Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New baggy pants law in Chicago suburb: Can't show more than 3 inches of underwear in public
Star Tribune ^ | 6/20/08

Posted on 07/21/2008 7:13:41 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks

LYNWOOD, Ill. - Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.

Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 3inches; baggypants; underwear
1. Will law enforcement be issued tape measures?

2. Is the three inches measured vertically or horizontally?

3. Will plumbers be fined for showing cleavage over thee inches?

1 posted on 07/21/2008 7:13:41 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer.

No brains at all, some of them. Just some grey fluff blown in by accident.

2 posted on 07/21/2008 7:15:49 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I’m thinking they have turned a wish and a cultural norm into what will be listed in the future as a “stupid law, such as “you can’t tie your giraffe to a parking meter” and “no walking your pet alligator on city sidewalks”.


3 posted on 07/21/2008 7:15:58 AM PDT by Jemian (Politics is just choking good sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The mayor is a man ‘of color’ ...

it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

http://www.lynwoodil.us/departments/AdministrationVillageOfficials.asp


4 posted on 07/21/2008 7:16:43 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I have decided to call this look:

Poopy Pants ! ....looks like they are carrying around a load in their britches.

5 posted on 07/21/2008 7:18:20 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Which is worse?

6 posted on 07/21/2008 7:22:18 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (ANTI-WAR SLOGANS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Madness - "Baggy Trousers"
7 posted on 07/21/2008 7:24:24 AM PDT by fishtank (FIRST defeat Obama. ------------------ THEN resist McCain. ---------- A good plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jemian
they have turned a wish and a cultural norm

Does this mean you don't mind your daughter hanging out with these "normal" fellows at the local mall, school, or park?

8 posted on 07/21/2008 7:25:53 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Dat nare Redneck need bout a gallon of Boudreau's special to cover that crack.


9 posted on 07/21/2008 7:27:39 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

It’s a ugly look to be sure- but we should all be concerned that the government there is passing laws in regards to what people can wear. There is no nudity issue here- these boys and men are showing underwear. Bad taste cannot be fixed by a law.


10 posted on 07/21/2008 7:28:37 AM PDT by bigred41 (Don't mess with Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The problem with a law such as this is its one-size-fits-all nature. In reality, attractive people should be permitted to go naked if they wish, while ugly ones should have to wear burkas.


11 posted on 07/21/2008 7:29:19 AM PDT by tvdog12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

is that 3” exposed?
90% of the time these guys also wear shirts that are about knee length.


12 posted on 07/21/2008 7:31:33 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ( Detroit: we're so bad, even our mayor is a criminal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
"leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer."

Yo! Kolmes! (intended)

1. Givin yer sorry, exposed ass a $25 citation is the exact opposite of spending money (funny how you got no problem asking them to spend someone else's bennies, bro)

2. The local ordinance IS intended to make the area look nicer. The less people see of you ugly rump-roast, the nicer the city looks, fool.

3. As my momma used to say, "Hitch up them drawers, boy."

13 posted on 07/21/2008 7:31:33 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I would think not sagging would be a matter of practicality. It’s much harder to run from the police with your pants down around your knees.


14 posted on 07/21/2008 7:32:16 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Five Year Plans and New Deals, wrapped in golden chains...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

This is so stupid. Do these idiots really have nothing better to do than to come up with crap like this?

Remember when this used to be a free country?


15 posted on 07/21/2008 7:32:24 AM PDT by frankiep (Every socialist is a disguised dictator - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

Nope. I do NOT wish my daughter to be hanging out, breathing the same air or having anything to do with said individuals. And if my son, although he is 21,married, paying his own way and off on his own, emulates them, I will take a staple gun and fasten his pants at the proper height.

I just don’t think it should be a law.


16 posted on 07/21/2008 7:32:49 AM PDT by Jemian (Politics is just choking good sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color.

Really? Then the ACLU should send an official observer out to the New Jersey suburbs to see thousands of slackjawed white teens walking around with the top half of their boxers on display.

17 posted on 07/21/2008 7:38:31 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

>>No brains at all, some of them. Just some grey fluff blown in by accident.<<

Here in Texas, we call that “lint.” ;p


18 posted on 07/21/2008 7:41:20 AM PDT by Xenalyte (~ ~ FREE LAZAMATAZ! ~ ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind

Buddy of mine - he has connections to local law enforcement - tells me his cop friends say they LOVE baggy pants on perps, because they’re easier to catch when they’re trying (and generally failing) to run. Also, the entertainment value of such a spectacle is duly noted.


19 posted on 07/21/2008 7:43:39 AM PDT by Xenalyte (~ ~ FREE LAZAMATAZ! ~ ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

I’ve heard stories about this, of stupid “hoodies” trying to carry a couple of bags of groceries and trying to run and having to hold their pants up and carry the groceries at the same time.

These morons seem to have no conception of the conflict between running and pants falling down. It’s like a cartoon. They’re dumber than Wiley Coyote.


20 posted on 07/21/2008 7:56:11 AM PDT by garyhope (It's World War IV, right here, right now, courtesy of Islam. TWP VRWC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The ordinance is as stupid as the practice it’s trying to regulate. Hemlines, necklines, and lengths of pants and sleeves have always fluctuated. It was only a matter of time before someone did this with pants—they got close with hip-huggers of the 60’s. No one complains about breast cleavage. And here there is no buttock cleavage showing. It would be equivalent to someone wearing a very low cut halter top with a t-shirt underneath. The biggest problem with this “style” is how stupid it looks, just like a “grill” for the teeth or two big fake diamond earrings on guys. Once you have a bunch of white college students doing it, it will fall out of fashion. In the meantime, there should be no laws passed, just a lot of people pointing fingers and laughing their butts off over it.


21 posted on 07/21/2008 8:01:49 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The law doesn’t mention any race. The ACLU is racist for saying that only one race walks around this way.


22 posted on 07/21/2008 8:17:23 AM PDT by BooksForTheRight.com (Fight liberal lies with knowledge. Read conservative books and articles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The problem here is the social welfare state. I think most of the people who wear their pants like that are unemployeed. I do not know of any employers who would let employees dress like that. I do not what schools allow, but the schools are within their bounds to institute dress codes. The problem does reflect poorly on the individuals but it also reflects on society, where we have healthy young unemployeed men living well without gainful employment and unaffected by the dress codes applied in the working world.


23 posted on 07/21/2008 8:27:14 AM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I have heard this isn't just a style (as in something introduced by the fashion industry), but has been adopted from the "prison look". However impractical it is when running, I imagine it is very practical when hiding things, such as small electronics, drugs, and weapons. Maybe that is the strongest argument for a town wanting this law.

My grandson has tried an introductory version of this at his private Christian grade school. His teacher put a stop to it and then his parents reinforced the message. I have threatened him with a painful wedgie if I ever see it. But of course Granny would feel just awful about that, so would then I'd have to give him a huge, fish-lipped smooch in front of all his friends. Nipped the baggy-pants idea in the bud real quick.

24 posted on 07/21/2008 8:53:14 AM PDT by BBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: BBT
I have heard this isn't just a style (as in something introduced by the fashion industry), but has been adopted from the "prison look". However impractical it is when running, I imagine it is very practical when hiding things, such as small electronics, drugs, and weapons. Maybe that is the strongest argument for a town wanting this law.

Styles don't come exclusively from the fashion media. It's usually the fashion media that spots a style and takes advantage of it. I can't imagine where anybody would hide anything. They'd have to have some kind of device inside the pants to hold whatever would be hidden. Anything of any weight would drag the pants down. Just the weight of the pants drags them down necessitating the guys always grabbing the front to haul them back into prime position.
26 posted on 07/21/2008 9:00:13 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

In high school, girls were always showing their underwear. Only those chosen by the offender were allowed to hold the measuring tape. The offended were just happy to look.


27 posted on 07/21/2008 9:08:42 AM PDT by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Clemenza

And from now on everyone must wear their underwar on the outside. So we can check.


28 posted on 07/21/2008 9:28:57 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Bummer!!

This is going to put a LOT of plumbers out of work!!

/sarc


29 posted on 07/21/2008 9:39:17 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

You should have written that in Swedish.


30 posted on 07/21/2008 9:46:34 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Cupid should get him to meet his perfect partner:



Not so much cupid's arrow needed, but maybe a harpoon
31 posted on 07/21/2008 9:59:28 AM PDT by StevieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Want to get rid of this fad? Start spreading it around that the reason to keep their pants so low is that it makes it easier for them to let some other guy bugger them.
32 posted on 07/21/2008 2:05:25 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson