Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The War on Thongs
Droopy drawers that bare skin or underwear might soon be forbidden fashion on the streets of Alexandria and Shreveport, and violators could be forced to part with some cash.
"I'm tired (of) looking at behinds," Shreveport Councilwoman Joyce Bowman said after Tuesday's 4-3 vote to ban fanny-flaunting trousers.
Nobody can be arrested just for violating the ordinance, but they could be fined or required to perform community service. The maximum fine for a first offense is $100.
Alexandria's City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the baring. Its ordinance allows some sag, but 3 inches or more can bring a fine of $25 to $200 and a requirement for community service.
Here's a fun activity for the last, sleepy week of August: Design a law that's even more biased against otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
|8.29.07 @ 3:12PM|#
I could get behind a law against thongs bigger than size 6, but a total ban? That's insane.
Episiarch|8.29.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
Make graduated statuatory rape laws where if you have sex with
someone more than one year older or youger than you, you are guilty
of rape. Or make it sex with someone who is not the same age
(year).
Or go the whole hog and make sex with anyone under 18, no matter by
whom, illegal.
This is fun! And sort of sickening because it doesn't seem that
farfetched.
|8.29.07 @ 3:16PM|#
OK it's stupid. However, indecent exposure is a crime
everywhere. One could look at this as just a matter of drawing the
line between legal and illegal.
The fine part is what really bothers me. When the penalty for
breaking the law is the government gets money, then law enforcement
becomes more about fund raising than about standards of decency
(traffic safety, whathaveyou).
|8.29.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Its ordinance allows some sag, but 3 inches or
more...
What's the reference point for the 3 inch sag?
To piss off old guys I'd outlaw any wearing of pants where the
waistband is above the navel.
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
Outlaw texting.
Timothy|8.29.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Curfew laws. Laws about how many passengers a teenager can have in his/her car.
Ryo|8.29.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
Ban violent video games. Or at least selling them to teenagers.
|8.29.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
Call it the Reason Law: all communties must be governed according
to rules decided upon by people outside that community.
|8.29.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"However, indecent exposure is a crime
everywhere."
Yeah, but here it's a crime even if there is no exposure.
The law applies to revealing one's boxers.
You want to destroy teen culture? Ban bikinis at the beach. Nobody
wants to look at some pubescent, nubile, smooth skinned,
glistening, oiled, tanned young girl in the prime of her life. It's
disgusting.
|8.29.07 @ 3:25PM|#
"Baseball Hats cannot be worn at an angle greater than 15 degrees from centered over the nose"
|8.29.07 @ 3:32PM|#
"fanny-flaunting trousers"
What's a fanny in American? In British it has a different, though
not wildly dissimilar, meaning.
|8.29.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Call it the Reason Law: all communties must be governed
according to rules decided upon by people outside that
community.
I have to admit that I laughed out loud at this Dan T comment...it
does beg the question at what age a teenager ought to have the
right to vote on local issues/elect representation in local
govts.
|8.29.07 @ 3:36PM|#
You know, they could be somewhat reasonable and make everyone dress for their body type. My guess is that most of the people on that city council would have to leave the house wearing a burlap sack.
|8.29.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Outlaw texting.
To be specific, outlaw texting except in cases where you make a big
show that you are about do something radical and cutting-edge (e.g.
"Excuse me, but I am about to send a 'text message' on my
'Blackberry', please step aside")
Also, outlaw use of the term "Whatever"
|8.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#
at what age a teenager ought to have the right to vote on
local issues/elect representation in local govts.
Teenagers!? Hell, I say we move the voting age up to 35.
|8.29.07 @ 3:39PM|#
His Trollness Dan T. speaketh. All hail His Holiness Pope
Trollius the Ist!
In all seriousness, how can fucktards like these councilpeople
think to themselves, "why, of course, it's completely within my
purview to regulate how people wear their clothes. And it's
productive to boot" is beyond me.
gaijin:
it does beg the question .
No it doesn't, it RAISES the question...either way, I don't think
that's what his Trolliness was going for.
|8.29.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Hey Warren, we could jump on the next "old people" thread and come up with a ceiling after which you cannot vote. That'll get that socialist security thing taken care of!
|8.29.07 @ 3:42PM|#
What's a fanny in American?
