Bill seeks to criminalize saggy pants in Tennessee

LUCAS L. JOHNSON II • Associated Press Writer • The Tennessean, March 26, 2009

She’s no fan of saggy pants, but state Rep. Karen Camper says she questions the constitutionality of a colleague’s bill making the low-slung legwear a misdemeanor.

Camper, a Memphis Democrat, said Thursday she opposes the bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Towns, also of Memphis, that passed the House Criminal Practice and Procedure Subcommittee one day before. [full article]

Commentary

While this bill will not pass this year, since it has no companion bill in the Senate, I am amazed that it passed a House Committee.

It only takes one legislature to introduce a bill, so when I first read of this I dismissed it as one legislator probably introducing a bill at the behest of a influential supporter. A lot of bills get introduced that never see the light of day. I figured this bill would die in committee and that would be in the end of it. But, this thing may have legs. It passed a committee. It will probably be back next year.

I am no fan of saggy pants. They look ridiculous. I have watched kids, usually early-teen black kids, have to constantly pull at their pants to keep them form falling off. I have seen the pants down around the widest part of the hips. They are offensive to my sense of taste, but I have never witnessed any obscene body parts as a result of this fashion. Most of the time the kid with the saggy pants down around their hips are wearing boxer shorts that are at the waist where they ought to be.

The reason for banning these clothing cannot be due to a concern with indecency. If you go to any outdoor event in the summer you will see young girls exposing a lot more skin than is exposed by baggy pants. Also, if the law bans showing underwear, some of the silky tops girls wear as outerwear looks like lingerie. I wouldn’t want to ban those. We do not need to be in the business of defining when underwear is underwear.

The only reason for banning saggy pants it that they are ugly and people find them offensive. There are a lot of things I find offensive, such as clothing featuring the peace sign or images of Che Guevara, but because I find this offensive they should not be illegal. I don’t even want to ban the swastika if some nut wants to wear it.

As far as fashion, I find it offensive that people would pay $300 for a pair of new jeans that are paint spattered, frayed and stained to look dirty and look like Goodwill rejects, but I don’t want to ban them. There is a certain look that I find more ugly and more offensive than saggy pants. The look I am speaking of features tattoos, black clothing, hair either spiked or dyed weird colors, and multiple piercing of lips, eyebrows, the tongue, and ears. That is a very ugly look, yet I don't want to pass a law against it.

We need to get over the idea that because something offends us it should be illegal. People in a free society need a large degree of toleration for being offended. I think a lot of what is behind the war on tobacco is not a health concern but a desire to ban a habit that others find offensive. Part of the reason we can’t get wine in the grocery stores is because a segment of the community would be offended by its presence.

I find this effort to ban saggy pants more offensive than the saggy pants. We don’t need to make the police the fashion police.

Top Stories

Alan, buy yourself a new pair of pants!

I was telling Pattie, my co-worker about the disreputable pair of jeans I saw at Posh with a $250 price tag and she said, “What about Alan Jackson? Why does he were the pants with holes in the knee?”

Yea, I don’t get that either.

Alan Jackson is one of my favorite contemporary country artists. I love his music, but I do not understand the worn out knees of the pants.

Alan, you have got to have made a lot of money by now. You have sold over 50 million records. You have had twenty-four number one country songs and had more than 50 singles reach the top forty on Billboard’s County charts. You have won ACM’s and CMA’s and a Grammy and you pack out stadiums all across the county. Why do you wear the pants with the torn out knees? I really don’t understand the expensive designer western shirts matched with the pants with the worn-out knees. Alan, buy yourself a new pair of pants! Please. You can afford them.

Top Stories

Why do people pay good money to look very poor?

Sunday my wife and I went to our favorite coffee shop in Hillsboro Village. I like HillsboroVillage. It is near the university area and is always lively and interesting with boutiques, book stores, several resturants, coffee shops and an art gallery. We sat in the Provence Café and Louella had her cream brulee and cappuccino and I had the house coffee and a scone as we read the Sunday paper. Although cold, it was a pretty day and after our visit to Provence we decided to walk a couple blocks before heading back to the car. Strolling through the village we window-shopped and went into a couple stores.

One of the stores we visited was a clothing store called Posh. In the store was a female manikin in a pair of tight fitting blue jeans. The jeans were frayed around the cuffs and from the knees upward the front of the pants were faded. They were not faded to a light blue or white but a kind of rusty dirty color. The pants looked like someone had also painted in them. On the front, in the upper thigh region they had what looked like a few small paint spatters. On a couple or more places it looked like someone had tried to wipe off the paint spatter and the paint was smeared. I looked at the tag. The brand was Diesel and the price of the pants was $250.

I don’t get it. They looked like Goodwill rejects. I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would want to wear pants that looked like they were pulled out the trash. They were just plain ugly. You know the people who buy them are probably little rich girls who attend Vanderbilt University. Why do people pay good money to look very poor? Can someone explain this?

Top Stories