14573
Post by: metallifan
It made me lol, but in reality, I say good on Fraz-er-Texas' part! I'm sick of seeing kids wearing their pants around their ankles. Someone has the right idea 
http://news.sympatico.ca/unusualnews/saggy_pants_mean_no_ride_on_one_texas_bus_system/4a7c12fb
Saggy pants mean no ride on one Texas bus system
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - Don't get on the bus in Ft. Worth, Texas, if you're not properly dressed.
The Ft. Worth Transportation Authority, known as "The T," has implemented a new policy that prohibits any passenger from boarding a bus with "saggy" pants that expose the person's underwear or buttocks.
"Riders don't want to see a person dressed like that on a public bus," Joan Hunter, communications manager for The T, told Reuters on Thursday. "Our customers think it's disrespectful."
The saggy pants look has been around for more than a decade, tracing its roots to prison attire because inmates are not issued belts. It spread to the rap and hip-hop music community, and from there became a popular symbol of freedom and cultural awareness for many young people.
Hunter said the new saggy pants policy is simply an extension of the dress code that The T has had for years, which has long required shirts and shoes.
"A lot of different people ride the bus," she said. "And many of them told us it's not a good idea to have your pants below your buttocks."
So up went signs in city buses, reading "Pull 'em up or find another ride."
Hunter said a Ft. Worth City Council member is looking for a donor to pay for billboards that carry the same message.
She said the decision on whether a potential rider's pants are inappropriate is up to the discretion of the bus driver.
The first day the policy was in place about 50 people were removed for improper pants, Hunter said.
Some passengers have complained that The T is trying to dictate what they can and can't wear, Hunter said, but overall reaction has been positive. She pointed out that many Ft. Worth-area schools have a similar policy.
"Following this rule is actually easier than following any other clothing policy we have," she said.
"All you need to do is pull your pants up before you get onto the bus. You don't have to go home and get a shirt or get a pair of shoes. Then, after you get off the bus, you can dress however you want."
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Sounds like a good idea.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
I'm waiting for the first cry of discrimination. I used to love watching the Fort Worth city council meetings on public access tv 
21574
Post by: Mewiththeface
I don't why people care that much about seeing underwear. There are some massive prudes out there. There is a point when it does look bad but more often then not its about comfort, not style.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm waiting for the first cry of discrimination. I used to love watching the Fort Worth city council meetings on public access tv
To say that it is discrimination is to admit that you think "saggy pants" is only done by a certain race. Which is Racist.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm waiting for the first cry of discrimination. I used to love watching the Fort Worth city council meetings on public access tv
Is that a ball gag in your avatar?
Oh and OT sounds good to me. We need something like that around here. I live close enough to Flint to see the baggy pants thing regularly
664
Post by: Grimtuff
Good, now bring it to the UK as well for all those twatbags that wear them over here.
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
Bus company sanctioned fashion, WooHoo! were partying now!
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
Mewiththeface wrote:I don't why people care that much about seeing underwear. There are some massive prudes out there. There is a point when it does look bad but more often then not its about comfort, not style.
Because it's rude and it makes you look like a giant douche canoe.
5534
Post by: dogma
Well, it makes you look like a douche because lots of people think its rude.
Though I do love it when supposedly unsuperficial people complain about the dress habits of others.
32955
Post by: Coolyo294
I never said I wasn't superficial.
5534
Post by: dogma
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
To say that it is discrimination is to admit that you think "saggy pants" is only done by a certain race. Which is Racist.
No it isn't. One can discriminate against any group, including "people who sag their pants." Automatically Appended Next Post: coolyo294 wrote:I never said I wasn't superficial.
I never said you did.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
I don't want a face-full of your arse when i'm already forced to sit with people who seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of courtesy.
I don't care if you want the world to see your buttocks; you're wearing a belt for heaven's sake, so damn well use it until you're off the bus.
29408
Post by: Melissia
That's fully within their rights to implement such rules, but I hope this doesn't discount the various hard workers that merely have gotten plumber arse from leaning over to do their jobs all day, so to speak.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
The saggy pants look has been around for more than a decade, tracing its roots to prison attire because inmates are not issued belts. It spread to the rap and hip-hop music community, and from there became a popular symbol of freedom and cultural awareness for many young people.
