2008.07.20
"Who wants to see a butt in public?"
I couldn't agree more with Minnie Boyd, an 81-year-old woman in my hometown of Flint, Mich. Boyd was responding to the interim police chief's decision to start arresting "saggers," men who walk around with sagging pants and exposed underwear (and butts).
If you recall, a few years back, a Virginina lawmaker introduced "droopy drawers" legislation in Virginia to clamp down on saggers. It didn't get anywhere. But in Flint, the chief has decided to act. Police are issuing warnings now but plan to start arresting "saggers" on a disorderly conduct charge, punishable by 93 days to a year in jail and fines of up to $500.
As much as I agree that sagging is totally disgusting, law enforcement acting as the fashion police is a waste of my family's tax dollars. The blue-collar town 70 miles north of Detroit has far, FAR bigger issues than going after clowns who want to go around showing off their boxers. It is the third most dangerous city in America, and recently laid off 48 officers.
Are Flint police right to clamp down on this fashion faux pas, or, as the ACLU already has chimed in, does this new local mandate violate saggers' freedom of expression?
This seems like a simple call. Disorderly Conduct is hardly the proper charge, but if the locale has an ordinance against BARE buttocks, breasts, etc., they have every right to enforce indecent exposure laws. Merely exhibiting underwear, distasteful though it may be to most of us, probably fits within the freedom of expression category, and I believe most of the state supreme courts would so rule. Accordingly, any statutory attempt to ban the display of underwear would likely be struck down. I hate to find myself on the side of the ACLU on most issues, but this time they probably have it right.
Comment by Mike — July 21, 2008 @ 2:42 am
I will agree with Flint. And I would think the ACLU would have better things to worry about.
"Sagging" isn't only a fashion faux pas, it could be considered indecent exposure.
Who wants to look at someones boxers or even worse, their behind!
This also should apply to the females who wear low cut jeans/shorts/whatever, with a thong showing.
Go get um, Flint. I wish Virginia had the nerve.
Comment by Mary — July 21, 2008 @ 7:40 am
OK......the police are NOT the fashion police.....the police are there to save and serve is in our time of need. Keeping us from seeing someone's joe boxers or their bare behind is NOT their job. I agree with Shanna that this is a waste of tax payer's money. It also takes police away from more important issues like real crime......This country is so caught up in appearances and the fact that bare skin is shameful. I do understand that this country was and still is, very caught up in religion, however, at some point someone needs to look at this issue and ask....is someone's bare behind really causing that much of a public disturbance OR threat to humanity???????........every decade has had it's fads and fashions...I am sure the parents of the 60's as well as those who didn't believe in the cause found bare breasted women (no bras) horrifying and wanted them to strap those things back in and tuck them away.........did that freedom hurt our country....i think not.....so lighten up people......and besides...today fashions are currently dictating the "preppier" look in fashion.....so once Roanoke and these smaller areas catch up with the real world.....it will have moved on to something else!
Preppy (or something reflective of it) is back in!? Cool! Seriously. That was hot when I was in college. Preppy is a nice, clean look.--s
Comment by reed — July 21, 2008 @ 7:58 am
There are more important things than this inane attempt to regulate fashion.
I think it is funny to watch these guys try to walk and hold their pants up while trying to look "cool". The girls with the thongs showing
need their mothers to still dress them. Less is not better.
Nuffer raises a valid, equal-time point. Several months ago, this blog wrote: "Girls can be fashionable without looking like hoochie mamas in training."--s
Comment by A Nuffer — July 21, 2008 @ 8:42 am
I agree with Mike above on this one..if bare buttocks are showing then it could be an issue of indecent exposure, but I'm not sure that necessarily equals disorderly conduct, unless perhaps a disturbance has been caused by somebody's causing a disturbance by the showing of skin. Even that seems like a stretch though...
Comment by Jennifer — July 21, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
You mention Flint's "bigger issues" of being the third most dangerous city in America (crime rate) and police layoffs. I feel that when freedom of speech is taken so far as to border on the obscene, this instills anger in citizens, which leads to an increase in the crime rate. ALso, I feel that these people who are allowed to express themselves in this manner feel that if they can get away with this type of expression, then they feel they can get away with a lot worse, such as robbery and assault, thereby increasing the crime rate. How about letting Flint enforce morality, and watch the crime rate decrease?
Flint's problems are not the result of pushing the limit on fashion expression but the lack of economic opportunity --- and the hopelessness that breeds.
Comment by Mike Wolfe — July 22, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
The first time I saw this fad was over 20 years ago on a trip to Ocean City, MD. I was in a 7-11 and saw some girls come in with their shorts pulled down so that you could see their bathing suits underneath. It was tacky then and it's tacky now. But it's not disorderly conduct and not necessarily indecent exposure.
Schools, restaurants, public buildings, etc. should be able to have and implement dress codes, but localities should not. It would have the potential to become too restrictive. What would be next?
On the other hand, if the butt or something else is actually showing then it should be treated like indecent exposure.
Comment by Dana — July 22, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Has anyone shown this thread to Virginia Tech football's Eddie Royal et al? Apparently, men's underwear "rocks" at the Frank Beamer Ladies' Clinic.
Comment by Mike — July 22, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
I think this is ridiculous. I can think of plenty of more things my tax dollars could go to such as building up people; helping to create jobs, housing, increasing the education rate, taking care of our military men/women and their families. This has completely gone too far. I see it as a freedom of expression. Sure, it is tasteless and I don't nor would I let my children (if I had any) dress inappropriately but you can't just start putting laws on everything and enforcing minor things that do not matter. And as for Mike, I disagree with you. Flint's problems are not a cause that has stemmed from the dress code, it is caused from lack of opportunities, lack of jobs, scarcity of resources, lack of knowledge and education and a feeling of entrapment or no way to escape and rise above the circumstances that the people are in. Sagging your pants has nothing to do with it. If VA does incorporate this law then I would like for it to have rules and stipulations that affect both sexes. As much as people complain about young men sagging their pants and or showing their butts, I don't want to see another women's butt either because her pants are too low and she is showing her underwear or butt either. Not to mention women who wear skimpy dresses and shirts showing their behinds and breasts. So if they are going to make this a law then it needs to include certain levels and limits of what is and what is not appropriate. You can't just go after one without going after the other also. That is where the discrimination comes into play. So if it is considered indecent exposure then all levels of inappropriate exposure should be included.
As Shanna said earlier let's leave it up to schools and public buildings to enforce their own dress codes. The police handling this matter is ridiculous. People are getting robbed, beaten, murdered, abused, etc. everyday let's go after them and leave the people with the freedom to express themselves alone. If you don't like the way someone is dressed, don't look, they may not like something about you either.
Comment by LaSonya — July 23, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Another example of the ever growing police state we are brainwashed into believing is the "greatest country on earth". How or even IF a person wears their pants is NO business of the state. And don't come back with the tired old cliche of "if you don't like it leave it" Washington, Adams, Jefferson etc didn't like it either and where would we be if they had all just "left? And I am sure no "state" told those youth how to wear their pants either.
Comment by Percy Kution — July 27, 2008 @ 12:04 am
If flashing of body parts is not a proper concern for law enforcement, are you folks content to have those guys in trench coats stop by the elementary school and display their "wares" to your children and grandchildren during recess?
And if your answer is NO, the law has to be applied equally between the sexes.
Comment by Mike — July 28, 2008 @ 12:13 am