Watch Your Butt in Flint, MI

You may see London, you may see France, but in Flint, Michigan, you won't see underpants.

Police are cracking down, sending out notice that they will begin making arrests for those wearing saggy pants.

Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.

Here's the chart of offenses with pictures of what constitutes disorderly conduct or indecent exposure that will land you between 93 days to a year in jail. Also, the police warn that if they stop you for saggy pants, they have the right to search you for evidence of other crimes, such as weapon and drug possession. [More...]

No arrests yet, but the ACLU is keeping a close eye on the situation.

On Monday, a Free Press reporter and videographer rode with the chief as he confronted teens sporting the sag look. He issued verbal warnings to several people and said the style also gives police probable cause to search those wearing no-rise jeans.

How are the kids taking it?

"If I pay for my pants, I should be able to wear them how I want to," said 16-year-old Montez Phifer, taking a break from playing hoops in the city Monday. "Everyone thinks it's gangster, but it's a fashion. Nothing more."

His friend, Lorenzo Johnson, 14, said his mother warned him about the chief's stance on sagging. "I pulled them up to respect her," he said. "When she left I pulled them back down."

Another friend Senita Abrams, 18, said: "I think it's cute when boys sag."

Why is an alternative means of self-expression so threatening to people? Here's one of my favorite saggy pants photos.

[Hat tip to reader Scribe for the Flint article.]
< A Really Bad Day in Court for This Lawyer | FISA Passes Senate, Vote 69 to 28 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Frankly, I am against crack, so I don't (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    mind them "cracking" down.... :)

    I'm against spandex.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    on persons over 180 lbs, but my love of freedom trumps any desire to fine, imprison, or otherwise hassle spandex wearers.

    I know you're kidding, but even mild forms of tyranny are no laughing matter.


    There should be... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    ...a permit process for anyone who wants to wear spandex or Speedo's!

    There is. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:11:20 PM EST
    It's called "derisive snickering behind the wearer's back".

    I'm against spandex on ANYONE (none / 0) (#114)
    by Montague on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:48:23 PM EST
    but there shouldn't be a LAW fer crissake.

    Good to see that.... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    Flint is focused on the most pressing concerns of their community.  

    Who cares about freedom...look at those pants!  Sun god help us.

    Kudos To Jerlyn, Though (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by flashman on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    for the best line of the day...

    Police are cracking down



    Yeah this is ridiculous (none / 0) (#106)
    by daria g on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    It's just fashion for crying out loud.  I mean I don't get it either (mostly because it seems like it'd be uncomfortable - how would you stop your pants from falling down?  that'd be annoying) but FWIW, the New York Times style section did a slideshow/feature on this just a few weeks ago.

    furthermore (none / 0) (#107)
    by daria g on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    I wonder if the police have inadvertently made sure a style that might've been somewhat on the way out, stay back in, because who's going to change the way they dress because the cops told them to, I wouldn't.

    I don't see how (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    this is going to stand:

    saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure

    I don't think the authorities have yet any concept of what it means to face the wrath of the oppressed plumber.

    But, by God, they will!

    you just reminded me (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    of one of my favorite tv scenes -- it was on Ali McBeal when Jon Bon Jovi played a plumber.

    I have to go with SNL when Dan Akroyd (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    played a refrigerator repairman in a Todd & Lisa skit...hilarious

    Concur - I was looking for a link (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    but couldn't find one.  Still, over 30 years later that image (the horror) is still seared in my retinas....

    Yeah, it was frightening and shocking (none / 0) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    for it's time... :)

    it was especially funny (none / 0) (#116)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:29:03 PM EST
    because Akroyd used the crak to store his screw driver.  LOL

    ROTFLMAO n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:56 PM EST
    The Fashion Police? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    It sounds like the politicians and police in Flint have too much free time on their hands!

    Oh lordy! n/t (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    Seems pretty transparently an excuse to get to the search part.

    Good point... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    I guess saggy jeans are the new black skin....aka a reason for the man to get all up in your pockets without probable cause.

    If you delve into the article (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    he's also going to use wearing no-rise jeans as a pretext for frisking.

    Last I checked, no-rise jeans are fashionable only for young women.

    I think these cops are using these pretexts for two purposes - (1) to manufacture probable cause and (2) to get to feel up people they'd ordinarily never have a chance at getting near.

    That, or Chief Dicks has decided he's the "morality" police, too.


    It's only a butt crack (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    It is a fold of skin caused by the meeting of the two largest muscles in the human body.  I really can't believe this, it is ridiculous.  And after two kids and now one grand baby, this is the house of butt crack.  There's butt crack around here in some form all the time.

    Well, of course... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    but I bet you cover butt when the company comes.

    Otherwise, I'mm calling your mom!


    If my butt crack looked like it did (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:09:05 PM EST
    ten years ago and I didn't notice that it was a bit saggy, you'd probably know what color my thong was oldpro.  Its really just a fashion thing and it will go away like all fashion things do.  I have always been fashionable.  I love fashion things, really loved them when I was younger and collected all sorts of friends who were the same and took fashion risks.

    Maybe it won't go away (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    It's been 35 years since Led Zeppelin first pointed out that the thong remains the same.

    Please don't say 'delve' in connection with this (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    ... because that just turns it into a Wedge Issue.

    (Good grief, this is impossible to discuss without creating more innuendo.)


    You might be onto to something with #2.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:59 PM EST
    I swear that the real reason the NYPD is so gung-ho on all their Big Brother cameras in NYC is so they can leer at good-looking women all day from their remote command trailers.

    I'm alwats tellin my teenage niece to cover up when in Manhattan...lest she end up on spanktravison.


    So, now it is pant profiling?? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    What I don't like and have been seeing a lot... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    ....of lately is dirty underwear underneath those saggy bottoms. When the "look" first started the young men seemed to be more conscious of making sure their underwear was as fashionable as their jeans. Nowadays, apparently, not so much.

    baggy pants (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by elizbethrc on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    I agree that at least the drawers should be clean!  It's obvious that everyone has pretty much become used to seeing crap dressing.
    I guess I just come from another era when people took pride in how they looked.  I miss those times.

    It's so dated too -- been around 10 yrs at least (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    Even more for the tres cool boneheads from back in the day. We -- I mean they -- used to wear that and then some, thinking we -- I mean they -- were all that for combining fancy schmantsy underpantsy stuff with baggy disgusting wreckage.

    Ah, those were the days of unity when boys and girls, straight and gay, black brown beige and lily white stood together in feelgood early Clinton era suckage.

    And yessss, combat boots made all of it  officially "ironic", adding an assault on language to the full court press on all that was good and decent in society.


    Race to the bottom! (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by davnee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    Apparently law enforcement and the saggy pants wearers in Flint, MI are engaged in a stupidity competition.  The winner is unclear.   Losers however abound.

    Comment of the week! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    I'd bet the farm nobody tops this one!

    If I could, I'd give you countless points.


    I'm just wondering (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    what Chief Dicks (*) will do about the plumbers.  Will he be cracking down on them, too?

    TL -  thanks so much for the h/t!
    *  Yes, the police chief is named Chief Dicks.  Can't make this up.

    This is what happens when (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    a city turns against itself.  These people are in terrible shape in Flint and the quality of life is generally pretty poor.  For whatever reason, when people find themselves in this type of situation, it seems that they turn against themselves...they need an outlet for the anger, they need to blame someone.

    I gotta tell ya (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    I might be an enabler of fascism, but I really don't have a problem with indecent exposure statutes.  Keep that butt crack covered, thanks.

    My God Man! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    Who is going to fix my sink now? What about baby's butts?  What about Coppertone?

    My baby (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    has a very cute tushie, and no cop would ever have the guts to issue her a ticket for a saggy diaper.  That said, I expect her to change her dressing habits at some point before adulthood.

    Why? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    Baby butt crack good? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    Old plumber butt crack bad?  Teenage butt crack bad?  That's age discrimination!

    Hey (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    The baby gets to run around topless too!  I hope she's enjoying her freedom while it lasts.

    NY State (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    Topples is allowed for men and women.  Not too common though, for obvious reasons.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    I am sympathetic to the gender discrimination and racial profiling arguments that go along with this stuff.  I'd just mention, New York also lets you marry your first cousin.

    Not A Problem (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    Genetically first cousins are far enough apart. My grandparents were first cousins something quite common in Russia, and my mother was a genius, a bit crazy but genius nonetheless..

