home

Lousiana Town to Criminalize Showing Underpants

You may see Paris, you may see France, but in Delcambre, Lousiana, you won't see underpants.

In an attack on baggy trousers, the Mayor is signing an ordinance that imposes a possible 6 month jail sentence and hefty fine for those who wear baggy pants that expose their underwear.

“This is a new ordinance that deals specifically with sagging pants,” Ayo said.

“It’s about showing off your underwear in public.”

Why is alternative means of self-expression so threatening to people? See below:

< Broder and the Bizarro Beltway World | The Politics of Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    When does the next flight (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    leave this planet, anyway?

    If everyone would just leave them alone (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    they would evolve past showing us their drawers.  Maybe we'll go back to bellybuttons.   It is usually the youth who want to show us their drawers right now and the more we pick at them in their rebel ways of the youth the more of their drawers they will show us ;)  I've washed and folded so many drawers these past years I could really care less.  Is this really the first time that some people have seen another person's drawers? ;)

    I wonder what they will do if (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:47:34 AM EST
     someone wears only boxers? It would not seem to fall within this statute or be "indecent exposure" as commonly defined.

       I think the kids  should have a sit-in to protest the new law.


    not to hijack (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:34:31 AM EST
      but I always find it amusing when short, dumpy kids wear the huge, baggy basketball shorts. They look slightly silly on an NBA body but they make my neighbor's 5'7" 200 lb couch potato son look like a dwarf.

    The relative nature of taste (none / 0) (#11)
    by nolo on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    I think the baggy shorts look a little silly too.  On the other hand, my twentysomething stepdaughter is absolutely horrified by the wee little shorts that players wore in '70s-era NBA games.

    Parent
    Commonly referred to as.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:13:33 PM EST
    the "John Stockton" shorts.  I think he was the last to wear the junk-huggers.

    We can thank MJ for getting rid of those eye-sores.

    Parent

    Is he the guy ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    ... who used to play for the Jazz in just his underpants? White guy? Pretty good perimeter shooter? Really really REALLY bad haircut?

    Him, I'd definitely arrest for as a chronic repeat offender in the category of fashion crimes.

    Parent

    Yep..... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    thats him...the NBA all time assists leader, best pure point guard of my generation (sorry Magic and Isaiah)

    What do you want for a haircut that comes with a free bowl of soup?

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:33:29 PM EST
    You have good taste in point guard selectiom.

    Parent
    MJ (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    started out in "junk-huggers" as well. He wore them till 1992, just like everyone in the NBA. In 1992, it was Michigans Fab-Five who started the huge shorts trend that eventually made its way to the rest of society and the NBA.

    And Stockton always looked good in those shorts. I kind of like that look. tight shorts and socks going up to the knee. I was Especially fond of the Pistol Pete's look  with the long socks bunched down around the ankles.

    Parent

    I remember MJ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    starting out with the junk-huggers, but I thought he was rockin something baggier before Michigan whipped out the obscenely baggy gear.  

    Parent
    You may be right, (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:55:09 PM EST
    It's hard to keep all the trends straight. But, do you think we'll see the tight shorts again?

    Man, if I was 21 in college and had a sweet NBA-type J, I'd order me up a pair a tighties and get some long tube socks and start the new trend.

    Parent

    Adam Morrison (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    of The Charlotte Babcats is the guy who should do it.

    He'd be perfect in a pair of tight shorts with long socks above the knees...I mean with that mustache.

    Parent

    Some day some great player will come out wearing a pair and the sheep will follow.

    Parent
    I agree.... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    one day they will be back, just not anytime soon.

    You guys may have noticed more baseball players are wearing their pants the old-school way, rolled up to the knees with the high socks...now thats a look I like.  When they wear them long all the way down to the spikes, I think it looks retarded.

    Parent

    I say leave em alone (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    easier to id the idiots from a distance.

    ID from a distrance (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Electa on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    is that your way of saying easier to "PROFILE" them from a distance?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#46)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    It is easier to spot the idiots from a distance.