Does anyone else see the paradox?
I wouldn't want to wear my kegs like that if it causes plumbers arse!
Very painful that, and may lead to permanent damage to your ballcock if left untreated.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
KingCracker wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm waiting for the first cry of discrimination. I used to love watching the Fort Worth city council meetings on public access tv
Is that a ball gag in your avatar?
Oh and OT sounds good to me. We need something like that around here. I live close enough to Flint to see the baggy pants thing regularly
Yes it is. Been on a sub kick lately because I'm having a fling with my supervisor and she's really aggressive.
Also, yeah, sagging pants.
21678
Post by: Karon
I support this, personally. Too many kids, my cousin included, sag their pants and don't even understand what it means or why they do it besides its "what is popular"
If you aren't a gangster and sell drugs, don't do it. You just look like a dumbass to the real gangsters.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The ... look has been around for more than a decade, .... It spread to the .... music community, and from there became a popular symbol of freedom and cultural awareness for many young people.
They said the same kind of things about bell bottoms, parachute pants, and nehru jackets..... That doesn't mean it isn't a BAD fashion.....
10104
Post by: snurl
I saw a kid in baggy pants run to catch a frisbee.
He screamed when his knees hit the pavement, pants predictably around ankles.
I don't know who laughed harder, his friends or me.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Whats really funny is the "Layered" look.... Baggys over boxers over briefs........
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Makes it easier for the cops to catch them though...
I have a theory that there is a group of rich and powerful people that pay urban role models to dress in the most ridiculous manners (sideways flathats, saggy pants, one pants leg pushed up, etc.) so that those with the mentality to emulate such idiocy can be more easily identifiable.
Just a theory...
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Except afaik none of those started as a consequence of being incarcerated, Helgrenze, with the possible exception of sailors if press ganged.
Nerhu jackets named after the Indian politician and popularised by The Beatles.
Parachute pants are best left undiscussed as they take gakk filled nappies as their inspiration. They merely display freedom from good judgement.
21574
Post by: Mewiththeface
coolyo294 wrote:Mewiththeface wrote:I don't why people care that much about seeing underwear. There are some massive prudes out there. There is a point when it does look bad but more often then not its about comfort, not style.
Because it's rude and it makes you look like a giant douche canoe.
Not really. Rudeness is a term made up by prudes to explain their awkwardness.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Ah... the naivete of youth...
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Not wanting to see someone's buttock cleavage has little to do with prudery.
Mostly it is a matter of context: whose arse and where.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mewiththeface wrote:Rudeness is a term made up by prudes to explain their awkwardness.
No, rudeness is a term used to express that someone is being disrespectful. It has nothing to do with prudery.
What you described is utter nonsense.
21196
Post by: agnosto
The war against baggy pants has been going on for a while now.
Atlanta being the biggest city to do it that I'm aware of. We don't need to see somebody's underwear. It's the same to me as Wal Mart people....ick.
Don't make me post the pictures, all you americans know what I'm talking about. 
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Meh, seems every generation has some sort of "style" that annoys some people, Flappers in the '20's, "Greasers" in the '50's, Hippies in the '60's and so on...
I really don't see that people "sagging" their pants is worth getting worked up over.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
lol
Much more subtle than selling "Hey, I'm a fething idiot" T-shirts.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Those images are a bit OTT, more often this is what one would see...
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
"DAMN! 80% OFF??!!! Hurry, grab your pants and lets get in there!"
9079
Post by: FITZZ
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
"DAMN! 80% OFF??!!! Hurry, grab your pants and lets get in there!"
 ...Nice one.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm waiting for the first cry of discrimination. I used to love watching the Fort Worth city council meetings on public access tv
To say that it is discrimination is to admit that you think "saggy pants" is only done by a certain race. Which is Racist.
Discrimination covers a far broader spectrum than just Race.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Makes it easier for the cops to catch them though...
I have a theory that there is a group of rich and powerful people that pay urban role models to dress in the most ridiculous manners (sideways flathats, saggy pants, one pants leg pushed up, etc.) so that those with the mentality to emulate such idiocy can be more easily identifiable.
Just a theory...
"Urban" role models? What are these, my racist friend?
21678
Post by: Karon
Those pictures are exaggerated greatly, but y'all can live in your fantasy world all you want.
It was, at first, a fashion for the thugs and the gangsters, made public to white people by the Hip-Hop community.
White kids see this as cool, make it a fashion, ruin the whole point of it as it was originally.
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?
Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?
What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?
Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?
The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.
*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
FITZZ wrote: Those images are a bit OTT, more often this is what one would see...
Less OTT and more UTK
15884
Post by: ghosty
Guess Texas is outta bounds for me?
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
metallifan wrote:It made me lol, but in reality, I say good on Fraz-er-Texas' part! I'm sick of seeing kids wearing their pants around their ankles. Someone has the right idea :thumbsup
Too bad they wouldn't outlaw fat red necks with beer bellies hanging out of "wife beater" t-shirts, but then I guess the bus companies would have to declare bankruptcy...
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Have to say it, That "style" ...isn't it really just advertisement for wanting some "manly loving"? I mean, think about it, It's instant access, pretty much, isn't it?
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Thanks for that image of gangstas playing Brokeback mounting! Automatically Appended Next Post: Is that why they call each other homies?
just wondering cos I never understood the expression, not being down wid da kidz, yo.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
AvatarForm wrote:
"Urban" role models? What are these, my racist friend?
Their word, not mine.
Oh yeah, I'm racist (by the common definition of the word).
29408
Post by: Melissia
helgrenze wrote:Have to say it, That "style" ...isn't it really just advertisement for wanting some "manly loving"? I mean, think about it, It's instant access, pretty much, isn't it?
Considering it originated in prison, probably.
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
So showing their underwear is disrespectful?
What about club area on a saturday night when young ladies emerge with 'skirts' that are actually glorified belts and their underwear is visible? Why is no one crying for their blood?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Phototoxin wrote:So showing their underwear is disrespectful?
What about club area on a saturday night when young ladies emerge with 'skirts' that are actually glorified belts and their underwear is visible? Why is no one crying for their blood?
... actually, there are people that do that...
That aside, most people think that such skirts are pretty distasteful/disrespectful too here, unless you're at a specific event where it's called for.
I mean, it's like going to a nude beach . It's okay to be nude there, but you damned well better be clothed until you get there.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The kids in school do this with their trousers, it looks ridiculous. Though in terms of stuff I want them to stop doing on the bus, it's well down behind:
1. Playing music on their goddamned phones.
2. Taking up more than their share of seats.
3. Talking so loudly everybody on the bus can hear the details of their sordid, grotty lives.
I know, I'm a grumpy old person now. I'd love a sonic screwdriver so I could break those damn phones when they start with that awful fething music. Headphones! They work!
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
If you had a sonic screwdriver couldn't you use it to break the little tykes instead?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mewiththeface wrote:I don't why people care that much about seeing underwear. There are some massive prudes out there. There is a point when it does look bad but more often then not its about comfort, not style.
Its called I have class and a brain. People who let their underwear hang out, don't. Automatically Appended Next Post: Avatar 720 wrote:I don't want a face-full of your arse when i'm already forced to sit with people who seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of courtesy.
I don't care if you want the world to see your buttocks; you're wearing a belt for heaven's sake, so damn well use it until you're off the bus.
Exactly. Now get a job you bum!
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Da Boss wrote:The kids in school do this with their trousers, it looks ridiculous. Though in terms of stuff I want them to stop doing on the bus, it's well down behind:
1. Playing music on their goddamned phones.
2. Taking up more than their share of seats.
3. Talking so loudly everybody on the bus can hear the details of their sordid, grotty lives.
Also:
4. Swearing like it is going out of fashion.
5. Being generally abusive.
6. Using up my oxygen.
10104
Post by: snurl
Karon wrote:Those pictures are exaggerated greatly, but y'all can live in your fantasy world all you want.
It was, at first, a fashion for the thugs and the gangsters, made public to white people by the Hip-Hop community.
White kids see this as cool, make it a fashion, ruin the whole point of it as it was originally.
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
No no no. The Baggy pants style was first used by Dick VanDyke during that musical number with the penguins in the Mary Poppins movie back around '65 or so. Everything went downhill from there.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
snurl wrote:Karon wrote:Those pictures are exaggerated greatly, but y'all can live in your fantasy world all you want.
It was, at first, a fashion for the thugs and the gangsters, made public to white people by the Hip-Hop community.
White kids see this as cool, make it a fashion, ruin the whole point of it as it was originally.
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
No no no. The Baggy pants style was first used by Dick VanDyke during that musical number with the penguins in the Mary Poppins movie back around '65 or so. Everything went downhill from there.
Dick Van Dyke=Original Gangsta...
46
Post by: alarmingrick
FITZZ wrote:snurl wrote:Karon wrote:Those pictures are exaggerated greatly, but y'all can live in your fantasy world all you want.
It was, at first, a fashion for the thugs and the gangsters, made public to white people by the Hip-Hop community.
White kids see this as cool, make it a fashion, ruin the whole point of it as it was originally.
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
No no no. The Baggy pants style was first used by Dick VanDyke during that musical number with the penguins in the Mary Poppins movie back around '65 or so. Everything went downhill from there.
Dick Van Dyke=Original Gangsta...
i almost fell out of my seat laughing! good one FITZZ!
9079
Post by: FITZZ
@ alarmingrick..
Just doing my part to make Dakka a happier place my friend.
649
Post by: Thanatos_elNyx
I'd sooner have them ban people with BO from Buses
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I'd sooner have them ban people with BO from Buses
Yeah, I'll take a bunch of kids with their underwear hanging out over some smelly slob any day.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
FITZZ, thanks for making my life there I loved that scene as a kid. The faces that guy could make...
46
Post by: alarmingrick
FITZZ wrote:Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I'd sooner have them ban people with BO from Buses
Yeah, I'll take a bunch of kids with their underwear hanging out over some smelly slob any day.
Agreed! i can always look away.
29585
Post by: AvatarForm
SlaveToDorkness wrote:AvatarForm wrote:
"Urban" role models? What are these, my racist friend?
Their word, not mine.
Oh yeah, I'm racist (by the common definition of the word).
Not by the common definition, but by your racial inferences.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Mewiththeface wrote:Not really. Rudeness is a term made up by prudes to explain their awkwardness.
So if I walk up and spit in your face, it isn't rude and you would be a prude if you got upset?
Somehow I doubt you REALLY meant what you typed...
Jake
9079
Post by: FITZZ
CptJake wrote:Mewiththeface wrote:Not really. Rudeness is a term made up by prudes to explain their awkwardness.
So if I walk up and spit in your face, it isn't rude and you would be a prude if you got upset?
Somehow I doubt you REALLY meant what you typed...
Jake
Well c'mon now Jake, there is a big difference in having to look at a bit of underwear and someone gobbing in your face...
But I get the point your trying to convey.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Frazzled wrote:
Its called I have class and a brain. People who let their underwear hang out, don't.
21678
Post by: Karon
AvatarForm wrote:Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?
Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?
What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?
Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?
The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.
*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.
The point was, they act like thugs, but have never experienced it in their life. Their fathers should either A: Drop them off in a ghetto and have them find their way home or B: Kick their ass and teach them that they are being fake.
91
Post by: Hordini
Karon wrote:AvatarForm wrote:Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?
Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?
What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?
Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?
The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.
*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.
The point was, they act like thugs, but have never experienced it in their life. Their fathers should either A: Drop them off in a ghetto and have them find their way home or B: Kick their ass and teach them that they are being fake.
Because it's so much better to be a real gangster instead of a pretend one, right? These kids should definitely be more concerned with what real gangsters think of them! Also, good to know only the white kids who are sagging are the ones being fake.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Its called I have class and a brain. People who let their underwear hang out, don't.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Hordini wrote:Because it's so much better to be a real gangster instead of a pretend one, right? These kids should definitely be more concerned with what real gangsters think of them! Also, good to know only the white kids who are sagging are the ones being fake.
I'd also rather a bunch of "pretend" "fakers" were walking around looking like idiots than actually have some "real" "gangasta's" walking around looking and being idiots. It also entertains me that Karon is white, yet appears to be the shining knight (I was going to say white knight, but the pun would have been too much ) of one tiny facet of "black culture" (or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are"). Edit: Fixed quotes
15594
Post by: Albatross
Karon wrote:AvatarForm wrote:Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.
How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?
Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?
What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?
Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?
The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.
*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.
The point was, they act like thugs, but have never experienced it in their life. Their fathers should either A: Drop them off in a ghetto and have them find their way home or B: Kick their ass and teach them that they are being fake.
Yo, don't hate the player, hate the game! I'ma wear my pants as low as I like. In fact, feth the haters. Word to their mothers.
Yeah, I said it.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Albatross wrote:Yeah, I said it.
Shizzle to my nizzle good sir.
15594
Post by: Albatross
SilverMK2 wrote:Albatross wrote:Yeah, I said it.
Shizzle to my nizzle good sir.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
SilverMK2 wrote:(or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").
Edit: Fixed quotes
So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
helgrenze wrote:So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?
Sure. They may look a bit stupid to me, but it is their life and as long as they are not hurting anyone, go for it.
I personally am not old enough (unless you speak to Kan, that whippersnapper!) to be a proper grumpy old man, but I buy into that culture and generally aim to be as old and grumpy as possible.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
helgrenze wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:(or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").
Edit: Fixed quotes
So you would be ok with [...] anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?
For God's sake, man! There are limits!!
42223
Post by: htj
SilverMK2 wrote:helgrenze wrote:So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?
Sure. They may look a bit stupid to me, but it is their life and as long as they are not hurting anyone, go for it.
I personally am not old enough (unless you speak to Kan, that whippersnapper!) to be a proper grumpy old man, but I buy into that culture and generally aim to be as old and grumpy as possible.
Grumpy fo' life. Represent.
If these simple minded young fellows were to not deport themselves in such outlandish and counterintuitive fashions, then how would one be able to recognise them for the trend-absorbed, addle-brained numbskulls that they are? Why, one might waste valuable time engaging them in conversation before coming to the realisation that they are untterly beneath one. A grim prospect indeed.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
htj wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:helgrenze wrote:So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?
Sure. They may look a bit stupid to me, but it is their life and as long as they are not hurting anyone, go for it.
I personally am not old enough (unless you speak to Kan, that whippersnapper!) to be a proper grumpy old man, but I buy into that culture and generally aim to be as old and grumpy as possible.
Grumpy fo' life. Represent.
If these simple minded young fellows were to not deport themselves in such outlandish and counterintuitive fashions, then how would one be able to recognise them for the trend-absorbed, addle-brained numbskulls that they are? Why, one might waste valuable time engaging them in conversation before coming to the realisation that they are untterly beneath one. A grim prospect indeed.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Honestly... how about that. Texas has a good idea.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
I'd be fine with a naked society personally.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
I'd be fine with a naked society personally.
Go to a retirement home and say that.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
Frazzled wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
I'd be fine with a naked society personally.
Go to a retirement home and say that.
Hey now, the human body is a beautiful thing...despite any sagging or wrinkles.
...I say this primarily due to the fact that I'll be sagging and wrinkling in the next few short decades myself..
EDIT:...Amusingly enough, it seems that as one get's older they tend to "reverse" the sagging of pants.
34842
Post by: Mike Noble
There is a direct variation between age and belt height. Or is it indirect variation? Not so good with math...
Well, I think it looks pretty stupid, but I don't care if people want to do it.
So, does anyone have strange preferences with clothing though? For example, I don't like wearing shoes very much at all. I only wear them when I go out because I have to.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Frazzled wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
I'd be fine with a naked society personally.
Go to a retirement home and say that.
It's not like I have to look  We'd save so much on laundry and confidence would sky rocket.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Frazzled wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
I'd be fine with a naked society personally.
Go to a retirement home and say that.
It's not like I have to look We'd save so much on laundry and confidence would sky rocket.
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized  I can't imagine this being good for their confidence. 
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.
Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.
Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.
I was just joking, either way going to a swimming pool change room really shows that there isn't as much variance in size as one would think (wow that sounds really pedo of me ). Yeah, I knew about
the six inch thing too, but there's always exceptions which is what I was getting at.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Cheesecat wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.
Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.
I was just joking, either way going to a swimming pool change room really shows that there isn't as much variance in size as one would think (wow that sounds really pedo of me ). Yeah, I knew about
the six inch thing too, but there's always exceptions which is what I was getting at.
Ha, yeah. Those exceptions are making their money in a certain industry, however :3 Quickly, back on topic!
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cheesecat wrote:Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.
Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.
I was just joking, either way going to a swimming pool change room really shows that there isn't as much variance in size as one would think (wow that sounds really pedo of me ). Yeah, I knew about
the six inch thing too, but there's always exceptions which is what I was getting at.
Ha, yeah. Those exceptions are making their money in a certain industry, however :3 Quickly, back on topic!
By exceptions I was more referring to this. But if were talking about the opposite end of the spectrum, it wouldn't surprise me if some of them male porn stars were taking male enhancement pills such as ExtenZe's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropenis
Either way that's enough derailing, now back on-track.
...So yeah, I don't like the low-pants, gangsta-style look but I think people should be able to wear what they want (at least in most circumstances ) regardless if I agree with their fashion choices or not.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
You should see the Howard Stern segment about that. It honestly wouldn't bother me. But we're getting back on topic. So, saggy pants and old people who don't like them.
21574
Post by: Mewiththeface
Aren't use nerds the one who preach you shouldn't care what other people think of you.
Hence the lacking style we have been stereotyped with and nasty BO?
Its funny because these people mare doing just that and we yell at them.
but seriously, we must ask the purpose of pants. Make sure you remember the purpose of underwear when trying to hypothesis the reason for pants. Could lead to an interesting discussion.
21678
Post by: Karon
SilverMK2 wrote:Hordini wrote:Because it's so much better to be a real gangster instead of a pretend one, right? These kids should definitely be more concerned with what real gangsters think of them! Also, good to know only the white kids who are sagging are the ones being fake.
I'd also rather a bunch of "pretend" "fakers" were walking around looking like idiots than actually have some "real" "gangasta's" walking around looking and being idiots.
It also entertains me that Karon is white, yet appears to be the shining knight (I was going to say white knight, but the pun would have been too much ) of one tiny facet of "black culture" (or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").
Edit: Fixed quotes
I won't go into my personal upbringing to prove a point. People shouldn't try to act like something they know they aren't.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.
For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?
I'd be fine with a naked society personally.
And I gotta say: I totally respect that. I just think it should be one way or the other. Pants around the ankles =/= pants.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Mewiththeface wrote:Aren't use nerds the one who preach you shouldn't care what other people think of you.
Hence the lacking style we have been stereotyped with and nasty BO?
Its funny because these people mare doing just that and we yell at them.
but seriously, we must ask the purpose of pants. Make sure you remember the purpose of underwear when trying to hypothesis the reason for pants. Could lead to an interesting discussion.
Well the purpose of underwear is to prevent body secretions from getting on you clothes and pants covers your lower body, keeps heat in and protects it from certain surfaces.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
While I personally don't sag my pants, I can't really agree with a rule against it in public. It's free expression. It would be one thing to sag pants and not wear any undies, but that's not the case. I don't like limiting freedoms, where does it stop? I got annoyed when my old girlfriend got a reprimanded on the beach because she was wearing a thong with a gauzy sarong.
Besides this way my A**hole detector gets a break. I see someone sagging their pants, I can usually guess they are they aren't my kind of peeps.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Karon wrote:I won't go into my personal upbringing to prove a point. People shouldn't try to act like something they know they aren't.
I've seen a few of your "background" posts and honestly don't care if you are blacker than Michael Jackson, or more street than dizzy doggy (or whoever it is the kids are listening to these days). Culture is a living, changing thing that anyone is free to partake in. Do you have an issue with people going to medieval fairs and are knights, maidens and so on? People "playing" at being something they are not, and cannot in most cases reasonably represent as being "historical reenactment"? How about a poor black man from "the ghetto" who enjoys classical music, opera (not the woman on the TV) and so on? Is he allowed to partake in another culture or does he have to go round blinged up pointing guns at people making really crap "music" about all his bitches and how hard his life is while living in a big mansion with loads of money?
You can buy into a culture without being from it, or having the background that would usually lead you to "adopt" that culture.
Personally I hope that the "13 year old white gangsta' movement" helps change the "real" culture it apes into something better.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Word.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Albatross wrote:Word.
Powerpoint.
Your move.
18471
Post by: Lord-Loss
Avatar 720 wrote:Albatross wrote:Word.
Powerpoint.
Your move.
Excel-lent
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Get an iLife you guys.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I hope that the "13 year old white gangsta' movement" helps change the "real" culture it apes into something better.
Yes, these guys will change the world...
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Kilkrazy wrote:Get an iLife you guys.
It's like being an Explorer learning about all these new things.
42223
Post by: htj
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yes, these guys will change the world...
Indeed. They've made it a far more amusing place.
I don't think that fellow knows how to spell 'blood.'
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yes, these guys will change the world...
I meant more through the "real" culture being too shamed to be associated with them and changing into something better
19370
Post by: daedalus
SilverMK2 wrote:SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yes, these guys will change the world...
I meant more through the "real" culture being too shamed to be associated with them and changing into something better
HAHA! I'm picturing Congress having an emergency meeting.
"I had to drive myself to work today as my chauffeur broke his leg and my butler was ill. I got lost in one of the suburbs, and you WON'T BELIEVE what I saw..."
To be serious though, those guys will absolutely change the world. You have seen idiocracy, right?
42223
Post by: htj
No, the gang culture being shamed at being associated with those idiots. It's like unintentional satire.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
That would assume the Gangstas had a concept of "shame" or could even spell it.
42223
Post by: htj
Which is a bit of a long-shot, true. Idolising the concepts of greed and misogyny doesn't lie well with feelings of shame and social unworth.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
Personally I think you should only be allowed to wear your jeans around your knees if you are also wearing this t-shirt:
The burning questions that I have is:
Question 1:
Is it REALLY that extreme a decision that people have to kick up a fuss about it, instead of simply hoiking up their jeans for the duration of the bus journey (which would be what, 10-30mins at the most)?
Question 2:
Are the people who were refused passage on those buses really that dumb that they didn't realise that by pulling up their jeans they would have avoided the whole problem? (and once the actions of question 1 have been resolved, can return them to their pre-bus-journey gangsta level)
The way I see it is that there are far more important things to ban on public transport, like chavs listening to music through s****y tinny sounding mobile phone speakers, the malodorous masses of the great unwashed filling the buses with the reek of a thousand groin-protectors and the infamous 'I pick my nose and wipe it on the seats'. Though saying that, I would rather NOT have to stare at your butt-cleavage and associated undergarments for the entire journey...
Well it depends on the butt-cleavage and undergarments in question I suppose...
Chicks don't really do the whole baggy-pants thing do they... 
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Love the t-shirt
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
SilverMK2 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Get an iLife you guys.
It's like being an Explorer learning about all these new things.
But once you have Access to them, they're invaluable.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
If the whole idea behind the Sag'd look is to participate in the "gangsta' culture.....
Then just why would they be riding the bus?
There is something totally not "gangsta" about riding a bus. well to me anyway.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Maybe their "lowrider" is in the shop getting some big rims, spinners and window tinting done?
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
SilverMK2 wrote:Maybe their "lowrider" is in the shop getting some big rims, spinners and window tinting done?
Yo forgot the neons!
19370
Post by: daedalus
I know, right? I think if you own a mansion the size of a city block and a platinum plated, gold plated, platinum plated, solid gold Cadillac with baby seal-skin interior and 30" rims, then you can wear your pants around your ankles. In someone's opinion (not mine), you've earned that right.
If you're working third shift at Jack in the Box, you haven't. Stop smoking so much pot, and make something of yourself.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I would think that if you are making millions from selling records about how tough your upbringing was and how "unforgiving" the streets were, you would do more to help improve the standard of living there and help break people out of the cycle of violence and poverty, rather than spending all your money on ho's and bling.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Avatar 720 wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Get an iLife you guys.
