St. Louis Alderwoman Pushing To Ban Pants Below the Waist

ReasonReasonAlderwoman Marlene Davis of St. Louis, Missouri is not a fan of what she describes as "absolutely vulgar" saggy pants and is pushing for pants below the waist to be banned.

If Davis' proposed revisions to existing "lewd" behavior laws are approved those who are caught "wearing pants below the waist which exposes the skin or undergarments which is likely to cause affront or alarm...." could be fined $500 and face 90 days in jail. 

From The Riverfront Times:

Is it time to outlaw exposed butts and underwear in the city of St. Louis?

That's a question Alderwoman Marlene Davis is raising tonight with a "community discussion" on her controversial proposal to ban saggy pants in the city.

To Davis, it's a no-brainer. "This is not a style," she tells Daily RFT. "This is an absolutely vulgar display of disrespect not only to every other human being that has to look at it but also to themselves.... It's totally out of control."

Below is perhaps the most scary quote from Davis cited in The Riverfront Times:

 Sometimes, I think it's required that we legislate society into a norm.

Yikes...

(H/T Justin Ströhm)

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, I see. I thought she was banning pants altogether from the headline.

  • Almanian!||

    Again, great minds.

    "If all my pants disappeared below the waist...HEY!"

  • anon||

    To be fair, I'd be ok with no pants.

  • ||

  • ||

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    No selfies allowed on HNR.

  • ||

    OK, this made me LOL.

  • SugarFree||

    Waxed feet or diabeetus?

  • Zeb||

    Could just be the way it is. I have a friend whose legs look like that. He is very hairy all over (one of those guys who could usefully shave 2 or 3 times a day), but his feet are nearly hairless. And he is quite fit and healthy.

  • eyeroller||

    No, you can still wear them on your head, which for some reason is a popular thing in Missouri.

  • SomeGuy||

    so where in the Constitution the government has the power to regulate clothing attire?

  • anon||

    From the same state that brings you a drummed up controversy over a rodeo clown comes yet another stupid fucking idea.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why can't she do something positive for the community and start a belt outreach program? Suspenders for guns exchange. Or, maybe mandate that all underwear be made to look like pants. Do I have to think of everything?

  • pan fried wylie||

    How are any of your suggestions supposed to generate revenue?

  • ||

    Sometimes, I think it's required that we legislate society into a norm.

    And her sheep constituents cheered her "common sense"

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wish people could separate their preferences from their willingness to use force to make other people adhere to them. I think the fashion is ridiculously stupid, but I don't at all agree with legislating against it.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Every citizen is a little tyrant in waiting.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's why we must be stopped. Some sort of compact or process that prevents us from just using force willy-nilly.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Don't be ridiculous. No such thing exists.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Maybe some sort of shock collars that operate when you break the rules?

  • Aresen||

    "I think the fashion is ridiculously stupid"

    Anti-plumber bias!

  • ||

    I think fashion is awesome, but low rider pants went out about 20 years ago. I still love seeing dumbass boys wearing them, though, so I can make fun of them. I would never want to legislate that away!

  • ||

    (sorry - I thought you were saying fashion in general is dumb)

  • Pro Libertate||

    I meant that fashion in particular. Message to the young: Remember, there are lots of pictures, and you ABSOLUTELY WILL BE EMBARRASSED BY THE STUPID TRENDS YOU ENGAGED IN, EVEN IF MILLIONS OF OTHERS DID, TOO. Be warned.

  • Aresen||

    Pro Lib:

    Pics or it didn't happen!

    :P

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's right, it didn't happen.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    While we're legislating good taste, could we please require the Alderwoman to wear her shirt collars above her eyebrows?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    http://cbsstlouis.files.wordpr.....g_4062.jpg

    How could you consider withholding this kind of beauty from our gaze?

  • Matrix||

    I figured cops would love allowing guys to keep sagging their pants really low. It's not easy to run from the police when you have your pants sagging down around your knees.

  • Aresen||

    To Davis, it's a no-brainer

    Well, she's right about that, but not in the way she means.

  • Doctor Whom||

    This nanny-statism is causing me affront and alarm. What about my right not to be offended?

  • Dave Krueger||

    Why are Americans so friggin' paranoid about sex and nudity that they have invented so many words to describe it in negative terms (lewd, lascivious, vulgar, smutty, pornographic, etc). If mere nudity or revealing attire is a crime, then it's the height of hypocrisy to call this "the land of the free".

  • Floridian||

    No one calls it that anymore.

  • Aresen||

    Didn't you get the message, Dave?

    Obama says "many" countries are worse.

  • Dave Krueger||

    So, the mission statement for the U.S. is not to be free anymore, but only to not be the worst country on the planet? ;-)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I wouldn't call low-riding pants "revealing" in the sense of sexually enticing (making due allowance for Rule 34, of course).

