This could have gotten me in trouble. Say nothing.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
I would love to see those statutes. They should call them "Dave Petersen ordinances."
Not at all comparable. I doubt that Obama would have told people to get rid of their dreadlocks. Neither would most decent people. But asking people not to show their underwear in public is perfectly reasonable.
Why don't you look it up and then provide the evidence? You made a claim and until you can prove to me it's illegal to have sagging pants I'm going to say you're making this stuff up.
Having sagging pants is as illegal as wearing yoga pants or leggings.
Exposing gray-underwear man-ass in public certainly should be illegal.
Let's not be throwing the baby out with the bath water!
Perfectly acceptable public attire.
Be right back.
I still cannot fathom what possessed you to think it would be a good idea to make this post.
Let's not be throwing the baby out with the bath water!
Exactly. The last thing we need to do is criminalize this...
Oh, there are a few jerkwater towns which probably have some sort of ordinance which they CLAIM prohibits exposing the boxers. Get back to me when they bust some fat F*ck changing a tire and showing the plumber's crack
Obama DID suggest that young men cover their underwear--not by passing a law, but by simply saying it. I think it goes without saying that Tongan Bob is no Obama.
If you aren’t his parent or he is an adult, STFU and worry about yourself. This idea some people have that they know how everyone should dress or cut their hair is so GD antiquated.
Do you think all dress and personal grooming codes should be outlawed? Just curious.
Keep in mind that I said the personal letter to Sutherland was in very poor taste.
Help? That could get me in even more trouble.
And that's what's sad about the whole thing. As for me, I would have laughed my a** off, shaken my head and said to myself, "what an idiotic and complete maroon" before driving away like you and leaving the dumb dolt to wander about in his own little dream world.
He might have pulled you out of your car and gave you a good ASS BEATING too!
Or after the first punch he may have taken an unscheduled trip to the promised land if Bob is a believer in the second amendment.
Last edited:
“Having said that,” he continued, “brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What’s wrong with that? Come on.”
“Some people might not want to see your underwear,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m one of them.”
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts...against-the-law-12699804/#Usl14Ikjs4EPbT33.99
For those of you who think there should be no rules on how people dress in public, where would you draw the line? Are you OK with people walking around naked? What about behavior in public? Is it OK for people to have sex or masturbate in public, right out in the open, in front of children?
Poster above did it for me. See the Smithsonian link. Now, where's your proof that it is NOT illegal anywhere?
The legislature has drawn those lines on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth. Can’t display your genitals if there are people around that you know or should know are likely to be offended, affronted, or alarmed. And you cannot engage in a lewd act if you know it is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed. So feel free to walk around naked in the middle of Elk State Forest on New Year’s Eve beating your meat and shoving sticks up your ass. If no one’s around, it’s legal.
So, you can't show your genitals when people are around. Why not? Why does the government have the right to prohibit that?
So under the LionFan87b regime, what if I wear my pants sagging halfway down my a$$, but I am wearing swim trunks or gym shorts? Crime or no crime?
No crime. I get the fact that it becomes difficult to determine what is underwear vs. swim trunks, gym shorts, etc. And that it makes enforcement difficult. My objection is to people suggesting that it's nobody's business or that the public has no right to expect some public decency.
I was going by memory; rereading the statute it’s not clear to me if the likely to offend part of the indecent exposure statute applies to public places or not and I don’t have time to research that right now. In any event, contact your representatives in the General Assembly. I’m sure they’d be happy to discuss the historic origins and breadth of the Commonwealth’s police power in our system of government with you.
Underwear is not indecent. Nakedness may be. There us an extremely good reason why these sorts of ordinances are not in too many places--there is no consensus on indecency
In your opinion, underwear is not indecent. To many people it is. I am curious what percentage of Americans would call it indecent?
That's not what the link said at all. A matter of fact, the only thing the link said was that there are laws that prohibit lewd behavior. You made a statement, you were asked to back it up and when you couldn't you simply pointed to some link somebody else posted that I guarantee you didn't even bother reading and doesn't point to a single actual law that prohibits anyone from wearing sagging pants.
You never read anything before posting what you did about laws that prohibit a person from wearing sagging pants. You just said it because you don't think before you say things.
And further, you made the claim so it's up to you prove it. That's how burden of proof works. I don't prove that you are full of shit, you prove you aren't.
You're missing the point. Some people say it is, some say no. Kind of hard to make a law that only 60% agree with.
Do I need to read the article for you? It states that the enforcement of these laws has had mixed results. Clearly, there are laws in place. Furthermore, you didn't respond to me simply by expressing doubt. You explicitly stated that such laws don't exist. We both made definitive statements, so we are equally obliged to provide proof, right? The difference is that I have offered proof and you have not.
Yes, but is it only 60%? The more important point is that it doesn't need to be 100%. There will always be some who disagree. Some would say there should be no laws at all, for anything.
What if only 60% of the people said murder should be illegal? Should murder be ok then?
Underwear is just fabric. Anybody who considers underwear indecent is an idiot who shouldn’t ever, under any circumstances, enter a store that sells clothing lest they shocked and affronted. Indecency is not defined by fabric or clothing; it’s defined by how much and what parts of the human body are exposed and with what intent.
Again, that's your opinion. You are trying to use logic to prove that something is not indecent, but decency is more nuanced than that. It has to do with people's feelings, cultural norms and more. It's subjective, and that is OK. People struggle with the notion tha laws are subjective by nature.
