Nanny State

Montana Bill Would Ban Some Tight Clothing But Stop Short of Criminalizing Yoga Pants

"Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway," said GOP Rep. David Moore.

|

lynnfriedman/Flickr

Better ditch those codpieces and merkins, Montanans! Crazypants state Rep. David Moore (R-Missoula) is proposing a public ban on "any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates" the genitals, pubic hair, butt, breasts, or areolas. Under Moore's new bill, appearing in such things would get you charged with indecent exposure and fined, jailed, or both. The bill would also ban all nipple exposure, even for men. 

Moore said that the measure was in response to a group of cyclists who biked naked through the city of Missoula last summer, which was "not (his) cup of tea." Under the legislation, tight-fitting beige clothing could be illegal. If you are not sure how one follows from the other, you are not alone.

Moore stopped short of trying to criminalize yoga pants, though he's none too happy about it. From AP:   

"Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway," Moore said after the hearing.

Moore said he wouldn't have a problem with people being arrested for wearing provocative clothing but that he'd trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. He couldn't be sure whether police would act on that provision or if Montana residents would challenge it.

"I don't have a crystal ball," Moore said.

I just write the laws, you can't expect me to worry about their constitutionality or implications!

Moore's bill would strike the possibility of life imprisonment for indecent exposure, making the crime punishable by not more than five years. But it would remove the necessity of intent to "abuse, humiliate, harass" or degrade another or to "arouse or gratify" sexual desires as an element of the crime.

Advertisement

NEXT: NPR's Departing Ombudsman Thinks the First Amendment Does Not Protect 'Hate Speech'

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.

  1. Any person, state or legislature that bans yoga pants is dead to me.

    Dead to me.

  2. Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway

    Where do these abortions of thoughts spring from? Is there a font of stupidity in every legislator’s mind and they just can’t turn off the spigot?

    1. “Abortions of thoughts” – you’re trolling ENB. Well done.

    2. Its not a thought, its an idea. A thought is able to stand on its own whereas an idea can’t, which is why aborting it is ok.

  3. Moore’s bill

    Moore’s Political Law:

    The number of retarded ideas per inch of legal paper doubles every two years.

  4. Simulates areolas? There’s a whole cadre of Batman cosplayers who are going to be just livid about this.

  5. Piss off, Moore, for making me agree with social liberals.

    1. Not for being an authoritarian fuckstick who wants his preferences to be codified? Oh wait, you want that too.

      1. *citation needed*

        1. Well? I’m waiting…

          1. Cat got your tongue?

            1. Zeb doesn’t need your bourgeois “evidence,” he’s got the FEELZ!

              1. Jesus Christ, dude. I have other things to do than to check for a response from you every 2 minutes.

                1. And other things to do than answer my call for evidence, it seems.

                  1. You posted your original accusation at 2:02. You posted several times since then, but never produced the evidence I asked for.

                    1. Oh. I get it now. GKC is 12. It all makes sense now.

                    2. ?

        2. Sorry, you want your preferences codified in law, not his. Now you know what I mean.

          1. I assumed that’s what you meant, but I asked for evidence, which you seem unwilling to supply.

            But evidence is so logocentric, isn’t it?

            1. Come on, you can figure it out. The shit you argue about every day and try to insert into every possible thread.
              Lighten up. It was supposed to be some good-natured ribbing. I don’t consider you a fuckstick, if it makes you feel any better.

              1. “Fuckstick” is one of the kindest things I’ve been called. At least it suggests that my organ of generation is primed and ready.

                I’m still interested in some evidence of your assertions, though. And I won’t even call you names, like “premature asserter,” or “unable to follow through with your desires.”

                1. Seriously? Fine. Your stance on marriage has to do with nothing but your personal preferences and biases. You want to law to acknowledge no marriages bu the ones you approve of and you want your religion to the the sole arbiter of what counts as a marriage.

                  Your stance on prostitution is vague enough that I can’t really say that you want it banned for sure, but you do hint at that pretty strongly.

                  I won’t go into abortion because that really comes down to a difference on what gives human life the moral status that it has, so is a bit different.

                  You are a funny and sharp guy and you know that lots of people disagree with you on these subjects. I figured my initial comment wouldn’t be taken too seriously and that it would be obvious what I was referring to. Either you are less sharp than I thought, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

                  That’s all I’m doing now. I have better things to do like bang my head into a wall.

                  1. Zeb, leave Catholic Tony alone.

                  2. I wasn’t setting out to offend you, I was just busting your balls. And showing that your assertions were far from self-evident, and required evidence.

                    “you want your religion to the the sole arbiter of what counts as a marriage.”

                    You really ought to familiarize yourself with my positions before trying to summarize them.

