PDA

View Full Version : The Ban on Sagging Pants Debated on Dr. Phil


MdKnightR
01-25-2008, 12:23 PM
We've discussed this here before, so I thought I'd give all you debaters a heads-up. The ban on sagging pants is the topic of discussion on Dr. Phil Monday. It looks like its going to be pretty heated, so I plan to watch. We can discuss it more in depth here after it airs.

El Sitherino
01-25-2008, 12:51 PM
Why not spend time talking to these retarded little kids about the saggy pants thing? $20 says most of them don't even understand how it came about.

TK-8252
01-25-2008, 12:53 PM
Didn't Dr. Phil used to have dignity?

Wasn't he the guy who tried to keep troubled marriages together? And give advise to those who are getting divorced? And help parents with their out-of-control kids?

Now he's discussing Britney Spears and debating the ever so important issue of sagging pants?

MdKnightR
01-25-2008, 01:11 PM
Didn't Dr. Phil used to have dignity?

Wasn't he the guy who tried to keep troubled marriages together? And give advise to those who are getting divorced? And help parents with their out-of-control kids?

Now he's discussing Britney Spears and debating the ever so important issue of sagging pants?


He still does those things......and Britney Spears does need help regardless of what you think about her. For the record, I don't like her either. And its not the "sagging pants" that is the real issue, it is all the underlying problems that are associated with it such as gangs (aka "out of control kids"), public decency, and the notion that speaking out against it is inherently racist. The pants themselves are a symptom of bigger issues.

mur'phon
01-25-2008, 05:49 PM
They banned what now? :confused: Normaly I would think this a poor joke, but since it is in kavars..........

Stream
01-25-2008, 06:08 PM
Wow and I thought the UK were nuts for banning smoking in every enclosed space - Nah seriously the out of control kids are a big issue, I'm only 24 but things have changed a lot since I was eighteen... feels like a century ago. Something does need to be done about it though, it's only going to get worse if not.

--Stream

PoiuyWired
01-25-2008, 07:49 PM
Still, i think banning baggy pants and what not is a bad bad idea. For reasons unknown someone out there if forgetting about all the civil rights stuff and try to impose unreasonable control over people. What next? Nationalwide dresscode and uniform?

John Galt
01-25-2008, 08:50 PM
Interesting. Wonder if this little debate will make me think any higher of Dr. Phil...

by the way, MdKnightR, every time I see your avatar I feel all patriotic and civic-minded. Just an observation.

Rev7
01-26-2008, 01:52 AM
Interesting. Wonder if this little debate will make me think any higher of Dr. Phil... Dr. Phil is just another person...

@ the issue of the ban on sagging pants-- I really wouldn't/don't mind it. I don't personally wear my pants like that, so it really has no effect on me.

SilentScope001
01-26-2008, 01:15 PM
I support the ban. :carms:

Aeroldoth
01-26-2008, 01:19 PM
I oppose the ban. As PW noted, there is that pesky little civil rights thing.

Plus, I like the eye candy.

MdKnightR
01-26-2008, 03:30 PM
Plus, I like the eye candy.


You like seeing pants so low that you can see a guy's skid marks? :lol:

Ctrl Alt Del
01-26-2008, 04:29 PM
Isn't there anything more important for this Dr. to discuss?

"First the pants, then the starving"?

Rev7
01-26-2008, 05:20 PM
You like seeing pants so low that you can see a guy's skid marks?
lol! :lol:

I totally support the ban.

TK-8252
01-26-2008, 09:26 PM
@ the issue of the ban on sagging pants-- I really wouldn't/don't mind it. I don't personally wear my pants like that, so it really has no effect on me.

I don't understand this mindset at all. "I don't personally do something, so if it's banned, then I don't care.

Imagine having such a mindset during a time like the civil rights movement. "I'm not black, so I don't care if they have rights."

DarthVandar205
01-26-2008, 11:15 PM
I dont think this is going to go anywhere. Its unconstitutional. They cant require people to not wear baggy pants. This is not something that you make into a law, its something that shouldnt even have to be mentioned. I think the effort needs to be put into going after gangs and dealing with all the underlying problems young people have. Telling people to pull up their pants isnt going to change anything. Besides the cops have better things to do. This is almost as much of a waste of time for them as stopping to get donuts.

El Sitherino
01-26-2008, 11:47 PM
Plus, I like the eye candy.
What eye-candy? Every person I've seen with sagging pants it's directly blocking any ability to size up the ass. Plus most of them don't have nice asses in the first place, hence the sagging.

