2008 Woodie Awards
Wasting everybody's time with silly bans
Kallayan Thuch
Issue date: 10/9/08 Section: Opinion
Gas prices soar, the economy is dwindling, and gang violence wreaks havoc on society. Americans face many serious problems, yet politicians find the banning of sagging pants more important. Supporters of the ban believe that this fashion trend is inappropriate and should be filed under indecent exposure. Those in favor of the ban feel sagging pants are the blight of society.
This reminds me of the days when schools supposedly ran after girls with a ruler to make sure their skirts weren't too short. Whether this really happened isn't the point. The point is police aren't mobbing girls over their skirts for good reasons.
Nobody in his or her right mind cares about what someone is wearing. Most people are concerned with their own lives and if their government is screwing them over. Wasting money and time over silly laws like this is certainly ripping off taxpayers.
I don't see exposure of men's behinds as indecent exposure. Unfortunately, no behinds are being exposed at all. In fact, if boxers are exposed they only look like shorts anyway. I don't see anyone gouging out their eyes over someone wearing shorts. So why cry over seeing boxers? As for gutsy guys who wear male panties, it is weird but still nothing to cry about. If they want to look fruity, then by all means let them. I would understand the uproar if men were letting their manly bits hang about. But really, if one tweaks their perspective a bit, clothed bottoms are no big deal.
With outcry over indecent exposure I'm wondering where all these same politicians are when women wear next to nothing. Now, I don't agree with banning muffin tops or teensy shorts and such either. It's just hypocritical when the moral watchdogs target one form of indecent exposure while ignoring other fashion trends that blatantly test the limits of indecent exposure.
As for linking sagging pants to a gangster lifestyle, this claim is just a stereotype. If people think sagging pants turn people into gangsters, they're in for a surprise. Tackle what causes young people to join gangs instead of a silly fashion trend. Maybe, just maybe, gang violence can be reduced this time.
If supporters of the ban had their way, who knows what else they'd scream about. Next thing you know, eyesores like me will be required to wear bags over their heads. Indecent exposure could mean anything. The fact that this law got far enough to be struck down as unconstitutional shows frivolous bans could potentially be forced on everyone.
Here's a hint, politicians. If you guys must waste our tax dollars, Whore-o-ween is right around the corner.
Revealing costumes are made for children. Not only is it indecent exposure but a feast for a pedophile's eyes. Until then, stop trying to control how people dress and focus on serious issues plaguing America.
This reminds me of the days when schools supposedly ran after girls with a ruler to make sure their skirts weren't too short. Whether this really happened isn't the point. The point is police aren't mobbing girls over their skirts for good reasons.
Nobody in his or her right mind cares about what someone is wearing. Most people are concerned with their own lives and if their government is screwing them over. Wasting money and time over silly laws like this is certainly ripping off taxpayers.
I don't see exposure of men's behinds as indecent exposure. Unfortunately, no behinds are being exposed at all. In fact, if boxers are exposed they only look like shorts anyway. I don't see anyone gouging out their eyes over someone wearing shorts. So why cry over seeing boxers? As for gutsy guys who wear male panties, it is weird but still nothing to cry about. If they want to look fruity, then by all means let them. I would understand the uproar if men were letting their manly bits hang about. But really, if one tweaks their perspective a bit, clothed bottoms are no big deal.
With outcry over indecent exposure I'm wondering where all these same politicians are when women wear next to nothing. Now, I don't agree with banning muffin tops or teensy shorts and such either. It's just hypocritical when the moral watchdogs target one form of indecent exposure while ignoring other fashion trends that blatantly test the limits of indecent exposure.
As for linking sagging pants to a gangster lifestyle, this claim is just a stereotype. If people think sagging pants turn people into gangsters, they're in for a surprise. Tackle what causes young people to join gangs instead of a silly fashion trend. Maybe, just maybe, gang violence can be reduced this time.
If supporters of the ban had their way, who knows what else they'd scream about. Next thing you know, eyesores like me will be required to wear bags over their heads. Indecent exposure could mean anything. The fact that this law got far enough to be struck down as unconstitutional shows frivolous bans could potentially be forced on everyone.
Here's a hint, politicians. If you guys must waste our tax dollars, Whore-o-ween is right around the corner.
Revealing costumes are made for children. Not only is it indecent exposure but a feast for a pedophile's eyes. Until then, stop trying to control how people dress and focus on serious issues plaguing America.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Shahani
posted 10/13/08 @ 11:44 PM PST
This is a well-thought out opinion, Kallayan. Good job.
Post a Comment