Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We tried hard, in the county where I taught, to enforce the boys' pants only being so low, and not looking at young women's bras and thongs, but I grew weary of saying it over and over and over and over again. I changed my tactic at one point, and it seemed to work much better. If I saw a girl's undies, I'd comment on the color, and/or whether they seemed to match the bra that was showing, or their shoes, or something. Would you believe it embarrassed them? Go figure.
The boys often took it more in stride. I got tickled when I realized I wasn't looking at one pair of boxers, but maybe as many as 2 -3. Then I could comment as to whether they complimented, or contrasted, with the total look.
I'm not sure that I would comment on student's undergarments, although teachers have reminded students in this manner for years.
Each day brings headlines of teachers who are under investigation for misconduct.
I didn't use to 'care' about what teens wore. This trend really gets on my nerves. What it represents annoys me even more--ie--the celebrities/fashion industry/affluent emulate the criminal element of society.
It sure is a shame, and most states already have a law it is called Indecent Exposure,
Because indecent exposure actually involves showing human organs or having actual physical contact.. showing underwear, legally is not indecent exposure.
Perhaps if more boys knew where the hanging low pants originated from they might think twice. In case you don't know, it originated in prison as a way to have "easy access". Not a very cool picture is it. I would also suggest that if boys keep wearing their pants down around there knees that they will permantely walk like a duck the rest of their lives and then they will have to explain why:!!!
Is distasteful as showing off your undergarments is... it's not exposing any more than a bathing suit would. I don't think it's the government's role to decide what fashion is acceptable and what is not. If private schools wan't to make a mandate as to what's allowed, that something different.
I'd argue that a girl showing off half of her bare butt in low-riding jeans is much closer to indecent exposure than sagging jeans showing boxers. Should the gov't also criminalize plumbers that don't wear belts or suspenders?
Perhaps if more boys knew where the hanging low pants originated from they might think twice. In case you don't know, it originated in prison as a way to have "easy access". Not a very cool picture is it. I would also suggest that if boys keep wearing their pants down around there knees that they will permantely walk like a duck the rest of their lives and then they will have to explain why:!!!
I think you may be mistaken on the origination of the fad. It's my belief that it did originate in the prison system, but for mentally unstable inmates. The belts and shoelaces were removed to prevent suicide or use as weapons. The fad grew as people wanted to seem like they were "dangerous"... and a trend was born.
Is distasteful as showing off your undergarments is... it's not exposing any more than a bathing suit would. I don't think it's the government's role to decide what fashion is acceptable and what is not. If private schools wan't to make a mandate as to what's allowed, that something different.
Using a bathing suit argument just doesnt hold water to justify wearing pants below the belt. Last I checked, wearing a bathing suit to school was also unacceptable, so you pretty much made the argument that its not acceptable to wear pants below the belt, even though you intended to show otherwise.
<I don't think it's the government's role to decide what fashion is acceptable and what is not. If private schools wan't to make a mandate as to what's allowed, that something different.>
Any and all school's have dress codes.
Someone in my city wanted baggy pants banned completely. I don't know what happened with that. The city doesn't have the budget for more law enforcement and could not enforce this.
Using a bathing suit argument just doesnt hold water to justify wearing pants below the belt. Last I checked, wearing a bathing suit to school was also unacceptable, so you pretty much made the argument that its not acceptable to wear pants below the belt, even though you intended to show otherwise.
Point taken. We can subsitute gym shorts (basketball shorts) for bathing suits, and the same arguement will meet both of our standards.
Point taken. We can subsitute gym shorts (basketball shorts) for bathing suits, and the same arguement will meet both of our standards.
Sorry but there is a difference between seeing gym shorts and underwear. When there stops being a difference, you may as while just stop wearing underwear.
In many parts of the country there were signs that read "no shoes, no service" I think businesses with signs stating "revealing underpants, no service" rather than attempting to have police stop sagging panted youth and jail them. I am just as offended as the next, but I agree government cannot outlaw how one wears his pants, but businesses can refuse service, I know I would.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:!!!