    Parent
    outside (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    If you were to wear your underwear on the outside, then it wouldn't be underwear anymore, plus that way the police could easily check whether you are changing it frequently enough.

    The answer, of course... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Ed Drone on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    is to not wear any underpants.

    Simple answers to simple questions, free of charge.

    Ed


    This is about (none / 0) (#3)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    Class and decorum.

    Personally, I can do without the droopy pants, fourteen year old girls showing me their thong and bra straps, etc...

    People aren't threatened by this means of "alternative methods of self expression". I don't think threatened is the right word. I think it's just a matter of taste.

    Legislating taste (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by nolo on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    never works.  That being said, the law and order crowd that undoubtedly likes the idea of legislating pant-sag ought to talk to my SO's brother the cop.  According to the SO's bro, sagging pants are a big reason why old cops like him can still catch young suspects -- after all, it's awfully hard to run and keep your pants from dropping to your ankles all at the same time.

    Parent
    LMAO, a female deputy told me the exact (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    same thing.

    Parent
    I thought laws were supposed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:51:15 AM EST
    to protect us from actual harm.  How harmful to me is witnessing tastelessness?  Isn't taste really something that is only in our mouths?  It is tasteful in Africa and the French Riviera to run around without my top on and allow my breasts to be unsupported ;)

    Parent
    laws against tastelesness? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Jen M on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 08:08:06 PM EST
    how can we put the entire population of the country in jail?


    Parent
    Those clips are a new one for me. And I (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    thought all fads started in CA!

    An attorney in juvenile court asked the judge (on behalf of the juvi's mom) to order her teenage daughter not to wear men's boxer shorts over her other clothes.  I whispered to the attorney, tell her to save it for the big stuff.  The attorney sd., I did.  Meanwhile, my teenage daughter was wearing boxers over her other clothes.  

    Odd that "self-expression" means (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    doing what everyone else is doing.

    Regardless, it's a dumb ordinance.

    It's not about decorum, taste, or decency... (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    It's about control and the need for power to justify itself.  Mayor Broussard can claim whatever reason he wants for supporting the ordinance, but it's just window dressing.

    Besides, somebody wearing baggy pants is still better covered up than they'd be at the beach.

    Stupid law.

    Thanx u, thanx u, thanx u (none / 0) (#26)
    by Electa on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    "Besides, somebody wearing baggy pants is still better covered up than they'd be at the beach."

    Although I despise the symbolism of the droopy britches, to me this is just another attack directed at poor rural kids who's only means of saying to the system F-u and feeling a sense of association is showing their behinds.  The sadness is we live in a society that created a group of citizens that face such despair that they find pride in displaying prison culture.  I've heard several stories about how the culture began but they all stem from prisons. The saggy pants are an indication of how debase America has become.

    And, you point is mine exactly.  Asses, titties and coochies are displayed on billboards, magazines, beaches, on TV and everywhere else in America.  What's the beef about poor kids wearing their pants down to their ankles?  At least their bare behinds are showing.  

    Parent

    It must be a racial thing (none / 0) (#15)
    by baked potato on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    Criminalization usually is, in these United States.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    The top photo looks like a white guy to me...

    Parent
    And he looks pretty good, doesn't he? (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    A little like me, in my yout... (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    ...except for the undewear showing.

    You?

    Parent

    Gender discrepancy. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    That would explain it. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    We must be looking @ (none / 0) (#27)
    by Electa on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    different photos.  The droopers are black.

    Parent
    Sorry missed the first photo (none / 0) (#29)
    by Electa on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    he is white, however, look at the difference in display.

    Parent
    If the white guys in Delcambre, Lousiana (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    who droop don't get cited but the black guys who do do, then I will accept your fundamental point.

    Parent
    Who will be monitoring (none / 0) (#73)
    by Electa on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    if there's a difference in treatment...white boy sag'n or black boy sag'n?  Do you reallllllllly think this petty ordinance w/a potential breach of free speech will warrant the attention of civil rights advocates?  Can't you just see the headline:  Civil Rights attorney bring discrimination of the droopy drawers case.

