Brickbat: Pants Off the Ground

Charles Oliver | 11.1.2012 6:00 AM

The Cocoa, Florida, city council has voted to ban saggy pants and skirts. Anyone caught wearing pants or skirts that expose underwear or skin more than three inches below the waistline on streets, sidewalks, or other city property faces a $25 fine.

Brickbat Archive

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: China Steps Up Language on Disputed Islands

Hide Comments (42)

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.

Bee Tagger 13 years ago

Weird, I had always assumed people with baggy pants were just carrying around $25 worth of quarters in their pockets.
Almanian's Evil Twin 13 years ago

It's about time someone outlawed this type of behavior.

But what if I wear a pair of jeans over another pair of jeans, and let the outer pair of jeans sag down, exposing the lower one? Is that NOT a violation of the law, since I'm not exposing "underwear or skin"? Or is the "inner" pair of jeans considered "underwear" for purposes of this law?

I can see we're gonna have another Florida legal issue make its way to the US Supreme Court...
1. db 13 years ago
  
  What if you put plastic wrap over your skin or underwear so it's not technically exposed, but still visible?
  1. Almanian's Evil Twin 13 years ago
    
    This is also a good question.
    
    JUDGE ROBERTS! WHAT SAY YOU?!
    
    A "tax"? That doesn't make any sense here. Of course, it didn't make any sense re: Obamacare either, so...
    
    It's a tax!
2. Monkey's Uncle 13 years ago
  
  This is why we can't have nice things. Tsk.
Res Publica Americana 13 years ago

In what universe are retarded laws of this sort valid? I hope somebody sane in the judiciary tears the city council a set of new assholes and throws this into the dustbin.
1. Almanian's Evil Twin 13 years ago
  
  😯
  
  NOOOOOOOO!!!! CHAOS!! COMMUNITY STANDARDS!!11! THE END OF CIVIL SOCIETY!! MADNESS!! TEH CHILDRUNSZ!11!
  
  Why do you hate civil society, Res?
  1. Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
    
    I know, I'm one awful libertard, ain't I? Next thing you know, I'll be advocating the permissibility of TOPLESS WOMEN IN PUBLIC AW MAH GAWD *ANEURYSM*.
    1. anon 13 years ago
      
      I'll be advocating the permissibility of TOPLESS WOMEN IN PUBLIC AW MAH GAWD *ANEURYSM*.
      
      I second this motion. Then again, I'm pretty much for topless women anywhere I happen to be present.
2. db 13 years ago
  
  The phrase "new set of assholes," when applied to an individual rather than a group, conjures strange images.
  
  "I think I'll use the casual asshole this morning"
  "This is a job for the industrial grade asshole"
  "Let me go slip into a more comfortable asshole"
  1. Res Publica Americana 13 years ago
    
    I was thinking more along the lines of two per councilman -- one in the traditional anatomical area, and one in their cranium, allowing the putrid shit contained within their skulls to leak out and put them out of their misery.
  2. anon 13 years ago
    
    "This is a job for the industrial grade asshole"
    
    You called?
3. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  In what universe are retarded laws of this sort valid?
  
  A universe where legislators and judges bend over backwards to give the police any excuse to search someone for the demon weed.
  1. anon 13 years ago
    
    It's not even that sarc; Cops just use pot as an excuse to arrest people they don't like. The actual drug is nigh irrelevant.
4. SugarFree 13 years ago
  
  The city administers the streets in the name of the public, and therefore can pass any regulation they want and you fucking anarchists can just shut up about it.
  
  Vote Romney!
  1. R C Dean 13 years ago
    
    The city administers the streets in the name of the public, and therefore can pass any regulation they want and you fucking anarchists can just shut up about it.
    
    Vote Obama!
    1. anon 13 years ago
      
      The city administers the streets in the name of the public, and therefore can pass any regulation they want and you fucking anarchists can just shut up about it.
      
      Vote GaJo!
      
      Oh wait.
Matrix 13 years ago

I figured the city council should support saggy pants. Makes it harder for them to run from cops.
1. Rich 13 years ago
  
  This. REQUIRE EVERYONE to wear baggy pants -- for the PUBLIC GOOD!!
Mensan 13 years ago

When I was living in Tallahassee I would see guys in Frenchtown wearing a triple-sag: boxers around the waist tucked into basketball shorts hanging under their ass tucked into skinny jeans around their knees.
1. invisible furry hand 13 years ago
  
  It's a daring move, the triple sag, and it comes with a 2.4 degree of difficulty... this young man from Florida could move into gold medal position if he pulls it off... MY WORD, THAT IS THE FINEST TRIPLE SAG I HAVE EVER SEEN! Even that champion sagger from the 2000 Games, Pooter McCoy, could not have done it better... and the judges agree: 9.8 from Canada, 9.7 from Togo, and even the difficult-to-please New Zealand judge has given it 9.8.
  