    First Cousins (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    Look around at most of the world and you will see that marrying first cousins is not only quite common but actually encourage in many cultures. The risk of birth defects is slightly more than two random parents, but still very minute. It's more of a problem when there are dominant genes passing bad traits (hemophelia, CP, Spina Bifeda, etc...) The risk of birth defect in infants is about the same for first cousins as is for women over the age of 42 (there are books, I'm not going to link).

    The history of why first cousin marriage is taboo in this country is actually quite fascinating in a social-anthropoligical manner. It has more to do with 19th century health nuts, ethnic assimilation, and mocking of the mating habits of southerners AFTER the civil war.


    C'mon Steve.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    throw off those shackles of puritanism....I'm not one to question mother nature's design of the human butt-crack:)

    I can't help myself (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    There are too many people in the world that I don't want to see naked.

    Freedom means... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    seeing things you don't wanna see, hearing things you don't wanna heat, and generally being offended on the regular.

    Isn't it glorious?


    Not really (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    I continue to share the anti-freedom, anti-butt crack agenda of most Americans.  Hey, don't forget my freedom to pass laws that ruin your fun.

    The Bill of Rights.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    is supposed to protect me and my butt-crack from the tyranny of your anti-freedom majority.

    Even that glorious document has its flaws....too bad the British didn't crack down on crack, maybe there would be an extra amendment.


    It's a beautiful thing isn't it? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    Freedom's just another word for ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    ... nothing left too loose.

    If fashion crimes become actionable, my counsel could always argue that I'm not a chronic offender but a huge victim. If the jury doesn't buy the argument that the vid is blury, then I can always blame that b@stard Gaultier.

    Fashion victims unite!


    The whole High School will be in prison (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    What about displaying the "thong" above low waisted jeans?  Young soldier wives will be loading up the jail.  This is a for profit legality right?  Flint is low on funds?  What if I decide to wear a bra as a top like on Seinfeld?

    What about bra straps? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    You see plenty of those these days too.

    Cleavage = (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    highfalootin butt crack

    Watch it Ladies.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    you're gonna give the legislative wizards in Flint more brilliant ideas.



    I think people who have their drawers (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:00:54 PM EST
    (i.e. underwear for those not in the know) showing are pretty silly, but it doesn't affect me so I don't care.  This really is an excuse for the illegal search and will disproportionately affect inner city youths of certain colors.  My guess is this is gonna get thrown out w/all the other false outrages that are aimed at hip-hop culture.  I notice women who wear low-rise jeans that allow a little bit of hips to show aren't in the article's examples.  

    Not that there's anything wrong w/that :-) /s

    ok, this is a joke, right? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:08:57 PM EST
    chief Dicks is going to be enforcing butt crack displays in public? something tells me this is his final, raging, sputtering act of stupidity, before (forced) retirement.

    how much do you suppose the lawsuits resulting from this are going to cost the city, and its insurers?

    last year, a va legislator attempted to introduce a bill making it a crime to be seen with your underwear showing in public. apparently, he'd gotten a couple of complaints from constituents about it, and decided it was best for the entire state.

    it got laughed out of the capitol bldg.

    Um. It's quite serious. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    And Chief Dicks is the Brand Spanking-new Police Chief.

    Sorry.  Couldn't resist.


    You Must Mean (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

    Nope. This is in Flint, Michigan. (none / 0) (#81)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    Sheriff Arpaio is in Phoenix, Arizona.

    But Spanking (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    (and enforced pink undies) Is his thing not Dicks.

    BTW- I was riffing on your riff....


    Jail? Sheesh... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    talk about an overreaction to bad taste.

    It's all tacky, tacky, tacky.

    And that's final.

    Love, a fifties Mom (who knows it's hopeless to fight fashion rebellion by teens).  Snickering and snorting are probably good responses from adults to one another.  The kids just want attention and to offend adults.

    Never give 'em the satisfation, I say.

    one has to wonder (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    how many people in Flint struggle with their weight and have a difficult time finding pants that don't constantly drift down over their backsides due to their large stomachs.

    Will they be fined as well?  Or is this only for those black youth the police are wanting to search?

    It's a monumental law suit waiting to happen.

    Cute on some, but then I'm going to wear my speedo (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jerry on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    And often times, as I walk around, you can't even see my speedo....

    (I heard that somewhere over the weekend.)

    But I have mixed feelings about sagging and I have mixed feelings about the cops going around giving tickets for it.

    There are a lot of issues in this involving free speech and when society can or cannot limit free speech and involving the nature and function of clothes, but for this post, I think that it's part of a dubious argument, Jeralyn for you you to include the part about where certain people think it's cute when others do it.

    If this weren't about a group of mostly thin kids doing this, if this were about a group of older, and fatter people wearing their speedos, would people be using the argument of "cute makes right?"

    To the extent that sagging extends and glorifies a pro-criminal, pro-prison culture (where sagging arose), I think it enters justifiable free speech grounds, but I also think that the last thing society needs is to encourage pro-prison, pro-criminal messages.

    Should the cops be ticketing for that?  I just don't know.  I want to say of course not, but these days, and in a society this large, it is very difficult for better forms of socialization to occur without other threats of legal action or violence even.

    So maybe I'm just too old, or just don't get the joke, but what is the harm of sagging?  Well, I think that the pro-prison, pro-crime message is one that we really don't need.

    How will us old people have fun? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    I would much rather shake my cane (metaphorically, folks) at these kids and comment to my peers about how WE never would have dressed in such a ridiculous fashion when WE were young. Of course, when I was young the fashions involved big feathered hair (both sexes), jeans you couldn't breathe in, and lots of spandex and leather. When they stop wearing underwear, I'll worry about the pants around the knees trend. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy giggling when their pants actually fall down around their ankles and they're frantically grabbing at them (seen it <g>).

    Actually, come to think of it, women's fashions are getting a bit scary and threatening, too. We aren't wearing jeans around our knees, but it's darn near impossible to find jeans that fit at the waist nowadays, and we're not all qualified to wear hip huggers.

    See (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    I was just talking about this to someone the other day when I told them I realized I was old (at 39) because I have the urge to go over to kids who wear their pants like this and say, "Son, pull up you pants - no one wants to see that." (Yes, I want to call them son).

    Probable cause (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by roy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    It will be interesting to see, after a few months, what percentage of such "probable cause" searches actually uncover evidence of a real crime.  Then ask Dicks how 5% or so is "probable".

    I doubt this is actually a decency, culture, or even race issue.  It's about selective enforcement giving cops a way to hassle and imprison people they think might be up to no good, without having to worry about piddly things like genuine probable cause or evidence.  Just as well to make it against the law to be a human being.

    Good to see ya Roy..... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    freedom needs all the friends she can get around the comment section lately.

    But (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    It is perfectly fine to walk around in shorts, or a bathingsuit?  Seems crazy and quite unconstitutional to me.

    It's fine to walk around in a brazilian (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:57:02 PM EST
    bikini with a brazilian wax, but don't be showing us your drawers.  One of my best friends in high school in the 80's used to wear guys boxer shorts with pumps.  What would they do with her?

    If I Designed For (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    Comme des Garcons I would jump on this ASAP. Let's see them start arresting gazillionaires. Oh, there are none in Flint? OOps

    Butt.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    Did you mean but or butt, Squeaky?

    I Meant Butter (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    For Cap'n Dicks.  Better.

    A Good Counter Insurgency Measure (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Would for them all to start wearing burkas.

    My question is (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    if they hit you with a larger fine for showing your buttocks as opposed to merely showing your underwear, would that be considered a crack sentencing disparity?

    Should nurses get extra bonuses (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    for having butt cracks imposed upon them?  What about the poor doctors?

    Sorta support this (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    Sagging orignally comes from not being able to wear a belt in jail.  It is a glorification of crime and prison.  And unfortunately it is destroying our community.

    I live in Detroit, and was walking my dog next to a school that had basketball hoops that must be 15 ft high (standard is ten).  There was a kid (black) shooting hoops and I commented on the height of the hoop, he said they were jail house type hoops with a grin and smile. Children should never think of prison with a smile.

    On a political note, I can only hope that Obama can make just a few more kids in my town switch their frame of reference.

    The drug war.... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    is part of the reason prison became cool.