                    I have said repeatedly that Catholic canon law was *too soft on divorce* to be allowed in a secular state like the U.S., and therefore I said U.S. law should *not* recognize Catholic divorces based on the Pauline privilege.

                    1. I should say “secular union of states,” not secular state.

                  3. You are a funny and sharp guy and you know that lots of people disagree with you on these subjects. I figured my initial comment wouldn’t be taken too seriously and that it would be obvious what I was referring to. Either you are less sharp than I thought, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

                    You’re getting there, Zeb.

                    1. No, I’m wasting my fucking time like an idiot. I need to go bang my head against that wall.

                    2. Did your wife consent to you banging that wall, Zeb?

                    3. Don’t go, Zeb, you still need to prove, in light of what I’ve said, that “[I] want [my] religion to the the sole arbiter of what counts as a marriage”!

                    4. What is the world coming to, when the rationalist, skeptical humanists make assertions without proof and the theocratic clerico-fascists try to appeal to the evidence!

                    5. Maybe because we are dicking around on lunch break and actually have things to do.

                      In any case, I can only speculate on your state of mind and can’t prove anything.

                    6. Well, there seems to be some doubt as to your status as a theocratic cleric-fascist, but the two-minute intervals between demands for cites is a convincing case for you being a foot-stomping sensitive-much who can’t take some ribbing.

                      Winning the battle, losing the war, dude.

                    7. One-minute, in a couple of cases.

        3. Legal prostitution, Eddie. Remember that? Remember all those whiny “sanctity of traditional marriage” arguments you advanced?

          1. I said there may be practical arguments to legalize prostitution, and I cited cases where the Popes themselves legalized it in Rome, but I questioned whether it could be legalized on the “consenting adults” paradigm.

            Feel free to show that all relevant adults consent to prostitution.

            1. You’re weaseling Eddie, and you know that.

              1. I know you are, but what am I?

            2. Feel free to show that anyone not present and non-consenting is relevant.

    2. But surely if legal prostitution is a danger to the sanctity of marriage, then so is slutwear? Burqas for all!

      1. OK, then, prostitution is *not* a danger to marriage.

        You want to die on that hill?

        1. No, it’s just no one else’s business. Going out to a bar is similarly dangerous to marriage.

          1. My specific point was that the relevant adults don’t consent to prostitution in the case of some guy going to a hooker without his wife’s consent (the usual scenario, AFAIK).

            1. Cheating is cheating. Why is whether money changes hands relevant?

              I find your line of reasoning on this bizarre.

              The punishment for a cheating spouse is divorce (or a stern lecture from a priest or whatever you Papists do). If the wife doesn’t want to push that, why should the law? Furthermore, prostitution is mostly illegal now. That hasn’t stopped cheating spouses from using whores.

              1. “If we legalize drugs, everyone will be a drug addict!”

              2. I support what are known (misleadingly) as “heartbalm suits” – criminal conversation, alienation of affection. No proof of financial payment is required here.

        2. Don’t pout so, Eddie. Admit you were wrong and take it like a man.

        3. Interacting with people of the opposite sex in general is also a ‘danger to marriage’.

          1. Did I say “danger”? I thought I was referring to direct assaults on marriage, not potential harm.

            1. Interacting with people of the opposite sex is also a ‘direct assault on marriage’ for opening up the potential for cheating by your argumentation.

              If legalized prostitution represents a ‘direct assault’ on marriage due to the potential for clients to be married, than interaction with other people opening up the potential for cheating represents the same kind of threat.

              1. Again, your view is entirely arbitrary. You say that it’s not about ‘potential harm’ when the possibility of married people using prostitution is exactly that, potential harm.

      2. Republican values have always been more in line with ISIS than they ever have with American values.

        Religious terrorist come in all colors and are equally dangerous.

        Never give a religion delusionist a bomb, its the same as giving a monkey a nuke.

        1. Hey,Reality…that’s the biggest boatload of stupid I’ve read on here in quite a while. You getting into Tony territory, bro.

  6. Let’s hear it for those small-government Republicans!

  7. Why are these guys always the tooliest-lookin tools that have ever tooled?

    I don’t get it.

    http://meic.org/2013/01/rep-da…..ula-hd-91/

    Punchable face quotient= Extremely high.

    1. He’s a perv. Just like Kennedy and Bennett, he can’t control himself, so he wants the government to control everyone else. I don’t know if his deal is sexy shirtless guys or sexy tight-clothed girls, but that’s his reason.

  8. We should ban yoga pants only for those who fail to meet the appropriate butt quality standard, as determined by my committee.

    1. The “Sir Mix-A-Lot clause”?

      1. I swear my committee will have no bias in favor of any particular butt style.

        A committee does need a catchy name, maybe I can get the famed Sir to sponsor us.