  Well the French will have to do something pretty spectacular to beat that.
free2booze 13 years ago

The Cocoa, Florida, city council has voted to ban saggy pants and skirts.

I can live with the ban on saggy pants, but skirts too? Come on man.
1. Restoras 13 years ago
  
  I somehow doubt that Cocoa, FL is a mecca of female yoga, aerobics and spin instructors. Otherwise ok.
  1. Spartacus 13 years ago
    
    I grew up across the river from Cocoa. Unless things have changed, it's a weird mix of gangsta wanna-bes and giant-pickup-driving rednecks. Seems pretty clear which group this is aimed at.
The Craig 13 years ago

I am glad I got out of high school when I did (2004 grad).

One of the greatest joys of being a perverted high school boy was seeing which girl in class was showing off her undies that day (either from the back or not crossing her legs). School dress code was starting to get pretty strict, but now it is all the way and we'll have to look forward to stupid laws like this as well.
CampingInYourPark 13 years ago

Stupid laws for stupid trends.
Rich 13 years ago

"I fear a police officer getting some resistance and resorting to some means and doing bodily harm to a child"

Sheesh, isn't that a reason to oppose *any* law?
1. db 13 years ago
  
  Well, any law is a reason for a cop to get his violence on.
  
  Frequently we bash cops for not being able to handle people, always resorting first to violence. Some cops really are masters of handling people--they know how to escalate situations to the point where they can use violence. The incompetent one use violence immediately or without adequate escalation.
robc 13 years ago

Do they realize that if the pants were entirely removed, just walking around in the underwear would be entirely legal? Because at that point, the boxers would be "pants".
1. db 13 years ago
  
  What about boxers over briefs over a thong?
  1. anon 13 years ago
    
    Should just be arrested for wearing briefs.
Brian from Texas 13 years ago

I think saggy pants are one of the stupidest things I've seen in my life, put we can't just start criminalizing stupidity, can we? If we were to do that the entire Federal Government may end up on death row.
1. sarcasmic 13 years ago
  
  I don't have a problem with that. Do you?
2. Bones 13 years ago
  
  Right? How are we supposed to know who NOT to hire?
Moe19 13 years ago

Now here's a law I can get behind.
HazelMeade 13 years ago

They should definitely ban pants where the waistline is physically below the cruve of the buttocks. WTF, how do those things even stay on?
sarcasmic 13 years ago

Yesterday I was filling up the tank with gas and some young woman had combined low risers, a thong, and a muffin top all in one.

I had to look away.
1. swillfredo pareto 13 years ago
  
  I had to look away.
  
  In my younger days (the fashion desert that was the 1970's and 80's) there was certainly some skin exposed, this was the heyday of the tube top after all. But there seemed to be an unwritten rule for the girls that if you were fat you did not feel the need to showcase it. I guess the culture that gives everyone a trophy has successfully socialized these kids into thinking someone else wants to see their cellulite.
2. anon 13 years ago
  
  Should just do what I do; laugh at her to her face.
  
  I've found humiliation is a very effective tool.
Mr Whipple 13 years ago

Maybe they should put a ban on saggy skin. Oh wait. It's Florida. Florida is ruled by the Saggy Skin gang.
tagtann 13 years ago

Nice! I think this should become a NATIONAL policy! Love it!

http://www.anon-e.tk
R C Dean 13 years ago

Pathetically easy to circumvent. Under your baggy pants, you can wear either

(a) pajamas, or

(b) a swimsuit.

Either of which can look just like underwear, of course, but if its legal to wear pajamas and swimsuits without pants, its legal to wear them with pants.
1. Paul. 13 years ago
  
  Unless the law says "undergarment", then anything that's under the pants is fair game for the State.
Appalachian Australian 13 years ago

The King's Men ask that you wear attire worthy of royal court when gamboling across the King's Plain.

Please log in to post comments

Brickbat: Pants Off the Ground

Latest

Brickbat: Double-Barreled Delay

Kids Don't Want Screens—They Want Freedom

A First Amendment Lawsuit Highlights the Chilling Impact of Speech-Based Deportation on Student Journalists

Audit Finds $400 Million in Questionable Lease Spending After Maryland's Governor Bragged About Savings

Why Ghislaine Maxwell's Transfer to a Minimum-Security Prison Camp Stinks

Recommended

Login Form