    Parent
    1st amendment? (none / 0) (#16)
    by lawstudent on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    any free speech experts know if this is permissible?  seems to be limiting a form of expression city-wide for no reason other than the fact that they major doesn't like the people who are sagging their pants!  doesn't the sagging of the pants have to have some correlation to some government interest for them to restrict it?

    free speech public square (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sumner on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    I have been reading with keen interest stories about Justice Alito's comments on free speech.  One site reminds us that while a number of SC decisions have yet to be handed down, the members of the court already know their outcome.

    What bothers many of us, is a tendency by some, to insist that free speech is absolute where money is being spent (lobbying, campaign contributions, etc.), yet free speech is finite, by those with only the means to (non-violently) express themselves, without further filling the coffers of those that control the system.

    I was fortunate enough to see The Fever, last night on HBO, after it had been recommended to me countless times.

    It makes me wonder if loading up the courts with criminal cases, stalls those pesky civil torts that the Bushies so decry. (Nevermind, shifting the burden for paying for government from taxes, (post tax-breaks-for-the-rich), to the criminal justice system, through fines, mulcts and seizures.)

    "Why, if all this law is good, 10 times more laws ought to be 10 times as good!"

    We are not talking about, neon-floss, stag-party-panties, on a 10-year-old, here. American society has already rid itself of kids-in-underwear ads in America.

    This is about boxer shorts on teenagers, mostly, as their non-verbal expression of fashion as rebellion.

    What gave Pat Buchanan the right to declare and wage a "culture war" against his fellow Americans? Read: usurpation.

    Parent

    What gave Pat Buchanan the right.....? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:56:57 PM EST
    And the answer is.....

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


    Parent
    thank you jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#64)
    by Sumner on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    OK, the same First Amendment that protects rebellious fashion statements?

    Parent
    works for me.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    Is there anything left... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    that some idiot doesn't want to criminalize?  

    Baggy clothes today...tomorrow the world.

    Wasn't this resolved in 1991. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    Man, I can't believe this is already back in style. Its already so retro.

    It bothers me the same as seeing kids with mohawks wearing Sid Lives on their Black leather Jackets in 1995. I was like, "Dudes, your twenty years late?"

    What the hell? We wouldn't have to pass a law if kids would just let things go out of style and come up with a unique statement of self-expression.

    I know, I thought I was sooooo cooool in 1983 wearing tight jeans with bell bottoms and a paisley shirt and cutting my hair to look like Kieth Richards. Some things never change. We should just let kids be kids. You can't ignore them, but you surely don't need to pass a law.

    It was worse in '91.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    because the girls dressed the same way.  

    The absolute worst time to be a horn-dog teenager...girls dressing like boys and everybody scared of HIV.  Me and my peers got screwed.

    Parent

    You know you did. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    You really did.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:05:57 PM EST
     Away from work I still dress basically as I did in 1975 (Levis, sneakers,  t-shirts and flannel shirts when it's colder). I guess if you have no style you never go (any furtheer)out of style.

    Parent
    Style is over-rated anyway... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    brother, comfort is where it is at.

    10 year old jeans, 5 year old sneakers...all nice and broken in, thats my ticket.  

    Speaking of which, you can see my boxers because of the holes in my jeans, I guess I couldn't live in parts of Louisiana without constantly breaking another law:)

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:17:02 PM EST
    How do you get ten years out of a pair of jeans?

    Parent
    Easy..... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    I'm the same weight I was when I graduated high school, so they still fit.

    They look like swiss cheese, but they are comfortable, and thats all I care about.  They probably won't last another 5 though before they turn to dust.

    Parent

    Yep, (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    That's pretty much it for me. Levis, sneakers, t-shirt, flannel.

    But the other day I came out of the garden and had shorts on (a little baggy - not tight) and some open toed sandals with my black work socks still on up around my calves. I was greeting my neighbors who wanted to look at the fruits of my labors and my wife came out looked me up and down and then turned to my neighbors and apologized for my fashion statement. Its hard to be hip once you pass forty. But, I think that's because you stop caring - its better that way.

