiding giuns" stuff is just pure nonsense. If it were that convenient, every gun-toting criminal on the streets would be wearing baggy pants. They don't. Let's ban hats, guns could be hidden under them. Let's ban shoes, remember the shoe bomber? Or just ban guns altogether. Where does it end?

I know that you and other liberals really feel that you are making good choices for the benefit of rest of us. But please, I am old enough to make my own decisions, good or bad. Get government out of our personal lives!

[Medley]

It is also a safety deal as you can hide weapons in those baggy clothes much easier.

[sarcasm]YES! And Hawaiian shirts! People are always wearing them not tucked in, and Lord KNOWS what they could be hiding in their pants. And speaking of pants, full length ones should be abolished. Ankle holsters are a fact of life, and if we were all forced to wear shorts, then it wouldn't be an issue.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, J.S., where does it all end? Must we all be required to wear speedos and sleeveless bicycle jerseys so that the general population may feel safe?

Now if it was incredibly difficult to hide a weapon on one's person, I might buy the "baggy pants as a safety issue" argument. But if that were the case, police wouldn't need to frisk a suspect, and we wouldn't need metal detectors at the airport. Unfortunately, life ain't like that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not any more in favor of baggy pants than anyone else here. I think it makes the wearer look silly and ridiculous. But you can't legislate silly and ridiculous, and as for me not liking them, that's my personal opinion and preference. You can't legislate that, either- though there will always be those that try.

"But wait!!",you say. "Statistics prove that crimes are committed more frequently by those wearing baggy pants than those who don't". (I don't even know if that statement is true, but let's assume just for sake of argument that it is.) "Doesn't that make it a safety issue?"

Well, let's see. Statistically speaking, a child raised at poverty level is more likely to commit a criminal act than a child raised in an average income household (I recently completed a report on this, and can make the numbers available upon request), so we should abolish poverty. Any family whose income is below the National Poverty Level should be forced to either leave the country immediately, or face arrest.

The exact same logic has been applied to both statements. I believe that any community that attempts to enforce a dress code for such ambiguous reasons is setting itself up for some interesting legal precedents. If I were a lawyer (I'm not) living in an area where something like this had happened (I don't), I would pursue a case similar to the second statement for the purpose of either confirming or repealing the logic behind such a law. After all, if a majority of the people are willing to enact such a law, then they must see the neccessity of using millions of their tax dollars to test its constitutionality, running the gamut of the appeal process, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court if required. No problem that the money was earmarked for other things, such as roads and schools. Baggy pants are WAY more important.

Remember what I said earlier about looking silly and ridiculous? Sorry J.S., I'm with Michael on this one.

- Joe U.

[livin4lax09]

good post Joe. I agree wholeheartedly with everything said.

if you ban baggy pants because "people can sneak in guns with them" then people will find another way to do it, and we'll just keep banning stuff until we're all wearing spandex.

[adina]

and we'll just keep banning stuff until we're all wearing spandex.

Now THERE"S a scary thought!

[Tel]

and we'll just keep banning stuff until we're all wearing spandex.

I'm strangely OK with this.

Oh and BTW, Baggy Pants aren't gonna be the easiest rule to enforce.

I mean wheres the line gonna be on how baggy pants must be? Are they gonna have like super secret nazi lengths or something? Because they have a lot of cops, and there definitions of Baggy will probably differ.

[livin4lax09]

I'm strangely OK with this.

Oh and BTW, Baggy Pants aren't gonna be the easiest rule to enforce.

I mean wheres the line gonna be on how baggy pants must be? Are they gonna have like super secret nazi lengths or something? Because they have a lot of cops, and there definitions of Baggy will probably differ.

yeah when you're thinking about skinny blondes, but how about those 5'10" 300 pounders?

[RP Racing]

until we're all wearing spandex.

Hey bite your tongue. Its bad enough the 300lb woman across the street comes out wearing spandex, I dont wanna have to see that everywhere.:lol: