Skip to comments.New baggy pants law in Chicago suburb: Can't show more than 3 inches of underwear in public
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 ...
2. Is the three inches measured vertically or horizontally?
3. Will plumbers be fined for showing cleavage over thee inches?
No brains at all, some of them. Just some grey fluff blown in by accident.
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”.
The mayor is a man ‘of color’ ...
it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
Poopy Pants ! ....looks like they are carrying around a load in their britches.
Does this mean you don't mind your daughter hanging out with these "normal" fellows at the local mall, school, or park?
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.
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.
is that 3” exposed?
90% of the time these guys also wear shirts that are about knee length.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
>>No brains at all, some of them. Just some grey fluff blown in by accident.<<
Here in Texas, we call that “lint.” ;p
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.
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.
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.
The law doesn’t mention any race. The ACLU is racist for saying that only one race walks around this way.
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.
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.
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.
And from now on everyone must wear their underwar on the outside. So we can check.
This is going to put a LOT of plumbers out of work!!
You should have written that in Swedish.