    So instead of banning bagy jeans and giving the youth another reason to despise authority, maybe repealing drug prohibition would do more to raise the pants line.


    100% agree (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    The true problem is not sagging pants or any other fashion statement.  But the true problems are too expensive to fix, and often to great for a local agent to fix by him or herself.  (This by the way is the ultimate lie about the conservative movement, that you can solve the true underlying problem by stopping stuff like this, thus allowing them to cut dollars from the programs, like headstart that are acting to trully solve the problem.) So you go have the small stuff you can fix?  I am not sure it works, but what else can you do (that is a serious question- I have no political agenda at all here.  Just a simple man looking for some very hard answers :)  

    I hear ya man... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    I never have answers...just questions:)

    I'll go one further...I'm not even sure what problem this is supposed to rectify.  Gang culture?  General crime?  Beats the sh*t out of me....whatever it is I'll lay 100-1 it don't work.


    In my book (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    it makes a difference to me that the police chief is black, although I don't know that much about him.  I'm enough of an old fart to think that kids of all races can use a little more self-respect, but I feel awkward when it's something like a bunch of old white guys in the NBA front office telling a bunch of black ballplayers the permissible way to dress.

    I'm sure I'll never be in love with youth fashion no matter how it changes, but I draw the line at exposing yourself.  Now, if someone tells me this is how Hitler got his start, I'd find that unfortunate.


    You don't sound all that different... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    from the loons who demand women wear burquas.

    They are all bent out of shape over "exposure" too.

    It's just an arse bro.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    and Hitler tied his shoes, so really, you've got more in common with Hitler than you think.

    Thanks for demonstrating what a total lack of perspective looks like.  Because if you agree with laws against indecent exposure, you might as well be a Muslim fundamentalist.  Persuasive.


    Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    ...Godwin Law and Loadpant logic all in one!  Heck of a job.

    Throw in a pwn3d in there and you'd have a trifecta.


    Well (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    Comparisons to Muslim fundamentalists are pretty much the new Godwin violation, methinks.

    It's in perspective.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    you're just off by a few degrees.

    You and the muslim fundamentalists fear skin for whatever reason, they just fear more of it...no?


    I don't agree (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    but I fully support your freedom to make offensive and inaccurate comparisons.

    I will grant you.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:07:25 AM EST
    that both Hitler and I tied our shoes.

    But I never told anybody to cover up, unlike you and the mullahs:)


    Ironically, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    ...many of these kids buy their jeans so baggy that they have  to wear belts to keep their jeans securely positioned at butt crack level. So much for origins.

    While I can agree w/the chief's motives (none / 0) (#65)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    the method ain't gonna work.  True, this may have started in jail, most who do it today emulate [insert favorite pop/rap star here] and don't know that.  To me it's better to get at the root cause on why these kids feel the need to go this extreme to express themselves.  Criminalizing it certainly won't make it go away.  Every one of us remembers something from our youth we did to express ourselves (I surely remember some of my own fashion doozies,) that was frowned upon by our elders.  This is no different and representative of pop culture of the times.

    I used to walk around barefoot in the city... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    ....And my kids are shocked when I tell them that. Thongs and butt cracks and cleavage are okay, but barefeet on city sidewalks they found scandalous.

    Channelling your inner Wilma Flintstone (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    I bet.  :-)   /s

    We used to wear sneakers w/fat laces that we didn't tie.  As a result we used clump clump like clydesdale horses everywhere we went cuz our shoes were always slipping off our feet.


    sorry, (none / 0) (#83)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    used to clump clump....

    Not scandalous (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    Does seem a bit dangerous though.  I would definitely be afraid of stepping on something "unsavory".  My butt and cleavage aren't gonna give me tetanus due to air exposure.

    Similar to how I feel (none / 0) (#115)
    by Montague on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    Get at the root problems and address it from there.  It's similar to teenage girls dressing like prostitutes (or what used to pass for prostitute couture).  I dislike it intensely but I'd rather address it from the angle of educating girls to respect themselves as more than mere sex objects.  With these boys and their too-low pants (it's mainly boys, right? not girls?), it stems at least in part from emulating jail culture and arresting them isn't the answer.  (Although it's kind of ironic.)  Teaching boys in school to have self-respect - giving all children a good education so they can have real opportunities - is a better way to go.