Fanny = butt, caboose, derierre, badonkadonk, tushy, etc.
It covers the entirety of the butt area including the cheeks, the
crack, and the anus itself. It extends horizontally from hip bone
to hip bone and vertically from just below the waist to the
taint.
Mike Laursen|8.29.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
The Skin Blemish Criminalization Act of 2007?
|8.29.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Ayn Randian:
In all seriousness, how can fucktards like these councilpeople
think to themselves, "why, of course, it's completely within my
purview to regulate how people wear their clothes. And it's
productive to boot" is beyond me.
That's just a failure of imagination...the council was elected to
represent their local constituents, many of whom are parents of the
dress code warrior's targets. When the people delegate their
authority to those they elect, it isn;t really hard to imagine
this...which was also the reason I raised the question 'At what age
should a teenager have the vote (and thus, the power to
represent/elect representation of themselves?).
Nubile young thing|8.29.07 @ 3:49PM|#
What if there were no underwear to bare? If there is no hair
down there, and no bare derriere, where oh where do they start
measuring the 3 inches from?
Do they measure sitting or standing?
I can't sit down without flashing whale tail, but for $100 I'd just
leave the thong at home and hope that bare crack was less obvious
than black thong.
The Extispicator|8.29.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers:
This reminds me of a client who wanted our help (I am an attorney)
re-writing his employee handbook. He employed a lot of teenagers
and wanted to ban dreadlocks, cornrows, and afros. I said, "So,
essentially, you want all your blacks to be bald?"
|8.29.07 @ 4:04PM|#
What if there were no underwear to bare? If there is no hair
down there, and no bare derriere, where oh where do they start
measuring the 3 inches from?
Drinking colloidal silver and wearing blue jeans would throw them
off for a while.
|8.29.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Thanks, de stijl. In British it's the opposite body part (for females).
Likewise Australia.
Also, if the subject of the conversation is a sporting event do
not, I repeat, do not ask your Australian friends which side they
are rooting for.
|8.29.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Ruthless,
No. Especially plumbers. I mean I don't want to be assualted in my
own house with that! There oughtta be a law!!
|8.29.07 @ 5:32PM|#
I understand the 'bob' can be British for 'dildo' Which really makes you wonder about that common British expression "Bob's your uncle, fanny's your aunt"
|8.29.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Will the Institute for Justice be representing the plumber's union in a restraint of trade action?
Paul|8.29.07 @ 7:07PM|#
Call it the Reason Law: all communties must be governed
according to rules decided upon by people outside that
community.
?!!
Dude, you so opened yourself up on this one. But I'm a'gonna let it
pass. I'll let the others wail on ya.
|8.29.07 @ 7:56PM|#
Have any other posters here noticed how cleavage for breasts may
extend to the naval? This is allowable on the red carpet for
nationally televised arts award programs among other
occasions.
Shouldn't butt cleavage therefore be allowed down to the back of
the knees?
Join me in supporting butts/bums/fannies rights.
Akira MacKenzie|8.29.07 @ 7:59PM|#
Teenagers!? Hell, I say we move the voting age up to
35.
I have a better idea. The problem is that these lifestyle laws
result from actions of crotchy, calcified, and--dare I say
it--senile idividuals. These are people who have forgotten what's
it like to be young and pine for the "good old days" and
"taditional values" that never were. People who haven't been
sexually aroused for decades.
Such people are an anathema to freedom since they can and do use
their political clout to get their age-inspired tyrannies enacted
into law.
Therefore, I propose a MAXIMUM age limit to vote or hold public
office. I suggest something reasonable like say... 45.
Freedom is to important to let the old farts ruin it all.
|8.29.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Isn't it bad enough that government in the Anglo-Saxon countries regulate every aspect of our lives already but where young people are concerned the intrusive sex laws...They need more Statutory Rape laws.
|8.29.07 @ 8:22PM|#
"The problem is that these lifestyle laws result from actions of
crotchy, calcified, and--dare I say it--senile idividuals. These
are people who have forgotten what's it like to be young and pine
for the "good old days" and "taditional values" that never were.
People who haven't been sexually aroused for decades."
Akira,
I resemble most of that remark.
