Read about this on another website. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atl...age_tab_newstab http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/at...r_0824_web.html Now, I never understood the baggy pants thing. Not from a fashion stance, but from a practicality stance. I just don't get how it can be comfortable walking around with half your nice person hanging out (as some do). It also looks awfully difficult to walk. But I never viewed it as obscene, either. It's just a fashion choice I don't understand. According to the articles it's not just baggy pants ... any exposed underwear at all would be cause for a fine. Even a bra strap. Now, I have no problem with public decency laws, but this seems to be going a bit too far. Where do you draw the line? I guess the moral of the story is don't wear underwear if you're in Atlanta.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 24 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]501590[/snapback]</div> Good for them!!!! <_< The baggy pants fashion started in prison and quickly became the THUG LOOK on the streets. In street gangs where the police are looking for the traditional bandannas & ect. the bangers would wear their colors in the form of boxers, ball caps & shirts. The police do & do not like the baggy pants. the do not: easy to conceal wepons. The Do: ever seen a thug running from the police in baggy pants? it doesnt end well for the thug.... :lol: But now the baggy look has moved onward to skaters, wannabe ballers, and now to the general public. I guess theres just something SEXY about the disheveled look... :huh: notice the bandanna? Ive got news for you though, its not just atlanta, cities around the US are popping up with the same bans.. some are including fines up to 1k or 60 days in jail... :blink: Dallas, some Lousiana cities, ect. are looking to follow the same path. Of course most guys dont mind if a thong is peeking out. Now you can go see the fashion side show for free at walmart any time 24 hrs a day.
Either wear pants or don't - what's the point of them hanging halfway down? But banning a bit of thong from peeking out of low risers is going too far. I mean, as long as people are at least wearing underwear...
They tried this in Virginia a few years back, the national news stations picked up on it, everyone laughed at the legislature for considering it, and it died before becoming law.
This reminds me of something I read a few years ago, this is the place to share it, Hycamguy, you'll especially appreciate it. Some kid was being chased by the police on foot and decided to try to loose the cop by cutting through a ravine. Made it a bit easier for the officer, because when he tripped over his pants leg that was dragging, the cop could calmly come up and cuff him. :lol: :lol: Oh the price of a fashon statement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 24 2007, 01:44 PM) [snapback]501649[/snapback]</div> What is the point of tying a noose and putting it around your neck before going to the office? (Tie) Why wear long pants, and long sleeve shirt, and then a jacket when it is 100 degrees? (Suit) Why walk on your toes and a tiny little stilt that causes all kinds of foot problems? (High heels) Why? because it is the fashion of the day and what your peers wear. Most fashion makes no sense but if we all were to were comfortable, practical clothes how would the multi-billion dollar fashion and retail industry sell us new clothes every season?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ 2007 Aug 25 9:01 AM) [snapback]501987[/snapback]</div> Ties were invented in something like the 15th century as way to keep body odours from emanating into the room. I think now that most of us have indoor plumbing, they're really not necessary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 25 2007, 11:21 AM) [snapback]501999[/snapback]</div> Here they say it's to warm the vocal chords. And I always thought its original function was as a napkin...
"Sagging" may have started in the prisons, but it has found its way to suburban Los Angeles. CNN has a story on this today, and some are calling the ban racist. I assure you that the race of the kid sagging has nothing to do with issue. I teach in a middle school, and many of our Hispanic and Armenian boys like to sag their pants. It is a constant battle. We also have the battle of what I call the "Britney look" for girls. Very tight, low riding pants with very tight, small shirts. Showing off ones cleavage is also really big for the middle school girls. The new gang look is very long shorts with knee socks pulled all the way up. That one we are not allowing at any time, if nothing else, for the kid's protection. Walking around the streets looking like a gang banger can get you shot by a rival gang.
Nerds are cool!! The Britany Spears look is fine by me as long as the girl is the right shape to pull it off. I always thought the baggy pants wouldn't be the best for running.