[/angry-gay-rampage-ness]

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-26-2008, 11:56 PM
I dont think this is going to go anywhere. Its unconstitutional. They cant require people to not wear baggy pants. This is not something that you make into a law, its something that shouldnt even have to be mentioned. I think the effort needs to be put into going after gangs and dealing with all the underlying problems young people have. Telling people to pull up their pants isnt going to change anything. Besides the cops have better things to do. This is almost as much of a waste of time for them as stopping to get donuts.What about guns-for-belts programs then?

Rev7
01-27-2008, 02:20 AM
I don't understand this mindset at all. "I don't personally do something, so if it's banned, then I don't care.

Imagine having such a mindset during a time like the civil rights movement. "I'm not black, so I don't care if they have rights."
IMO, your statement is out of context. :)

tk102
01-27-2008, 11:29 AM
:lol: Out of context? That's exactly your context. Your words:
I don't personally wear my pants like that, so it really has no effect on me.Did you mean to say TK's analogy does not apply? Explain please.

Rev7
01-27-2008, 01:06 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay, how should I explain this...okay, the analogy that TK-8252 used IMO, is of context. We are talking about the ban on sagging pants, not something so huge as the civil rights movement. That is my opinion. :) Hope that cleared it up. I know that I probably shouldn't have said what I did, but rather refine. :)

-Rev

TK-8252
01-27-2008, 01:13 PM
Oh, I'd agree that my analogy might not be the best, but I do think that it holds merit. I didn't have to use civil rights as the example; I could have used something else.

"I don't drink apple juice, so if it were banned, then I wouldn't care."

(Unless of course you do drink apple juice.) :p

This is also a similar mindset I see with the smoking debate, although I don't want to go too far off-topic. "I don't smoke, so if it's banned, then I wouldn't care."

Why not live and let live? Why not stand up for the rights of others to do as they wish? You know, as in: "I disagree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

Rev7
01-27-2008, 01:19 PM
Yeah, I hardly know anything on debating, for LF is really my only exposure to debating. I am learning more and more every day. Thanks. :)

PoiuyWired
01-28-2008, 11:51 AM
You like seeing pants so low that you can see a guy's skid marks? :lol:

I would certainly hat to see that, as always.

But I would happily support that hutt sagging his pants showing his stinkin skid marks. Point, this is an extremely bad way to solve a problem. Its basically a severe invasion to civil rights in return for minimal effect on fighting crime.

"I may not agree with your sagging pants but I will defend to the death your right to wear it" -- some old dude.

Aeroldoth
01-28-2008, 04:47 PM
You like seeing pants so low that you can see a guy's skid marks? :lol:What eye-candy? Every person I've seen with sagging pants it's directly blocking any ability to size up the ass. Plus most of them don't have nice asses in the first place, hence the sagging.

[/angry-gay-rampage-ness]I was referring to the front, not the rear. Most guys with sagging pants wear boxers. Boxers can be revealing... especially if they're undersized. :D

I got loads of eye candy as a pizza driver. :naughty:

"I don't drink apple juice, so if it were banned, then I wouldn't care."

(Unless of course you do drink apple juice.) :pMartin Nimoeller's quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...) is something I wish people would remember more often.

Q
01-29-2008, 12:06 AM
This reminds me of the attempt to ban the zoot suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_suit) in LA during WWII, except that zoot suits were/are cool and sagging pants are tasteless. Plumber's butt is now fashionable?! Great.:rolleyes:

Rev7
01-29-2008, 12:36 AM
I was referring to the front, not the rear. Most guys with sagging pants wear boxers. Boxers can be revealing... especially if they're undersized.

I got loads of eye candy as a pizza driver.
So, let me get this straight, You think that male parts are eye-candy?! I don't understand, could you please clarify a tad more. Thanks!
Plumber's butt is now fashionable?! Great
I am so lost with today's fashion. Eh, maybe thats a good thing. :D

El Sitherino
01-29-2008, 12:39 AM
You think that male parts are eye-candy?! I don't understand, could you please clarify a tad more. Thanks!
Some people like to engage in sexual relations with males. Often they're female, sometimes male, and on rare occasion a hermaphrodite.

