Droopy Drawers Foes See Cracks in Opposition

After a Virginia state senator endured national ridicule for proposing a law banning low-slung pants two years ago, opponents of droopy drawers bans are gaining new momentum:

As states, cities, and activists across the country either outlaw or hold belt rallies to draw attention to the trend of "saggin'," Delcambre, La. (pop. 1,700) last week took the boldest step yet. Getting caught with one's pants too far down could now cost $500 in fines – or six months in jail – at least on this side of Bayou Carlin.

"It's just unbelievable what they do with their pants," says Carol Brous

[...]

Moreover, civic organizers in Atlanta, Detroit, Nashville, Tenn., and Birmingham, Ala., are planning antisagging rallies, says Pastor Dianne Robinson of Jacksonville, Fla., who last week handed out 78 donated belts at a "belt rally." "This sagging of the pants is to me a defiant act, and it has all kinds of implications," says Ms. Robinson, who is black. "If you can't get up in the morning and pull your pants up, that says a lot about you, even if I don't know anything about you."

"Saggers" generally have branded boxers on under their jeans, meaning this isn't about indecent exposure. These laws are aimed pretty squarely at hip-hop culture, and probably not constitutional.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Classic TV||

    So remember, kids, no defiant acts. And no implications!

    Here's to you, Ms. Robinson: [middle finger]

  • Chuck||

    I am not in favor of a ban. I am, however, in favor of pointing and laughing, and have practiced it myself on several occasions. It actually has some effect on the younger ones. Sometimes.

  • ||

    ...and probably not constitutional.

    Like that matters anymore.

    It's obviously more important to protect the children against the likes of Joe Boxer and Calvin Klein.

  • ||

    What about the Plumbers!!!!!

  • ed||

    Saggers, schmaggers. What about the penny loafers?
    My god! Have you seen the penny loafers?

  • ||

    "If you can't get up in the morning and pull your pants up, that says a lot about you, even if I don't know anything about you."

    Stereotypes are a real time saver.

  • ||

    What about the penny loafers?

    Do you wear, or have you ever worn, penny loafers or other coined footwear?

  • ||

    I say the real problem is with plummbers showing their butt cracks.

  • ||

    "Saggers" even sounds kinda like the racial slur it's obviously a gleeful euphamism for

  • Episiarch||

    My friends and I refer to these as "shitty pants". I can't see how they could possibly be banned and have it hold up in court.

    Teenage hip-hop douchebags don't generally have a lot of money for lawyers, though.

  • ||

    I'm with Chuck on this. When I was in college, frat boys liked to droop their madras bermudas below the waistbands on their boxers. This was every bit as annoying as the current trend. The solution at the time was to make vicious fun of them. I still recommend it. Get a few late-night comedians to make jokes about trying to hire a 15-year-old to fix his toilet based on the costume and it'll stop.

  • ||

    Well, under the wholesale totalitarianism of the Libertate household, every child is forcibly prevented from wearing such clothing.

  • ||

    Right, Jack. I think they prefer to be called "sagrroes".

    CB

  • Fluffy||

    It's kind of stupefying that Dianne Robinson doesn't realize that the purpose of law isn't to stop children that aren't hers from defying her.

    Note to self: Teach son to tell Robinson to go fuck herself.

  • ||

    Teenage hip-hop douchebags don't generally have a lot of money for lawyers, though.

    Don't worry; I'm sure Institute for Justice will take the case.

    I can't wait to see their ad on the back cover of Reason for that case. "Yo, I be gettin down wid da hip-hop style, but Delcambre be trippin, tellin me to pull my pants up, ayt. I took they asses to court and now I can wear my pants the way I wants to. I be IJ."

  • ||

    Banning is stupid, offensive even. However, I can't understand why this endures. As a passing fad, I can see it. But why hasn't this got old amongst those that do it? What is the attraction to having your waist band down around your knees? Even if you don't think it looks ridiculous (and that's a big concession) I'd think you'd just get tired of the inconvenience.

  • ||

    Pro L,

    What, are you guys in burkas?

    All,

    Sorry to call it, seeing as there is not thread winning anymore, but if crimethink didn't win this thread, there's no justice left in the world.

  • Rob||

    Chuck,

    Give that pointing and laughing a try on a corner in Baltimore...or SE DC....or Detroit....Might work on white, surburban wannabees at the mall, but I think it might backfire in a normal setting...

  • ||

    What is the attraction to having your waist band down around your knees? Even if you don't think it looks ridiculous (and that's a big concession) I'd think you'd just get tired of the inconvenience.