I teach at the high school and community college level. I dress professionally (long-sleeve dress shirt, belt, tie, pressed clean pants, monogram on left cuff). Students will ask me, "Why do you wear your pants so high!" I bring in a full size human skeleton, hoist it up on the front lecture table, point out the pelvis and femur. I point out the Ischial crests (top of the pelvis) and how it corresponds with the umbillicus (belly button). The top of the pelvis is considered the natural waist and this is where the waist of most pants is designed to be worn. Students reaction is that they have never heard this before. I point out the top of the femur (the "hips") and the bottom of femur just above the knee joint. I point out these two locations are not considered the waist and pants are not designed to be worn there. What is amazing is that the "baggers" and "saggers" must hold their pants up while they walk. In addition, shoes are never tied. So, saggers cannot walk or run, but must shuffle along. For those that insist on wearing the waist of their pants below their buttocks (in violation of the dress code) I point out to the whole class, while singling out the suspect student, that "there is no crack in here, pull your pants up!" When a student doesn't get the message, then it is a discipline referral (with appropriate consequences). There is a general lack of discipline and guidance from home. Many parents and teachers dress like slobs. Without adult examples, students feel free to copy gangs and rap musicians.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Aug 25 2007, 08:10 PM) [snapback]502149[/snapback]</div> Dude...no. Not if we're talking about girls in middle school. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jkash @ Aug 25 2007, 05:06 PM) [snapback]502105[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 25 2007, 02:08 PM) [snapback]502074[/snapback]</div> And their function today is? As your article said, ties have stuck around because both political and business leaders continue to wear them. It is considered a required piece of clothing for formal or business dress. But it is not functional, it is completely done on a basis of what is fashionable among one's peers. It is no different for the "thugs" as some here choose to call them. People wear the dress that is important to them and what is worn by their role models. I would think that city government would have a lot more pressing matters than regulating what clothes people wear and how they wear them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 24 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]501691[/snapback]</div> :lol: :lol: :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Aug 25 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]502152[/snapback]</div> That is great if that is the way you choose to dress. You may consider it professional and neat. However, it is far from fashionable even in professional circles. For example, for the last year or so belts have been out for men even with suits. Ties are also out except for formal occasions. And monograms have been out for many, many years. I suggest you pick up a copy of GQ if you would like to see what is currently considered fashionable. My last job had me traveling to Europe 60 days a year and I would spend quite a bit of time in France and Italy. These are men that keep up of fashion and follow current trends. They do not wear what you have described. Again, wear what you want but I think it a bit pompous to project that your dress is proper while others dress like slobs. Fashion is fluid and changes sometimes daily. You can keep up or you can jump off the fashion train. I know a lot of the women that I work with still must think it is the 80's with their big hair and make-up that is applied with paint brushes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brick @ Aug 26 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]502211[/snapback]</div> Your right, I wasn't thinking. But their mums??? Remember, as long as they are the right shape to pull it off.
Ah, fashion. I just ran across a thread on another board I visit about people wearing PJs and slippers in public: http://twopeasinabucket.kaboose.com/mb.asp...read_id=2347468 I hate the sagger look. It's not allowed at the high school where I teach. But we have had our share of kids trying to look gangsta (and some of them are, it's an inner city school). I had thought the trend was dying out over the past couple of years. Alas, it appears that is not the case.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Aug 26 2007, 06:34 AM) [snapback]502298[/snapback]</div> PJ's in public are not new. It was fashionable for about a year during my junior or senior year of high school. (1994 / 1995) That was about the same time we were wearing shirts inside out. :lol: A bit back on topic, Atlanta's law is not enforceable. The US Supreme Court has already ruled the the bare buttocks are not obscene or indecent. This case stemmed from a demonstrator in Washington D.C. that was wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered only the front of her body. I believe is was the ACLU that picked it up, but it went all the way to the Supreme Court where the court found in favor of the women. Women also have the right to go topless in public. This is based on a case in New York State that also when to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that the female breast is not obscene or indecent and no state can pass laws that requires women to cover their breasts but allow men to show theirs. The State of New York decided to allow women to go topless instead of requiring men to wear shirts. Based just on the the two cased above, I highly doubt the court would rule boxer shorts to be indecent or obscene. I suspect that if this law is passed the ACLU or possibly the NAACP (since this law specifically targets the black population) will pick up a case and take it as far as necessary. Again, I can't see why the city council would waste time with such a frivolous matter.