Tommycat
01-29-2008, 01:20 AM
As for the sagging pants, It depends on the localle. If they ban them in schools, I can understand that. They don't allow clothing that is too revealing. This is just an extension of that. And actually, Aeroldoth has pointed out exactly the reason they should be banned. Any clothing that allows genetalia to be seen in public is subject to restriction based on public indecency laws(though I must admit we're a bit puritan in comparison to other countries).

Rev7
01-29-2008, 01:31 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for clarifiying El Sitherino. Good point Tommycat!

MdKnightR
01-29-2008, 01:37 AM
I was quite surprised by the show myself. I couldn't believe that Al Sharpton was actually making sense! I also see what should be the middle ground in the issue....campaigning against saggin' with music and advertising is a much better alternative to outlawing it. Dallas, TX actually went from "banning" to campaigning against it with billboards and some help from hip-hop stars.

Aeroldoth
01-29-2008, 10:23 AM
Plumber's butt is now fashionable?! Great.:rolleyes:Why is it that when people speak of or envision a male showing ANY amount of skin, then the male MUST be unattractive?? Take a look at these images, which have been floating around the net for some time:

Paris, France vs. Paris, Kentucky (http://www.littlepaul.com/funny/paris.html)

Obviously, we are meant to consider one of them attractive, and the other not. I couldn't find a similar comparison with males, but it seems that people think that males with low-riders must be exclusively of the second image type. Males showing a little extra can be just as hot as females showing a little extra. [/rant]

So, let me get this straight, You think that male parts are eye-candy?! I don't understand, could you please clarify a tad more. Thanks!I think El Sitherino's dry humor answered this perfectly. Had... what he said not occurred to you?

And actually, Aeroldoth has pointed out exactly the reason they should be banned. Any clothing that allows genetalia to be seen in public is subject to restriction based on public indecency laws(though I must admit we're a bit puritan in comparison to other countries).We are quite puritan, a fact that I think has troubled this country since inception, but that's a different discussion. (H. L. Mencken quote (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/117.html))

While I was referring to male exposure, I was also referring to male bulges, nothing more than you might see at any beach or pool. And IME low pants tend to be most common in poor neighborhoods, areas where the law is not highly regarded... or enforced.

As I said earlier, I think it illegal to try to enforce a public dress code, but it also avoids the real issues, whatever you believe them to be. If you think low pants leads to X, then deal with X. Making everybody pull their pants up won't suddenly fix society's ills, any more than ending video games or music videos will somehow improve people. "Darn that rock music, it made my boy start smoking cigarettes!"

Tommycat
01-29-2008, 10:45 PM
I don't call it a dress code to require pants not to be sagged to the point of exposure. I would support a ban on persons(note male or female makes no diffference in this case) appearing in public with boxers on that have no way to secure the front.

No, the sagging pants are no more protected than a guy wearing boxers in public(which is against the law in some places).

TK-8252
01-29-2008, 11:05 PM
I don't call it a dress code to require pants not to be sagged to the point of exposure. I would support a ban on persons(note male or female makes no diffference in this case) appearing in public with boxers on that have no way to secure the front.

No, the sagging pants are no more protected than a guy wearing boxers in public(which is against the law in some places).

Wow, I bet Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan would hate it if you were making laws. Every picture of them "down there" without underwear would be used against them in a court of law!

John Galt
01-29-2008, 11:28 PM
As an aside, I'm not a fan of Paris, KY. The place.

Tommycat
01-30-2008, 12:20 AM
Public performances are different. You pay to get in. And actually yes they could be cited for public indecency anyway without me making the laws. In some areas it is possible to get a public indecency ticket for having your fly down on your pants. Their celebrity status tends to protect them a bit anyway(whether that is right or not isn't being debated). So that is irrelevant. Heck in some areas it is illegal for a man to be on a public street with his shirt off(now that is insane). I don't have to be making laws for it to be possible for a person to get a public indecency ticket for having exposed genetalia.

Rev7
01-30-2008, 12:37 AM
I think El Sitherino's dry humor answered this perfectly. Had... what he said not occurred to you?
Sorry, I truly am. I was extremely tired because I was researching WWII facts on the net for a couple of hours, and really didn't know what your gender was up until last night. I was simply tired, so once again sorry! :D

MdKnightR
01-30-2008, 01:17 AM
Public performances are different. You pay to get in. And actually yes they could be cited for public indecency anyway without me making the laws. In some areas it is possible to get a public indecency ticket for having your fly down on your pants. Their celebrity status tends to protect them a bit anyway(whether that is right or not isn't being debated). So that is irrelevant. Heck in some areas it is illegal for a man to be on a public street with his shirt off(now that is insane). I don't have to be making laws for it to be possible for a person to get a public indecency ticket for having exposed genetalia.


