A New Kind of Mandatory Belt Law
By a vote of 60 to 34, the Virginia House of Delegates has approved a bill that would fine people $50 for wearing low-riding pants that show off their underwear in a "lewd or indecent manner." The bill's author, Delegate Algie T. Howell Jr. (D-Norfolk), explained that "it's not an attack on baggy pants….To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country."
The Washington Times dryly reports that "it's not clear if the fine would apply to plumbers, carpenters or other laborers who have problems with low-riding pants." Opponents warned that the law (which has not been considered by the state Senate yet) would become an excuse to harass young black men, disproportionately fond of the drawers-above-the-waistband style. It also would be a warning to seductive interns, helping Virginia's politicians avoid embarrassing sex scandals.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And of course we all know who would always get conveniently overlooked (pardon the pun) by law enforcers: cute coeds with uber-low-cut tight jeans, showing off their hot lil' aerobicized asses.
...and their elaborate thong panties...
Me: Oh My God!!!!
Daughter: What is it, Dad?
Me: I don't think I have enough spackle for a crack that big.
As I explained to her, if you have a bubble butt like J-Lo, you shouldn't wear Low-Riders like Britney.
smacky's makin' me all tingly...
"Disproportionately"? I've seen as many young white men with their asses hanging out.
If the greatest peril facing the state of Virginia is exposed underwear, then I'm going to move there immediately. I'd love to live in a place where the biggest thing I have to worry about is what other people are wearing.
That's pretty stupid.
I am, however, willing to at least consider the possibility of licensing limited rights to wear low riding jeans with a thong sticking out.
And maybe ordinance level restrictions on that dark brown lipliner that girls use to make their mouth look like a puckering asshole.
"By a vote of 60 to 34, the Virginia House of Delegates has approved a bill that would fine people $50 for wearing low-riding pants that show off their underwear in a "lewd or indecent manner."
I'm sure this bill isn't being supported by Gay Christians who find themselves tempted by the sight of a young man's underpants, and everyone who reads such a thing into this should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm down with how ridiculous this is and all, but aren't there already indecency laws for nudity and partial nudity and isn't this consistent with such?
I'm sure this wouldn't survive an appeal to the SCOTUS.
What a waste of taxpayer money. And time, trying to defend it.
Gosh, between this Virginia law and the British anti-snubbery law, I'm beginning to feel like I should put on my bloomers and hoopskirt and then go play croquet with the nearest strapping young duke. It's so Victorian.
And who questioned that the fashion police would eventually become a centralized federal beurocracy?
A link to the actual bill would be useful. As far as I can tell from the Washington Times article, it's only illegal to show your tightie-whities above the waistband.
I assume this means Virginians can still wear their traditional daisy-dukes, cut-off short-shorts and cheerleader outfits, and otherwise show off their underwear *below* the waistband. I also assume they can still rip the seats of their jeans (if that fashion hasn't passed by now) or forgo undies altogether.
Finally, will rural Virginians have to button their overalls up the sides? If so expect some backlash.
Everyone knows that it's the extra $50 in the pockets of the hom'boys that's weighing their pants down so far, anyway.
This will help pave the way for my No Fat Chicks in Bikinis Act.
nic is right...more white boys are dressing this way than black boys. ("it's true, it's true...we're so lame!" -- homer simpson)
When I read about this story this morning, I was wondering how long it would be till it was posted on H&R. But it gave a great lead-in to discussing civil liberties and the role of government with the high school students I teach. I was pretty proud of their philosophical take on this propsed law - a bunch of budding libertarians we're raising. Now if they can extend that perspective to something beyond laws about low-rise jeans...
ScottMC,
Well, since you put it that way, maybe this is a good thing. We can always use new libertarians.
However aesthetically unappealing one may find another's fashion choices, this is definitely a issue where there ought NOT to be a law.
At last a response to America's Crack Epidemic!
I can see judges giving out a lot of suspended sentences under this law. "Hey, kid, buy a pair of suspenders!"
Kevin
I can't think of any other examples right now but somewhere in my mind I'm hearing echoes of memories of the Virgnia legislature coming up with other goofy laws like this once in a while.
On the other hand, one of the main virtues of that particular state's legislature is that they only meet something like 30 days out of the year, which really cuts down on the amount of idiocy that can be rammed through in a session.
> America's Crack Epidemic!
Dude, your killin' me.
I think I'm going to move to Virginia. The place must be a virtual utopia if they time to waste on this nonsense.
David T: good one.
Well, I understand some crack is worse than others. Crack is crack just remove it from the streets.
Mark:
Not really. Richmond, relative to its size, has a massive murder problem. Southside is falling apart as industry abandons it. Utopia, nah.
It's funny, people say, "VA must be a paradise if the legislature is wasting time on trivial shit like this". But the reality is that the vast majority of the crap the legislature crams down our throats is statist, big-government trash. A couple years ago, the legislature banned bbq grills in multi-family dwellings with combustible decks. It is infinitely unenforceable, but it just goes to show what they really think of individual liberty in this great state.
The bigger culprit here, I would posit, is that VA government recently got the highest score from an independent group who rates the efficiency and effectiveness of state governments. Gov. Warner and his cohorts, to their credit, have taken a huge budget deficit and turned it into a surplus (ahem, um, no thanks to a sales tax hike...ha!), which is a big reason for the winning score. However, the problem now is that they seem to be using this praise as a springboard for their pet bills. "See, we're the best government in the US! Now shut up and trust us to do our job! Ahem, ok, first item on the agenda...low-ridin' jeans!"
but aren't there already indecency laws for nudity and partial nudity and isn't this consistent with such?
That was my first reaction, fyodor, but then I realized the whole point of the law is to NOT be consistent with current laws because then they wouldn't the new one.
wouldn't NEED the new one.
This particular delegate (from Chesapeake) has a big issue with this kind of stuff. In addition to this bill, he's sponsored legislation against loud stereos, against driving with the seat reclined too much, and against cars with video displays viewable by the driver. And pretty much nothing else. Links to bill text for all these bills are in a post on my blog.
Russ D,
then they wouldn't [need] the new one.
Good point, and I thought of that too, but maybe A) the older law(s) regarding indecent exposure don't cover (no pun intended) the specifics being targeted here, and B) a whole new law was passed (instead of merely amending an older one) for the purpose of political grandstanding.
I'm not backing this law by any means, but if I'm right that someone walking down the street in their birhday suit or wearing nothing but their tidy whities (or topless in the case of one half the population) would have been arrested in Virginia previously and most anywhere else at any time, then this is merely an extension of indecency laws that already existed. Meaning that it's not really a libertarian issue at all (because we've already accept nonlibertarian restrictions on personal appearance) but merely a question of whether they've gone too far.
OTOH, as an example of "going too far," it helps demonstrate the good ol' slippery slope of victimless crimes in general....
Truck drivers and plumbers will live in fear.
At some point we'll just have to make the switch to the futuristic silver jumpsuit. This might be the push we need in that direction.
I'm not sure how low-rise pants are indicative of character flaws. It would seem that the moral crowd wants everyone alike in deed, thought, and dress. This kind of thing is what you get when people think it's a good idea to try outlaw anything that is annoying.
It's almost like the legislatures are channeling a collective grandmother, wagging her finger at the kids and saying "There ought to be a law against...".
One last point, What if you don't wear an undergarment? The law only punishes those whose underwear is visible, which it wouldn't be if it's not there at all.
We need butt cops. And a "No Behind Left Unchided" Act.
fyodor,
I also left out the possibility (probability?) that the legislators are just dumbasses.
Citizen: Don't we already have indecent exposure laws?
Legislator: It's my job to create laws!
I also left out the possibility (probability?) that the legislators are just dumbasses.
Here, I think, that is accepted as a given. 🙂
We need butt cops.
...to catch the Ass Pirates?
And a "No Behind Left Unchided" Act.
Ha!
This whole legislation just makes me want to be the next "naked guy" for the 21st century. Does anybody here remember that guy from the 90's? (who was parodied nicely in the classic college flick PCU ) He was some college student who looked a bit like Rico Suave if I remember correctly, and he was allowed to walk around campus totally nekkid because it was a central tenet of his personal beliefs or something.
Then again, I couldn't even muster the gumption (or abandon my sense of shame) to pose for a collective Spencer Tunick landscape. Where are my figleaves?
The funny part about this is it doesn't seem to punish visible butt crack, only visible underwear. So if you wore tighty whiteys under boxers that were visible while wearing baggy jeans, it seems as if you wouldn't be in violation because the boxers would be middlewear at that point. Or if you were to remove your pants entirely and just wear boxers (provided the slit in the front was secureed) you wouldn't be in violation because the boxers wouldn't be underwear at that point (they're not worn under anything afterall) but outerwear.
So when adolescents leave the house looking like complete idjits, the answer is not for the locals to kindly encourage their parents to give 'em the good ol' Five Across The Eyes, but "let's pass a law!"...
My gawd we have been so neutered.
UPDATE: VA Senate drops this bill like a hot potato!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=5&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_us/low_riding_pants
They Dropped It Like It's Hot.