    I don't think clothing laws (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    will fix social perceptions.  I know somewhat of what you speak.  I did a time when my daughter was a baby as a juvenile probation officer and I had a kid who was Latino and raised to glorify doing prison time.  Not an easy thing to address but clothing laws weren't going to provide me an open door to addressing some self destructive programming and goals.

    You make the civil libertarians' point for them (none / 0) (#97)
    by roy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:59:58 PM EST
    Or at least one of our points.  We're pointy.

    If this law is intended to fight the glorification of crime and prison life, then it's based on the premise that sagging is expressive.  It's also targetting sagging based on the message expressed by sagging.  So the law violates the First Amendment protection of free expression.

    Glorifying crime and prison is not a crime.  Crime is glorious!  Prison is glorious!  I'm not worried about the police coming to get me for saying that.  They can't, whether I say in words or in my pants.

    Also, how does declaring otherwise innocent people to be criminals and imprisoning them fight the glorification of crime and prison?


    Thats taking CYA (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    A little too literally if you ask me.

    With the problems that Congress has (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    these days we figure teach em young.

    that's where I wanted to go (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    with the joke.

    Shoulda stopped and asked for directions.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#73)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    You've gone WAY too continental.

    Isn't it "I see London, I see France"

    Ain't no Paree in those drawers.

    Times may change, but standards must remain.

    whoops (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    thanks for catching that, I meant London. Fixed now.

    I guess the kids will just have to wear (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    shorts under their pants instead of underwear.

    ..."under their sagging pants"... (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    Interesting.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    what exactly is the difference between a pair of boxers and a pair of shorts?  There is the trap-door in the front but not all boxers have the trap door, some have a button fly or no fly.

    Damn this gets confusing:)


    and then (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    there are thongs.

    'But Officer I was just flossin', I swear!' (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    Coin slot, laundry, overall personal hygiene ...

    The defense practically writes itself!

    (Gaaah thongs: my head can do a full 360, rapidly looking away from one to the next in horror.)


    Also (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    What constitutes "pants"?

    Cuz I mean, leggings definitely stop below the butt.  Also, does this law affect mini skirts where you can see the bottom of the butt, or is it just the top half that's offensive?  And what about super-tight spandex where you can see the crack through the pants?


    Now Now (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    kdog, you are being much too sensible. In Flint, even if a kid wore a tuxedo under those baggy pants and let em droop too low they would get arrested.

    Dunno. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    The law says underwear. Plenty of thin, comfortable cotton shorts available with zippers and pockets and stuff.

    Arrest Em First (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    And then they have to prove that it is not underwear. Tough one considering that anything you wear under your wear (pants) is underwear by definition.

    G-d, if only (none / 0) (#90)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:48:05 PM EST

    they could enact laws like this everywhere.  I'm so sick of seeing asses I don't want to see.  And believe me, you can see asses barely covered by the thin sheets of material that make up some of those boxers.  It is the worst kind of "fashion statement" to ever hit young men, and that includes too-tight leopard print Speedos.

    Don't care if you're white, black, hispanic or purple...PULL YOU EFFING PANTS UP!

    And I am sick of (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    barking dogs in my neighborhood.  Does that mean people should be banned from having dogs?  And frankly, loud barking at 2am is waaaaaay more offensive than someone's ass that you don't really "see" and you can just look the other way.

    Dicks Lookin' For Deputies (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    Sounds like you are game..  Maybe you could convince him to include a good spanking in honor of Arpaio too....

    American preoccupation with.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    It's a symptom of our Puritanical roots..we are continually overexpressing long repressed needs...

    They hate us for our freedoms (none / 0) (#103)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    A ticket it a good way to learn that.

    Culture Laws are usually racist (none / 0) (#113)
    by baked potato on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    Or so it seems to me.  This doesn't appear to be any different.

    I did see a young man in Fairfield, CA, a few months ago with his underpants completely showing.  I thought it looked bizarre.  (Then again, I don't get out very much.)

    But illegal?  

    "Fashion police" indeed.

    Up to a year in prison for baaaad fashion? (none / 0) (#117)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:32:39 PM EST
    Is that a first?

    Just wondering.