www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sagging Pants BANNED

Thank God I haven't seen the extreme which is mentioned in this article, but I have seen women kneel down for something with low pants, which reveals their thong underwear!

I also know that teen boys for the last ten years around here wear their pants a little baggy and low enough to show the elastic waistband of their underwear...

and I can't help but giggle when I see some teens wear the pants so low that they look as if their pants are falling down, because it must be very uncomfortable to sit down when your pants are slung at your thigh!!!! LOL!!!

Teens are SO silly!!!

In all seriousness though, a civilized culture is defined by many things, and one of them is how its people dress.

I understand that there was a time when wearing shorts was against the law in NYC, and women wore dresses and skirts to the supermarket! That was the civilized era of the 1950's.

It was a good sign last year last summer when knee length skirts were all the rage for women, including teens..but alas, fashion changes way too quickly now, and there is big money to be made, so things are always changing...in other words, I don't see fashion trends (conservative ones vs. liberal ones) as a sign of the times. Society will never be as homogeneous again as it was in the 1950's.

Alice

I think it was more civilized then because it was more modest and I'm old enough to remember.

When male students come to my class with pants around ankles I take them off to the side and tell them to pull up their pants and tell them why.

When female students have pants that show their bare bottoms I ask a secretary or other female employee to speak to them.

CDL

I totally agree with you about the modesty of the 50's and I think that it was a VERY good thing.

It reflected a more civilized and respectful culture, not an crass and ugly one like today's.

I love to watch old movies for just that reason, and I think that people looked alot more appealing in the 40's and the 50's. I remember the early 60's when my grandfather still wore a suit everyday with a fedora hat, and my grandmother ALWAYS wore a dress or skirt. I really, really think that was nice. It didn't matter if you were skinny or heavy, women (and men) still looked proper and appealing in those type of clothes. There was a sense of self respect in clothing and dress. I admit that I personally love fashion, having worked in the industry, and growing up in NYC, but I see it abused and misused, and 'tasteful' is not an adjective one can use too frequently these days.

Getting back to the 1950's, I also liked that university students dressed like adults and thus, acted like adults, rather than the immature children they are today. I keep on hearing the rationalizing mantra that "Thirty is the new twenty".

Regards,
Alice

Another reason to not allow baggy pants is that they easily hide weapons.

ALICE:

Funny you should run this topic. We were visiting our daughter last weekend in Scranton, PA, and observed two young men who had their pants belted under their buttocks so that the bulk of their underwear showed not just the waistband. My wife almost fell over at seeing this on the street and in a mall. We kept wondering if they pants would fall around the ankles.

Later we observed this same thing modeled (not on a live person) in a men's clothing store. Needless to say, we felt as if we'd lived a VERY sheltered life.

BOB

Some bars here in Wichita ban baggy pants...so if anyone with saggy or baggy pants are NOT allowed inside...and would be thrown out of the bar.

Yes, baggy pants hide weapons very well...

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

PS, I find it utterly ridiculous when I see some teens walking on the street with their pants practically down...and they're walking as if they pooped their pants! Geesh!

Yes, baggy pants do hide deadly weapons extremely well and, as my old law professor used to quack, dead weapons as well!

SPD:

That's because they've restricted the natural movement of their legs in the hip socket. Try putting a belt down that low or a rope and walk around the house a little. See what I mean?

BOB

Well don't forget we still have double decker buses.

I just about split my sides watching these silly kids trying to go up and down the stairs - they have suuuuuuuuuuuch problems.

There should be a Health and Safety Warning attached to them

LOL! LOL! LOL!

I think what PO's me is that I grews up poor without welfare and I must say all of us lived with the shame of never having new clothes to wear. They were always used clothes from Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army and they looked like it. I went to collage just as it became "fashionable" for young people to dress slovenly. I would not do it. It always seemed to me that the yuppy snots were mocking those of us who were truely poor. Now my tax money goes to pay for these lazy people to dress like immodest slobs. I pray that someday the anger will completely subside from me over this. I do feel sorry for these people who I sense consider themselves to be of no worth, but I do admit that a bit of anger and shame still niggles at my mind every time I see it.

CDL

What makes you think that your tax money is paying for their clothing?

Truth be told, those baggy pants tend to be quite expensive. You'll usually notice meticulously cared for shoes peaking out from underneath of them.

In the case of girls' thongs, they are often paying $10-20 a pair for the skimpy things, which come in a variety of colors to match every outfit and mood.

In both genders, their fingernails are often smooth and well-cared, just like their well detailed cars and hair.

The youth who dress like that often spend a great deal of money on their appearances and most work honest jobs to do so. Immodest, yes. Slobs, no.

The clothes are often disrespectful of themselves and their bodies, are potential health and safety hazards, and are quite often obscene. None of that has to do with your tax dollars, though. Except if you count the salaries of the police in the city linked above who will now be fining and arresting the youth whose parents haven't taught them basic self-respect, modesty, and decency.

Wondering,

You are doubtless correct about most of them. But I do know that some do not have jobs. They spend their welfare checks or at least part of them on stupid clothes.

What constitutes a slob? I'm not completely clear but they certainly dress like slobs.

CDL

Since a slob is one who exhibits 'rude or obnoxious behaviour' (which some of these young people probably do), perhaps a more accurate word for you would be 'sloppy'!

slop�py �adjective, -pi�er, -pi�est.

1. muddy, slushy, or very wet: The field was a sloppy mess after the rain.
2. splashed or soiled with liquid.
3. careless; loose: sloppy writing.
4. untidy; slovenly: sloppy clothes; a sloppy eater.
5. overly emotional; gushy: sloppy sentimentality.
6. (of food or drink) prepared or served in an unappetizing way.
7. (of clothes) loose-fitting; baggy: a big, sloppy sweater.
8. (of the surface of a racetrack) wet from a recent or continuing heavy rain and containing puddles and mud still too thin and watery to be sticky.

Alice