        1. I admit a partiality to bubble butts but that does not mean – no sir! – that I object to the existence of heart-shaped butts.

  9. Under the legislation, tight-fitting beige clothing could be illegal.

    I think we can all agree that this is racist.

  10. “Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said after the hearing.”

    “Moore said that the measure was in response to a group of cyclists who biked naked through the city of Missoula last summer, which was “not (his) cup of tea.”

    Moore was probably embarrassed because he has a small penis, and feels threatened by the presence of a bulge that is unable to form when he puts on his regular pants.

    What’s next, a ban on regular pants bulges, and the mandated use of baggy pants?

    I’m proud of my pants bulge so GFY Moore!

    Moore: Seize them!!!!!!
    Cop: For what??
    Moore: They are too sexy for their pants!!! And I’m jealous and insecure!!!!!

    Hands off my girl!!!!…..and HEY!!! Hands off my pants bulge!!!!

    1. Republicans don’t have penis’s, they are 100% asexual parasites.

      1. Ha, dead thread-fucking, Tony sock?

  11. But it would remove the necessity of intent to “abuse, humiliate, harass” or degrade another or to “arouse or gratify” sexual desires as an element of the crime.

    Mens rea is so quaint.

    1. Please = Cisperson’s Rea is antiquated

    2. This is strict liability? Where?

  12. I say buy this asshole a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia.

  13. “Under the legislation, tight-fitting beige clothing could be illegal. If you are not sure how one follows from the other, you are not alone.”

    Ok, I may be wrong here but I’ll take a shot at it. My guess is that he didn’t factor brown or black people into his law. Since Caucasians are mostly beige, wearing tight beige clothing might give the appearance of the wearer being nude. And, that would offend his delicate sensibilities.

    1. I agree, but also note that I raised this above with my 2:00 PM post.

      1. It wasn’t there when I read the article and comments. Maybe I should refresh before I comment. But, that seems pretty unnecessary to me.

        1. I’m often burned by the failure to refresh myself, ATX. No biggie, but it is traditional here to preserve one’s bragging rights on a thread.

          1. “No biggie, but it is traditional here to preserve one’s bragging rights on a thread.”

            If not, others of the tribe may see you as weak…and challenge you for the thanehood!

  14. I’ve just decided that all public nudity is protected free speech, as is wearing wherever the fuck you want. Now I just need that supreme court nomination I’ve been waiting for.

    I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Whoever decided that yoga pants were good as casual wear in public deserves to win the Nobel prize.

    To (badly) paraphrase Bill Hicks: God made that ass Mr. Moore. Why do you want it hidden?

    1. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Whoever decided that yoga pants were good as casual wear in public deserves to win the Nobel prize.

      Not to the extent there needs to be a law but, polite disagree.

      There are plenty of good hot women wearing yoga pants and the pants have a (dual or multi-) purpose.

      However, IMO, it seems more like the whaletail fad; where (people physically incapable of pulling them off aside) women with a poor personality and/or fashion/hygeine make up for their shortcomings by popular pants.

      1. I figured they were just comfortable and that’s why people wear them. Fashion is a complete mystery to me.

        1. High fashion, sure. All fashion, not humanly possible.

          And I’d agree with you about the comfortable except that I’ve seen plenty of people wear them in obviously (personally) uncomfortable manners and/or in a manner that induced discomfort/disapproval in others.

          I just see the effective equivalent of Pussy Riot receiving the Nobel for Yoga Pants.

          1. John Titor|2.11.15 @ 2:55PM|#

            Insecurity or lack of self-control? You decide!

            I still oppose the law but, IMO, this statement applies equally to the vast majority of yoga pants wearers as it does to the Representative.

            1. All I’m saying is that I appreciate seeing young, fit women in yoga pants whatever their motivation.

            2. Hey, if they’re just using it as an excuse to wear pants I don’t care, that’s their problem. Attempting to legalize based on your own insecurities or lack of self-control is projecting your problems onto everyone else.

          2. The Nobel Prize bit might have been a joke.

        2. Zeb, do like I do….rely on GILMORE.

  15. Where have I seen this story before…?

  16. Good to hear Montana has solved all of its problems. Beyond that, no ban on tight fitting clothing would ever stand up in court.

  17. Stupid Party, living up to it’s well deserved moniker.

  18. er.. swimming? Men must now wear a shirt? Beach? Is there any reason why this state rep. can’t be shipped to ISIS?