Nevertheless: Freedom for bums, bosoms and farts say I!
|8.29.07 @ 8:55PM|#
"obody wants to look at some pubescent, nubile, smooth skinned,
glistening, oiled, tanned young girl in the prime of her life. It's
disgusting."
That's right! There ought to be a law against tempting all those
horny middle-aged men into becoming pedophiles!
Heck, there ought to be a law against showing off the prime of life
to any of those retentive fat-assed, saggy-boobed, life-hating
aging baby boomers electing these nitwit "representatives",
protectors of public decency.
|8.29.07 @ 9:01PM|#
"to any of those retentive fat-assed, saggy-boobed, life-hating
aging baby boomers electing these nitwit "representatives",
protectors of public decency."
Will other old farts out there join me in heading off this lynch
mob at the pass? I'm gettin' nervous.
James Quentin Clark|8.29.07 @ 9:16PM|#
"I'm tired (of) looking at behinds," Shreveport Councilwoman
Joyce Bowman said after Tuesday's 4-3 vote to ban fanny-flaunting
trousers.
She should stop looking at behinds, then.
This kind of crap makes me glad I live in Tokyo. Thank god for a
country where mandatory school uniform laws make girls where skirts
that fall a centimeter from their asses. The way girls dress in
downtown Tokyo at night would in America get them all locked up
which, if my extensive research on women's prison conditions are
any indication, would be pretty sweet also.
|8.29.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Ruthless,
I appreciate your concern. I'm 57, well almost. What makes me think
I'd be excluded? Well, I'm not fat-assed (says my wife), obviously
unable to be saggy-boobed and I love life. Chances are nobody would
ask me for details, I'd just be lumped in with the crowd after a
quick look at what's left of my grey hair. But I'll be damned if I
ever give in to these assholes passing these
asinine laws and their supporters F-em-all!
|8.29.07 @ 9:33PM|#
"after a quick look at what's left of my grey hair."
martin,
I was tempted to respond that everything is to the left of my grey
hair because I'm to the right of Atilla the Hun.
But I can't, because I'm a peaceful anarchist, which obviously
means I'm fair and balanced and loving.
(I still have ALL my grey hair... neener neener.)
|8.29.07 @ 9:34PM|#
"I'm tired (of) looking at behinds,"
Wonder why she doesn't have a problem with all those pumpkin-shaped
asses plainly enhanced by tight, but properly pulled up, knit
stretch shorts, swayed about on naked varicose vein-outlined stumps
all of which is topped by a football which in turn is hugged by a
pair of inverted pears, barely obscured by a tank top with 2 pairs
of straps, one of which is of another color. Now that's an obscene
get-up! All visible at many a store all summer long. - YUK -
I bet her problem is that the sexy teenagers might become objects
of lust while nobody in their right mind would want to make love to
one of the above-mentioned mounds.
|8.29.07 @ 9:48PM|#
Design a law that's even more biased against
otherwise-law-abiding teenagers.
I hereby outlaw the word like.
|8.30.07 @ 12:56AM|#
@Ruthless
Will other old farts out there join me in heading off this
lynch mob at the pass? I'm gettin' nervous.
Don't worry about it. Remember, our generation still has to answer
for Wild in
the Streets.
Come to think of it, being consigned to an LSD camp for the rest of
my useless life wouldn't be the worst thing that could
happen....
|8.30.07 @ 7:30AM|#
Perhaps the City Councils should simply require that all women
wear burqas and all men wear kaftans.
CB
Chucklehead|8.30.07 @ 10:20AM|#
'bob' can be British for 'dildo'
Those Encyte commercials make sense now.
|8.30.07 @ 2:05PM|#
I support such a law, but I think the punishment should be gang-rape. If we're gonna make a law, let's give it some umph!
|8.31.07 @ 8:02PM|#
Martin, you are a credit to your culture...You don't think that young people should have the right to govern their own bodies? or that you should do it for them? Queen Victoria would be proud. Pedophelia is a clinical Diagnosis and you don't know what you are talking about.
|8.31.07 @ 8:11PM|#
You just said it sir.."Public Decency". It has nothing to do with Rape or abuse. It is a civil or cultural transgression that is imposed under Victorian/ Anglo Paradigm and you are a perfect reflection Mr. Martin of the many lives, families and carreers that are destroyed by ignorant nonsense.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245