About 20 years ago, Gene Simmons was cited in Columbus, GA for indecent exposure for dropping his pants on stage. He claims that the suspenders on his outfit came loose and, in return, exposed his underwear. Doesn't sound too far removed from the issue at hand.

El Sitherino
01-30-2008, 01:37 AM
I was also referring to male bulges
Wait, you mean pants are designed to de-bulge?

I feel ripped off. :(

Tommycat
01-30-2008, 06:40 AM
About 20 years ago, Gene Simmons was cited in Columbus, GA for indecent exposure for dropping his pants on stage. He claims that the suspenders on his outfit came loose and, in return, exposed his underwear. Doesn't sound too far removed from the issue at hand.
Yeah and those same laws are still on the books, just not as tightly enforced...

Though now there is precident for performances where the person is required to pay a fee to view the event(otherwize acts like GWAR would have a hard time performing).

Aeroldoth
01-30-2008, 09:15 AM
No, the sagging pants are no more protected than a guy wearing boxers in public(which is against the law in some places).You've obviously never been to Miami, FL. :D

Heck in some areas it is illegal for a man to be on a public street with his shirt off(now that is insane). Where the hell is that?!

I don't have to be making laws for it to be possible for a person to get a public indecency ticket for having exposed genetalia.Let me clarify that I was not suggesting that people walk around with genitals fully exposed (IIRC the US Supreme Court had ruled that nudity was not inherently obscene). It was a rare exception when anything popped out in front of me, just as women's breasts have occasionally popped out of shirts, bras, etc.

I do believe people should be able to dress as they please or, to phrase it anoother way, gvt has no right to tell people how to dress.

EDIT:

Sorry, I truly am. I was extremely tired because I was researching WWII facts on the net for a couple of hours, and really didn't know what your gender was up until last night. I was simply tired, so once again sorry! :DAnd, once again, no need to apologise!

Incidentally, I don't think I've indicated my gender here on LF... I could be wrong. Anyways, I was just surprised that you would be surprised that some people find men attractive. You don't live in Ogre country, do you?

Wait, you mean pants are designed to de-bulge?

I feel ripped off. :(Sure, don't you remember all those commercials:

"Excuse me, are those bulge-boy jeans?"

Tommycat
01-30-2008, 08:09 PM
You've obviously never been to Miami, FL. :D
I thought the qualifier made it abundantly clear that this is not everywhere.

Where the hell is that?!
It was in New England somewhere. I think it was Mass. I can't remember exactly, I just remember it because it made CNN at the time, and I laughed about how silly it was.

Let me clarify that I was not suggesting that people walk around with genitals fully exposed (IIRC the US Supreme Court had ruled that nudity was not inherently obscene). It was a rare exception when anything popped out in front of me, just as women's breasts have occasionally popped out of shirts, bras, etc.

I do believe people should be able to dress as they please or, to phrase it anoother way, gvt has no right to tell people how to dress.
So long as the government can tell people what can be broadcast on public media, they can also regulate to an extent how people dress. (Hint: I'm not a fan of media censorship either, I think it should be the viewers that censor based on their households preferences)

Rev7
01-30-2008, 08:48 PM
You don't live in Ogre country, do you?
Nope, I live in America. :D

Arcesious
01-30-2008, 08:52 PM
America, the hoem of the not-so-brave anymore... :(

DeadYorick
01-30-2008, 09:41 PM
If people are able to ban sagging pants people will eventually think of complaining about video games and banning them to. We must stop this ban so people wont think of the power of complaining.

Tommycat
01-30-2008, 11:45 PM
If people are able to ban sagging pants people will eventually think of complaining about video games and banning them to. We must stop this ban so people wont think of the power of complaining.
actually its the other way around. Video games have been banned in several countries around the world for various reasons. The US doesn't do this as we have the companies willing to use their legal muscle to ensure that a ban does not go through.

Lets face it, banning of being partially disrobed is nowhere near the same as attacking a product that in order to be seen must be purchased. Which they already do not allow in the hands of minors. Heck if they can tell me I cannot smoke in property I own because it is a business, they can sure as heck tell you to pull up your pants.

Certain clothing is already restricted. Wearing Gang Colors is against the law in some areas.