    1. It’s fucking Montana, they don’t swim.

      1. But they do find relaxation in the many available geothermal pleasures.

    2. Send him to the saudi’s they love religious monkeys over there.

  19. And here is some detailed legal reasoning on why this proposed legislation is fundamentally invalid

  20. Moore’s bill would strike the possibility of life imprisonment for indecent exposure, making the crime punishable by not more than five years.

    Soft on crime.

    1. Only a traitor wages war on fellow citizens.

      All over Yoga pants!!! the defective monkey should be tarred feathered, set on fire then put in a small wooden boat and sent out to sea.

  21. As I first glanced at the headline I thought that “Montana Bill” would be a leather-faced old cowboy who had found Jesus and was crusading for modest attire.

  22. But it would remove the necessity of intent to “abuse, humiliate, harass” or degrade another or to “arouse or gratify” sexual desires as an element of the crime.

    At least he’s dedicated to making it gender neutral. Removes the whole “eek! a penis!” aspect of most of these kinds of laws. And then there’s the nipple part being for both sexes as well.

    Still stupid, but refreshingly so.

  23. Well, at least we know Moore isn’t a theocrat. I’ve been told those don’t exist.

    1. 11. Thou shalt not clad thyself publicly or casually in the sinful copolymeric mingling of polyesters and polyurethanes of a fleshlike hue.

    2. Well, we don’t know that for sure, but it’s quite likely.

      I tried to look up his bio but the Montana state legislature webserver is apparently overloaded at the moment, possibly due to public interest in Rep. Moore.

      1. He’s a Lutheran.

  24. Does Moore realize public nudity is not a crime in Montana?

    45-5-504. Indecent exposure.

    Montana Nudity Laws:

    * 45-5-504. Indecent exposure.

    (1) A person who, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the person’s own sexual desire or the sexual desire of any person, exposes the person’s genitals under circumstances in which the person knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm commits the offense of indecent exposure.

    * Montana seems to have no nude beaches or resorts.

    Fuck Moore! Come to MT and get nekid!

    1. in which the person knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm

      That’s the part that irks me.

        1. Heckler’s veto on my junk. Taint right.

  25. Insecurity or lack of self-control? You decide!

  26. Indecent exposure does not include an act of breastfeeding by a mother.

    Oh, this keeps getting better and better.

    1. What about aggravated breast feeding with intent to shock?

  27. Yoga pants are like Science- they can be used for good or evil.

  28. Humans will vote anything into a position of power- even walking and talking human excrement like this turd sandwich.

  29. Republican defects prove daily why their should be a bounty on their feral monkey hides.

    Religious defects are like sewage, smelly and difficult to dispose of.

  30. So will this bill also outlaw camel toe?

  31. I was sitting at a bar in Missoula with buddies 30 or so years ago. Hot gal with tight pants nearby. My smartass buddy tells her “Honey, you better feed that thing some meat, it’s starting to eat you pants”, he got slapped and the rest of us fell off our barstools laughing.

  32. Ok, I’ll probably get flamed for this. But I support their right to pass that law.
    I think it’s a dumb idea and will be a dumb law. But I don’t live in Montana, so I doubt they care what I think.
    I thought we wanted localized government? If the voters in that area want the law, why can’t they pass it? This seems to have been started by a group of nude cyclists. If they caused enough of a disturbance that the locals want them gone, then isn’t that the right of the locals to decide what is appropriate in their town?

    1. “If the voters in that area want the law, why can’t they pass it?” <<br /
      For the same reason the Founders made America a republic and NOT a democracy in which the majority become tyrants over the minority.

      People like you who stupidly tolerate dumb laws are the reason we have so many of them.

      1. Yup. We’re a republic. Good job. So I’ll ask the question again: If voters elect their representatives, and those representatives pass dumb laws that the voters support, what’s the problem?

        Yes, they can’t pass laws that are unconstitutional. That’s not the issue. The issue seems to have been triggered by a bunch of nudists annoying people. And one representative cannot pass a law. But if several are hearing from constituents that this is what they want, then they can pass it.

        CA and NY voters seem to love taxes. So I no longer live in NY. Admittedly, I live in MD, but here they are finally starting to tire of taxes. We’ve elected a Republican governor. (We got Hogan, I would have preferred Lollar. Neither is a Libertarian, but hey, baby steps.)

        Freedom to choose also includes freedom to choose poorly.

  33. This bastard Moore shouldn’t be thrown out of office; he should be slowly beat to death in the public square.

    1. With everyone wearing yoga pants?

  34. David…..Moore? Who? A state legislator from where? Missoula? Where the hell is Missoula?

    Oh. Montana.

    And we care about this, why?

    Ah–he’s a republican.

    Every stupid thing every republican who’s even thought of maybe being in some elected office anywhere is worthy of some kind of headline, right? So we all know how stupid and evil republicans are.

    Got it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.