    The idea is the emulate the "jailhouse" look where your pants fall down and your sneakers are to loose because they took your belt and shoelaces to prevent you from hurting yourself or others.

    It's indeed a telling commentary on the hopelessness of life in the American underclass.

  • ||

    Sorry to call it, seeing as there is not thread winning anymore [...]



    What? Did I miss the proclamation? Where was it? Say it ain't so!

  • x,y||

    But why hasn't this got old amongst those that do it? What is the attraction to having your waist band down around your knees? Even if you don't think it looks ridiculous (and that's a big concession) I'd think you'd just get tired of the inconvenience.

    I'm not sure how it began, though Dan T.'s explanation is plausible.

    In my racially integrated HS (about 45% white, 45% black, 10% Hispanic/Asian/other), it seemed to be a matter of racial identification. IOW, you wore your pants that way not only because you were black, but also to emphasize your blackness. Whites/Asians/etc. who adopted this trend were just posers.

  • x,y||

    crimethink,

    The first thing I thought of when I read this was whether IJ would be on it.

  • ||

    I see no one is calling for the ban on low-riders, aka "muffin tops", or whale tales.

  • ||

    "The idea is the emulate the "jailhouse" look where your pants fall down"

    ... due to frequent involuntary bum sex.

  • ||

    The question is whether we judge proposed legislation like this by its intent or by its impact. If we go by intent, I would agree that this is pretty much targeted at hip-hop culture. However, if we go my impact, the proposed legislation is okay because current hip-hop trends are guaranteed to be rich white suburbanite trends six months down the road.

  • ||

    If you think banning an act of defiance makes a lick of sense, that says a lot about you, even if I don't know anything about you. [i.e., that you're dumb as hell, and perhaps need to look up the word 'defiance']

  • ||

    The first time I saw a guy with sagging pants, I thought "That guy has really nice shoes for a homeless person."

  • ||

    This is just another tax on the poor. Just wait until they find a designated program to receive the funds from the fines... oh boy
    *sorta joking*

    If we're going to go down this road, can we outlaw wearing too much makeup? The old ladies complaining about seeing boys underwear probably have penciled on eyebrows and super-orange cheeks and bright blue eye lids! AHHH! If ever there was a fashion crime that deserved fining...

    Unfortunately, it's not socially acceptable to point and laugh at them :(

  • Nephilium||

    Karen: It's been done... Dennis Leary did a bit on it...

    "It's called under-fucking-wear for a reason! Now pull up your pants!"

    It's part of his coffee flavored coffee bit...

    Nephilium

  • Episiarch||

    I see no one is calling for the ban on low-riders, aka "muffin tops", or whale tales.

    Uhh...because hot chicks wear them too. Politicians aren't stupid!*

    * even as a joke saying that hurt

  • ||

    Warren,

    Think of high-heeled shoes, powdered wigs, super-long fingernails, and foot binding. The purpose of a lot of fashion, throughout history, was to draw attention to the fact that the wearer didn't work - hence, he or she could go about dressed in a manner that made it physically impossible to work, and let everybody know that.

  • ||

    "Arrrggg! Look at these kids today and how they dress! It's soooooo stupid and silly".

    Don't we ALL sound just like our parents?

    CB

  • ||

    If nothing else, it seems counterproductive to pass a law to further alienate a group of people who are already alienated from mainstream culture..."let's piss off disaffected young men even more, maybe that will produce good results!"

  • Rhywun||

    Stereotypes are a real time saver.

    Yes, they are. That's why they're part of human nature.

  • VM||

    Think of high-heeled shoes, powdered wigs, super-long fingernails, [...]. The purpose of a lot of fashion, throughout history, was to draw attention to the fact that the wearer didn't work - hence, he or she could go about dressed in a manner that made it physically impossible to work, and let everybody know that.



    *thinks of some work where over-the-top fashion might be appropriate


    **points and laughs at people threatened by fashion

  • Robert||

    I've noticed that allowing underpants to show is offensive to many, even if it's a matter, not of pants being too low or small, but the underwear being too long and sticking out on top or below shorts. AFAICT it offends because it's symbolic nudity.

  • VM||

    **chortle**

  • ||

    Low-riders on girls are not aka "muffin tops." A muffin top is fat smooshed upwards above the waistline by people who don't have a good understanding of what fashion choice is flattering on them.

  • ||

    I worked in Delcambre one August and sweated so much, every square inch of my clothing was wet. I'm glad they didn't have that rule back then, as I had a hard time keeping my jeans on.

  • VM||

    The merkin + thong gives the tarantula and whale's tail. remember: it's the mullet of the 2000s (work in front, party in back).

    and it lends itself to "falcon and snowman" type of action!