    Parent

    My dad used to wear (none / 0) (#44)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    dark socks with sandals. One of several reasons I was embarassed to be seen with him from about 11 to 18.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 05:49:45 PM EST
    That makes sense as being a faux pas, although I had not heard it before. I guess I must have understood it intuitively on some level because I only wear white sox with my sandals.  It must be that sandals are casual and dark socks are formal so the two clash.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    Don't be embarassed... We see damnyankees dressed like that all the time...

    BWT  How's the garden? My tomatoes, cukes, cabbages, peppers, onions and lettuse are in...I have never seen tomato plants so loaded. I'm having to add stakes to the wire mesh supports I use.

    Parent

    Garden (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    Fantastic!

    It has been a good start. Hot and wet. This week particularly the whole garden has been blooming. I was telling SUO that I am far ahead of schedule on several veggies.

    I should have tomatoes in a couple of weeks and that is pretty early for Minnesota. I have mine going up trellis and not in cages and they are currently three feet up. It has been a good year, but I also added some soil amendments this year. I tried something called SEA-90, which is basically salt and other minerals from dried up sea beds from someplace in Mexico. The idea is that the Sea has all the necessary minerals for life and saltwater species don't get cancer or suffer from the same diseases that plague land animals and freshwater fish. Most of the trace minerals that we need are present in seawater and our blood actually mimics the properties of the sea. Our vegetables that we buy in the supermarket are lacking these essential trace minerals and SEA-90 is suppose to put these minerals in the soil for use by the plants. It looks like I am having good results so far, but it also has been an ideal spring for growing.

    Anyway, I am excited to taste the fruit off the vines. I know that my greens are tasting absolutely terrific. Kale...Swiss chard... it looks extremely lush and the taste is unbelievable.  Sweet!

    Parent

    peaches (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Sounds great. I'll try some of that SEA-90 next year.

    Alas all of the fruit trees and most of the berries were destroyed by the Global Warming record setting April freeze.....

    ;-)

    Take care.

    Parent

    peaches (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:00:28 PM EST
    1983 wearing tight jeans with bell bottoms

    I thoughg bell bottoms went out in 73....

    Parent

    strict dress codes & violations (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sumner on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    I'd sign up for flogging squad duty in a heartbeat.

    Then do you also support the acid attacks, already so prevalent in Islamic countries?


    Order is of strictest importance (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    As I said, peace and social justice first. Fashion crimes later, flogging after that.

    I'm not sure how important comprehending sarcasm would be in a model of an ideal society.

    Maybe if someone takes seriously my call for a summit to expand the penal code to include fashion crimes, we can table it there!

    Parent

    you were subtle then (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sumner on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    Order is of strictest importance

    My idea of sarcasm about the paramount importance of order would include Woody Allen's 1971 film, Bananas:

    Hear me people!

    From this day on,
    the official language
    of San Marcos will be Swedish.

    ln addition to that,
    all persons will be required
    to change their underwear
    every half hour.

    Underwear will be worn on the outside
    so we can check.

    Furthermore,
    everyone under 16 is now SIXTEEN!

    Except for that last line.

    I am still in a reflective mood after last night's viewing of The Fever, a story upon which no one else here has yet remarked. Both films I mention speak to Delcambre, Lousiana's new law.

    We still avoid them--all of my friends. Bad neighborhoods. The people who live in places like that would hurt you, beat you, cut you, kill you. All the ones who would hurt you collect in those neighborhoods, like water in drains. And it's terrible. It's awful. Why should people want to hurt each other? I always say to my friends, We should be glad to be alive. We should celebrate life. We should understand that life is wonderful.

    [...]

    Yes, but we can't have celebrations in the very same room where groups of people are being tortured, or groups of people are being killed. We have to know, Where we are, and where are the ones who are being tortured and killed? Not in the same room? No--but surely--isn't there any other room we can use? Yes, but we still could hear the people screaming. Well, then--can't we use the building across the street?  Well, maybe--but wouldn't it feel strange to walk by the window during our celebrations and look across at the building we're in now and think about the blood and the deaths and the testicles being crushed inside it?

    Who are the ones who are being tortured and killed? It was explained to me: the followers of Marx.

    [...]

    [You have to believe that] [t]he way the world works is fundamentally not unjust, so the people who want to preserve the world are basically good, and the ones who want to tear it apart, the ones who steal on the street, the thieves, the destroyers, are basically bad. You [...] have to be defined as the highest and most admirable type of human being, while Juana the follower of Marx, who, out of some desperate devotion to the people she loves, offers up her body to the torturer's knife, can only be defined as the lowest and most reprehensible type, one who deserves the punishment of death.



    Parent
    if this dumbass (none / 0) (#47)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    weren't actually serious, this would be too funny.

    ellie, if fashion crimes were actionable, the nation hasn't enough cells! lol

    if only. (none / 0) (#55)
    by nolo on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:08:51 PM EST


    You're in trouble.. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    It's before Memorial and after Labor Day...

    lol (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:06:52 PM EST
    savage

    Parent
    It all startded back then... (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:06:06 PM EST
    The teachers and parents all said that the world woud go heck in a handbasket if boys kept on wearing those Duck's As$ haircuts and the girls quit wearing panty girdles....

    Little did they know!!!!

    Hip huggers should be next (none / 0) (#67)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:18:54 AM EST
    I'm just glad I'm not a young person today, and end up being cursed with these awful fashions.  Though I never was a person who felt compelled to follow the fashion trends, I'm a trendsetter :-)

    It's amazing that young women actually wear those horrible hip huggers that are totally unflattering, even to women who have beautiful asses.  The hip huggers of the 60s were never that bad.  I feel really sorry for those flat ass girls who have been brainwashed by the fashion police into believing they actually look good wearing those ridiculous things, yuck gag me with a spoon.  How I long for the days of Jordache jeans when it was actually a pleasure to look at a girls behind.


    This prohibition is bad news for law enforcement (none / 0) (#68)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:40:26 AM EST
    Since this fashion is the preferred garb of your typical gang member everywhere in America, it's actually a bad move to make it illegal.  Just ask a street cop how many perpetrators they have apprehended because their pants fell down around their ankles and tripped them up.

    Without this handicap, your average overweight donut eating cop doesn't stand a chance in hell of catching your average 16 year old Black kid at full sprint. I predict the apprehension rate of police officers in Louisiana to drop drastically as gang members are forced to pull up their pants.


    Nolo (none / 0) (#69)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:44:29 AM EST
    Thanks, I wrote this before I read your comment

    Parent
    My Gawd, what stereotyping.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Electa on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    every "black" kid that wears droopy pants IS NOT a gang member.  My daughter's boyfriend is a 4th yr. engineering student w/ a 4.0 GPA and he wears sagging pants.  I guess that's why the NYPD riddled that young man's body with 50 rounds on the eve of his wedding...droopy pants = gang member.  How do you classify white suburban kids that dress the Hip Hop attire.  You do know that white suburban boys where droopy pants, don't you?

    Parent
    Electa (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    How do you classify white suburban kids that dress the Hip Hop attire.
     

    As dumb as I classify the black kids who do the hip hop stuff...

    But no more so than my parents/teachers/etc. classified me for my pegged charcoal pants, pink shirt, white sports coat and pink and black tie.. Oh yeah white buckskin shoes with black and pink argyle socks..and the flattest flat top in the history of the universe... Oh, did I mention the shirt had French Cuffs with gray and pink cuff links???

    Yes indeed, a real rebel I was...

    If I remember correctly, and I am sure someone will spring to correcting me if I a wrong, the baggy/droopy/oversized look was orginally called the LA Gang Look.. supposedly beloved by gang members because they could conceal their weapons more easily.. could they?

    I don't know or care...

    This is always about dressing for success, which simply says you dress to be accepted by the group you want to be accepted by. With kids it's other kids... with CEO's it's other CEO's... with Nerds it's other Nerds..with bloggers it's.... well, anyone who wears pajammas all the time... ;-)

    Parent

    No Belts in Prison (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    the baggy/droopy/oversized look was orginally called the LA Gang Look..

    because...