    This isn't about sex, but about a concern in the black community about the behavior of certain "youths." They think these young men are headed down the wrong path, and I'm inclined to agree. But a ban on low-riding pants simply addresses a symptom.

  • Aresen||

    "Revealing" or "sexually enticing" is defined differently in every society in every time.

    Elizabethan men wore codpieces to adveertise their (presumed) endowment. Unmarried women of the same era wore dresses that exposed their breasts.

    At the end of the 19th century, it was considered "indecent" for a woman to expose her ankles.

    Spanish noblewomen were expected to wear a veil outside of the home up to the end of the 18th century.

    It is all arbitrary and always has been.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But as I said, it's not about lowriding pants being some kind of sexual thing (gross!), it's about the kind of "youth" who wear such pants - many in the black community (and the white community) think these youth are vulnerable to the thug life, and the pants are a symbol of that.

  • Dave Krueger||

    When I was a kid, most adults thought long hair meant we were "heading down the wrong Path". That was back when rock and roll was a communist plot to destroy western society. Luckily, everyone is smarter now, so that kind of thing could never happen again...

  • Floridian||

    This sounds legal. Also ban fat people, handicapped people and Jew bankers from public. I find it distasteful to look upon them even for a fraction of a second.

  • Marshall Gill||

    "There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me, get him up against the Wall"

  • Matrix||

    I'm a Jew, but not a banker. Am I okay?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You mean you're a lawyer? Or maybe you run a chain of department stores?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    He probably runs a pawn shop.

  • Floridian||

    Yes one or the other is fine. It is the combination that is offensive. Like having milk with pizza.

  • Matrix||

    Like having milk with pizza.
    What do you have against my breakfast?

  • sarcasmic||

    That doesn't sound kosher.

  • Matrix||

    I stick to veggie or cheese pizzas. I never did like meat on my pizza.

  • sarcasmic||

    I just at a tasty abomination for lunch. Dominos buffalo sauce, chicken and pizza cheese with bleu on the side. Yum.

  • Matrix||

    I don't often go for milk after 11, unless it's a slmi fast or something that I'll have for lunch.

    But cold pizza and milk for breakfast is not bad.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'll take your word for it. I haven't had a glass of milk in years. I can handle small amounts of cheese, but a glass of milk would, well, let's just say lactose intolerance has unpleasant symptoms.

  • Floridian||

    Only two beverages are acceptable with pizza. Soda and beer, full stop!

  • Matrix||

    what about deep dish?

  • Floridian||

    I said pizza. You can have what you like with your casserole. Actually being from FL I don't have strong feelings about deep dish vs NY.

  • Matrix||

    I don't like deep dish because the breading is usually too greasy. And that's also why I stay away from that abomination called Pizza Hut.

  • ||

    I never understood why some of my friends hate injera (Ethiopian bread) because of its texture, but will willingly eat at Pizza Hut, where the texture of the crust is not that different from injera.

  • Floridian||

    I've never heard of injera. What does it taste like?

  • ||

    It's a fermented bread, so it tastes like sourdough. It has the feel of damp chamois and the texture of chewy pancakes. I don't make it sound appealing, and it is one of those things people like to call an "acquired taste", but it is really yummy and perfectly complements the food.

  • Floridian||

    If I ever come across it I will have to try it. I love trying new food.

  • Floridian||

    Thank you! My wife loves Pizza Hut and it is pure grease. That is why we rarely order pizza. Flippers is decent.

  • Matrix||

    I'm eating Marco's Pizza right now. It's a local place. They do a great lunch deal. Small Pizza, Drink, and Bag of Chips for $6.99

  • Voros McCracken||

    Reminds me of this:

    I am your new President

  • sarcasmic||

  • Zeb||

    It is one of the silliest fashions ever, but how the fuck is it lewd or vulgar to expose your boxer shorts? You can see people showing a whole lot more in Walmart flyers.

  • Floridian||

    Runs to get wal-Mart flyer.

  • MappRapp||

    I think anyone caught wearing their pants liek that should be shot on site.

    www.Tactical-Anon.tk

  • Robert||

    Does this apply in cases where the outer pants are not low, but the underpants are high so they show? Or where shorts are worn that are smaller than the underpants so they show above and/or below?

  • Agammamon||

    ". . . is an absolutely vulgar display of disrespect not only to every other human being that has to look at it but also to themselves"

    So, wouldn't that be deserving of First Amendment protection?

  • Warfario||

    Can we also outlaw people from having missing teeth, having to look at that is disrespectful to me and the person missing the tooth, apparently.

  • Combaticus||

    I would say public shaming, but we removed that as an option years ago.

  • Betzinva||

    How about making it legal to shoot them in the ass with a BB?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I must say that I can, slightly, sympathize; I think she's got the remedy wrong, though. She should push to have giving someone wearing pants in that manner an Atomic Wedgie specifically protected social commentary.

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