It's like being an Explorer learning about all these new things.
But once you have Access to them, they're invaluable.
Oh, Firefox sake....
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Albatross wrote:Avatar 720 wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Get an iLife you guys.
It's like being an Explorer learning about all these new things.
But once you have Access to them, they're invaluable.
Oh, Firefox sake....
Yo's just jealous after Googling my Chromes.
42223
Post by: htj
SilverMK2 wrote:I would think that if you are making millions from selling records about how tough your upbringing was and how "unforgiving" the streets were, you would do more to help improve the standard of living there and help break people out of the cycle of violence and poverty, rather than spending all your money on ho's and bling.
Apparently, hypocrisy is another thing the do not subscribed to, along with shame. Or taste.
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote:I would think that if you are making millions from selling records about how tough your upbringing was and how "unforgiving" the streets were, you would do more to help improve the standard of living there and help break people out of the cycle of violence and poverty, rather than spending all your money on ho's and bling.
Generally, you would be wrong.
19370
Post by: daedalus
SilverMK2 wrote:I would think that if you are making millions from selling records about how tough your upbringing was and how "unforgiving" the streets were, you would do more to help improve the standard of living there and help break people out of the cycle of violence and poverty, rather than spending all your money on ho's and bling.
Well, what can I say? America: Land of hypocrite, home of the donkey-cave. More realistically, they know nothing of the streets and had nothing to do with any ghetto, and grew up in a upper/middle class suburb somewhere. Perhaps my naivety is showing, but I can't help but hope that if they were genuinely a part of something that horrible, trying to fix it once they had the means would be first on the list of things to do.
14573
Post by: metallifan
SilverMK2 wrote:I would think that if you are making millions from selling records about how tough your upbringing was and how "unforgiving" the streets were, you would do more to help improve the standard of living there and help break people out of the cycle of violence and poverty, rather than spending all your money on ho's and bling.
It's not that they're trying to be hypocrites. It's because 'charity ain't gangsta, yo'
39004
Post by: biccat
Avatar 720 wrote:Albatross wrote:Avatar 720 wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Get an iLife you guys.
It's like being an Explorer learning about all these new things.
But once you have Access to them, they're invaluable.
Oh, Firefox sake....
Yo's just jealous after Googling my Chromes.
You can't fault his Outlook.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
biccat wrote:You can't fault his Outlook.
I might contact my Publisher about this thread.
42223
Post by: htj
SilverMK2 wrote:biccat wrote:You can't fault his Outlook.
I might contact my Publisher about this thread.
I should think it would Command Prompt response from them.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
htj wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:biccat wrote:You can't fault his Outlook.
I might contact my Publisher about this thread.
I should think it would Command Prompt response from them.
I wouldn't have thought so, he is a bit of a Dos.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
I have to say, this thread has kind of opened Windows in my mind...
39004
Post by: biccat
Leigen_Zero wrote:I have to say, this thread has kind of opened Windows in my mind...
You nix one idea after another and pretty soon Gnome knows whats going on.
42223
Post by: htj
biccat wrote:Leigen_Zero wrote:I have to say, this thread has kind of opened Windows in my mind...
You nix one idea after another and pretty soon Gnome knows whats going on.
You wouldn't have said that if you had Red Hat post a little more carefully.
18471
Post by: Lord-Loss
Where are the mods? This place is like a Safari.
18410
Post by: filbert
I didn't expect to come into this thread and witness such a soap Opera...
42223
Post by: htj
Yes, it does Paint a poor impression of the forum.
18410
Post by: filbert
I think we should probably draw a Linux under this thread before it derails further...
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Especially since it's right on the Frontpage.
18471
Post by: Lord-Loss
Well I have Norton more to say on the subject.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Think i'd better Winzip my mouth shut and let the thread Run its course.
42223
Post by: htj
Do you Calculator end to it soon then?
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Aaaadobe hatin!
Damn...sucked in.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Right. I'm Directoring you all to stop now.
|
|