  • Grandpa Simpson||

    Back in my day, droopy drawers were hold up by an onion belt, which was the style at the time.

    Anyone caught without an onion belt would get a spanking from the President.

  • Chuck||

    Rob--

    Point taken. On the other hand, I've been trying all morning to think of a reason why I would want to go to any of those places, and I'm stumped.

    Fashion is one thing. Only having one hand free because you have to hold your pants up with the other is, well, asinine (pardon the pun).

    Oh yeah, this is my last post here, because crimethink has already won.

  • Bill||

    "If you can't get up in the morning and pull your pants up, that says a lot about you, even if I don't know anything about you."

    Stereotypes are a real time saver


    Yeah, because most of the people who do this aren't total thugs, right. Give me a break. These people are deserved of all the ridicule heaped on them. Any fad they see on TV related to some stupid rap artist they emulate, whether it be the saggy pants, or the pants with one leg pulled up, the tags left on hats, etc. etc. The only thing these morons contribute is letting us know the color of their underpants.

  • Edward||

    "What, are you guys in burkas"

    I sure hope not. Only women wear burkas

  • highnumber||

    Edward,
    Do you have a problem with transvestism?


    For the record, I thought Jack & Cracker's Boy at 8:36am and 8:47am respectively had won the thread.

  • Bill||

    "It's indeed a telling commentary on the hopelessness of life in the American underclass."

    Showing your ass as profound social commentary? Ha,ha, yeah sure. Maybe if someone were to tell these idiots that emulating criminals was not the smartest of things instead of pandering by claiming that showing your crack is a noble form of civil disobedience, they wouldn't be in this situation. Are they modern day Martin Luther King Jr's waiting to compose "Boxers and briefs from a Birmingham jail"?

  • ||

    Burkas? No. Togas? Maybe.

  • lunchstealer||

    "If you can't get up in the morning and pull your pants up, that says a lot about you, even if I don't know anything about you."

    It's true. It is a statement. And it is a statement that they intend to make. And the reason that she wants to ban it is because she doesn't like the statement.

    Just like flag burning bans, this is all about silencing messages that you don't want to hear. Messages are protected under Amendment I.

    But so is pointing and laughing, so Chuck's solution is both constitutional, and possibly effective.

    But if you want it to stop completely, have white-bread establishment types - adopt this style on national TV. Once it gets 'accepted' by authority types, it will lose its appeal.

    If it gets banned, it's appeal goes up.

  • VM||

    TOGA!

    (note ProGLib singing and playin' the guitar to the ladies. Until High# comes along)

    GATOR!!!!!!!!!

  • thoreau||

    Actually, I thought that Radley won the thread with his remark about "cracks in opposition."

  • Allen||

    Does this apply to plumbers?


    It makes we want to go around and take pictures of all sorts of things that offend me. The start being the old guy doing brickwork on this building who despite his gigantic gut seems to have to unbutton his shirt whenever it's 80+.

  • ||

    Why do we need a law? Can't we just laugh hystericallya at them while we drive really slow past? I say let's embarass them into buying belts!

  • ||

    Now that we're taking action to stop baggy pants, maybe we can try to fix welfare or investigate Tupac's murder, since we're clearly TRAPPED IN THE EARLY 90s.

  • ||

    Doesn't anyone remember what it was like to be young and defiant? Other than the utter offensiveness of the current civic debate, I am hard pressed to understand why some of you even care what kids wear.

    Obviously, by the nature of much of this conversation, we have officially defined ourselves as old and uncool.

    If you want to give a crap what young people wear, why don't more people care about the very young girls who wear midrif shirts? Frankly, that should be more disturbing that a bunch of teen boys showing their boxers.

    And 80s hair? Where were the legistatures then?
    (Okay, but I am kind of serious about the midrif shirts. Should we really be sexualizing our tweens?)

  • ||

    Parents fall for this crap all the time. I wonder what the kids would do if mom and dad approved? Yo son, you look so dope. I'm gonna get me some of those pants. Maybe we can go together so you can make sure I don't end up looking like a clown if buy the wrong size. Fer shizzle, my chizzle.

  • ||

    another attribution to the primary mover in this trend, from a rapper from new orleans: the style began amongst impoverished children whose pants were purchased several sizes too large so that the children would not outgrow their clothes so quickly, a cost-cutting maneuver, or as he says "it's poverty man." it was then reinvented as a style because, of course, as a marker of poverty it either had to be accepted as dehumanizing or reinvented as cool, as has happened so often in african-american cultural trends that eventually spread to the mainstream, where their original associations with poverty were eventually either forgotten or downplayed.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement