NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.

So it should be ok to run around naked? Have you seen some fat people naked??? :eek:

Only in America... oh, and strictly religious Muslim countries...

I totally support the idea that people ought to be modestly dressed and adequately covered.

Or how about do what Andrew Martinez "The Naked Guy" did in 1992 at Bekeley in California. (The man was totally naked except for a bandana he had wrapped tied to a belt around his waist, such that it covered about 90% of his pubic region. It was a rather lewd photo to have been reported in the papers even (and it was a side view shot)

Google the guy and his nickname, you'll find out all about him.



Personally I think we need a national code of dress.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.
It's because these people realise their time of youth has passed. They get bitter and ban young people from...well, everything, if they can. Meh. It's only a virginia. Isn't that the state where that guy was who posted a thread about being kicked out of school for not saluting the flag? Also, is that where evolution teachings are banned? Forgive me, I know little about the US. Except that Virginia is weird.

So it should be ok to run around naked? Have you seen some fat people naked??? :eek:
Naked? We are not talking about people being naked since that would be a seperate subject. We are talking about the government stepping in and dictating what clothes you can and can't wear. I think it is not the govts. job to do that. It for you the individual to decide what you will wear.

Sure the government has a say in what you're wearing. They won't let me wear highly explosive vests, no matter how many times I stand in the bank, throw my arms in the air and shout 'it's harmless!'.

Anti-sex fanatics need to be tied up and... well, I can't really say exactly :D.

This will be overturned when they fine the first bored person that doesn't mind a little court time. Or the ACLU.

Personally, I think that PETA should get involved, as it's helping animals. After all, none are being killed for belts! :D

I totally support the idea that people ought to be modestly dressed and adequately covered.

Or how about do what Andrew Martinez "The Naked Guy" did in 1992 at Bekeley in California. (The man was totally naked except for a bandana he had wrapped tied to a belt around his waist, such that it covered about 90% of his pubic region. It was a rather lewd photo to have been reported in the papers even (and it was a side view shot)

Google the guy and his nickname, you'll find out all about him.



Personally I think we need a national code of dress.
A national dress code violates the US Constitution. I trust the people to make wise decisions in how they dress. There are no national or state dress codes now, but we still don't have people running around nude. If the fanatics were right, then everyone would be going around completely nude right now, and as you can see, that is not what is happening. I say leave it to the individuals.
By passing this law, the state of Virginia is saying it does not trust its own people or think they are smart enough to make the right decisions. First they become fashion police next thing you know, they are bugging your home and cell phone and maybe even your car and storing 100 page files on you at Langley.

Sure the government has a say in what you're wearing. They won't let me wear highly explosive vests, no matter how many times I stand in the bank, throw my arms in the air and shout 'it's harmless!'.

Anti-sex fanatics need to be tied up and... well, I can't really say exactly :D.
No one in America would ever choose voluntarily to wear an explosive belt. Most Americans have a very high degree of fondness for their own lives.

This seems somewhat appropriate at this juncture:


Those disgusted by people protesting the buff need look no further.


You cannot post a link to a site like that, I'd suggest you remove it at once, or you will likely face the wrath of the mods. (heck, if you don't have it removed within a few hours, I'll msg the mods myself)

Note that I didn't post the site in the quote, as then I'd just be placing it up here in a second place. It's bad enough you did...

Gods if wer had fashion police, I'd be arrested and given life.
As it is I only get weired looks and the occasional bitchy comment, which is cool.
Especially as the ones making it looks like a dogs dinner in a short skirt, covered head to toe in Burberry (no offence to any one who likes burberry!)
HEHEHEHEHE.

You cannot post a link to a site like that, I'd suggest you remove it at once, or you will likely face the wrath of the mods. (heck, if you don't have it removed within a few hours, I'll msg the mods myself)

Go ahead, DA: I believe I have provided adequate warning.



EDIT: I'll concede, however that I left out a word in my original warning, which I have since added.

Personally, I'm all for young, beautiful people showing off their flesh.

This seems somewhat appropriate at this juncture:




Those disgusted by people protesting the buff need look no further.
I'm not sure, but I think the link is inappropriate for this site.

Why are some people so terrified of nudity? What exactly is it they are afraid of seeing? (Not that this is about nudity to begin with, it's just visible underwear for cryin' out loud.)

I'm not sure, but I think the link is inappropriate for this site.

Don't quote the link, you're just keeping it up there, the mods already deleted the post he posted the link in, get it out of your quote so it's gone, please.

The Defense of Freedom and Eternal Vigilance both dictate that we must tolerate things we find offensive or see our freedoms and indeed our very democratic like system of government taken away from us. This has truely shown by the common history of all mankind.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.

Extreme modes of dress are usually little more than a plea for attention, as is public nudity. All it accomplishes for me is a desire to totally ignore whatever the alleged "message" is.

The Defense of Freedom and Eternal Vigilance both dictate that we must tolerate things we find offensive or see our freedoms and indeed our very democratic like system of government taken away from us. This has truely shown by the common history of all mankind.


I don't believe in toleration of public nudity though, we need to have good and strong public morality. If people want to be nude in their own homes though, that is really their business, isn't it?

I don't believe in toleration of public nudity though, we need to have good and strong public morality. If people want to be nude in their own homes though, that is really their business, isn't it?

Again, what are you afraid you're going to see? It's not like a nude person is something everyone hasn't seen before.

iLock pending Moderator review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

iUnlock. Carry on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

that is really funny, trying to regulate pants on people. hahahahahahaha

Hilarious, for all the wrong reasons! This is even worse than schools that send kids home for having names shaved into their hair, or for having something other than their own hair colour.

Hilarious, for all the wrong reasons! This is even worse than schools that send kids home for having names shaved into their hair, or for having something other than their own hair colour.

I suspect a good argument for not allowing that sort of thing in shcools is that it is disruptive and contrary to good order, not to mention the school board members having fits of appoplexy! :D

Okay, first the funny stuff(I hope):

See? This is exactly why I don't wear clothes. Causes nothing but trouble. :)

Now for the topical(hopefully somewhat amusing) stuff:

How exactly are they going to regulate this? What will be the standards? Are police officers going to walk around with school rulers measuring people's unmentionables? Will there be a three-inch limit on skivvies?

And what about low-rise underwear like thongs and low cut briefs? Some people can end up showing more skin than people would get fined for visible underwear! Finally, who determines how much underwear is too lewd and offensive? Are plumbers in deep doodoo!?! :eek:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.


You are the misogynist who wanted the age of consent for women raised to 35.

Thats not only misogynistic it is anti-sex. It is better to have sex with women who are a good bit younger than 35.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.
Oh well, now that's just silly.

I don't believe in toleration of public nudity though, we need to have good and strong public morality. If people want to be nude in their own homes though, that is really their business, isn't it?
Public Nudity is a state issue. If the states want to ban it, that's fine as long as they don't apply it to your own property (doesn't necessarily have to be your own home, as long as it is property you own.) Course if the property happens to be an open parcel of land, the city could always place a fence around it, on public property at taxpayer expense.

You are the misogynist who wanted the age of consent for women raised to 35.

Thats not only misogynistic it is anti-sex. It is better to have sex with women who are a good bit younger than 35.
Attempting to change the subject are you?

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.
Aren't you the guy who said that the legal age of sexual consent should be 35?

This time they targeting low riding pants.

Due to the obesity epidemic in the USA-
JUST SAY NO TO CRACK!!

(Statement above does not nessicarily reflect political stance- only a sense of astetics.)

No one in America would ever choose voluntarily to wear an explosive belt. Most Americans have a very high degree of fondness for their own lives.
You'd be surprised.

Hurray for fascism! Seig Heil!

as an OLD person i find those saggy pants endlessly amusing. there is nothing like seeing some 17 year old slave to ugly fashion standing in public wiith his pants around his ankles because he waited too long to hike them back up.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.
*jaw drops*

Okay, now I"m pissed!

Boys! Bring out the SuperNuke!

w00t New Anthrus is on the news!!!!!!!!!1 :p

as an OLD person i find those saggy pants endlessly amusing. there is nothing like seeing some 17 year old slave to ugly fashion standing in public wiith his pants around his ankles because he waited too long to hike them back up.

Hehehe! I agree totally! :D

[ High-fives Ashmoria! ]

Personally I think we need a national code of dress.

Hey 1984! Good idea! :rolleyes:

Attempting to change the subject are you?

It is an interesting point since you think consent should be 35 but you think that showing underwear should be allowed.

Kind of conflicts.

Okay, here we go:
All the pretty people can run around naked, but anybody more than five pounds overweight, or over the age of 45, must wear at least eight layers of clothing.
Sound good?
:p

Due to the obesity epidemic in the USA-
JUST SAY NO TO CRACK!!

(Statement above does not nessicarily reflect political stance- only a sense of astetics.)
Alright then- but first, pray tell us what manner of god you are, that we should all bow down to your asthetic?

So it should be ok to run around naked? Have you seen some fat people naked??? :eek:
Unfortunately, yes I have, but I still think it should be okay to choose what you wear...

What happens when the majority of people decide business suits are tasteless and should be banned? The only reason they would try to ban low riders is because they don't like teenagers (hell, who does as a group?).

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050208%2F2132456932.htm

This time they targeting low riding pants. I say such a law would violate the bill of rights. The government should have zero say in what you choose to wear.

They are jealous because they've lost their youth and don't want to be reminded they are all now old and ugly. Happy liberals teens depress them! :D

wow, a National Dress code, what a great idea! now the government can take on the responsibility of picking out our trousers in the morning! soon we can demand the government pick what we eat, too, lest we get fat! why bother to take responsibility for anything, ever, when you can demand that the government be your Mommy for your entire life!

wow, a National Dress code, what a great idea! now the government can take on the responsibility of picking out our trousers in the morning! soon we can demand the government pick what we eat, too, lest we get fat! why bother to take responsibility for anything, ever, when you can demand that the government be your Mommy for your entire life!


I don't like what it picked out for me this morning...I look like a bag lady today....and as for my hair....!!

You are the misogynist who wanted the age of consent for women raised to 35.

Thats not only misogynistic it is anti-sex. It is better to have sex with women who are a good bit younger than 35.
... 35 years of age? That's like almost twice the age of my girlfriend.. and I mean, I've already told her I wanted to wait till we were married to have sex (because we're both virgins, there's plenty of things we can do with each other, I'd rather not mess with condoms and such, and simply to go against the latest trend of "hey, we're a couple, sure we just met tonight, but let's fuck!"), but I was thinking that'd be like in a year or two, waiting 17 more is even more ridiculous as the article posted. Hell, my oldest brother turned 18 on the same day my mother turned 35...

Seriously, if you tried to say the age of consent for women should be raised to 35, you are even worse than the people purposing a fine for showing off your underwear...

So it should be ok to run around naked? Have you seen some fat people naked??? :eek:
Yet you make threads about nude women washing your windshield.....interesting?

I don't believe in toleration of public nudity though, we need to have good and strong public morality. If people want to be nude in their own homes though, that is really their business, isn't it?

First, the law doesn't have anything to do with nudity. It's saying you can't wear pants that show your underwear. Effectively like suggesting that it's less okay to wear lowrider pants that cover up much more than your average bathing suite does.

It's illogical, hypocritical, and outside the scope of what the government's job is to do (protect the rights of it's citizens). Since nowhere in the constitution does it even begin to say that you have the right to not be offended, then it is not a violation of your rights for a person to where whatever the hell they want, and yes, that means even nudity.

Public 'morality' is a farse. There is no such thing. It is not the goverment's job to dictate morality. Its only purpose is to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This law steps all over that.

I totally support the idea that people ought to be modestly dressed and adequately covered...


Personally I think we need a national code of dress.

Perhaps a mandated nice tan button down shirt with matching slacks?
Perhaps something along the same lines but a bit darker. Darker colors are more dignified and formal afterall.

Personally I think we need a national code of dress.
Perhaps this would be a good start?

http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/clothing/11ftyco1.jpg

The only reason they would try to ban low riders is because they don't like teenagers (hell, who does as a group?).
*holds up index finger* ... *puts finger down*
... you're right... I was going to say that teenagers as a group may... but with all that crap that they divide themselves with, not even teens like the teenage group.
but where do the lawmakers get the right to say what I can and can't wear. I'm over looking the fact that I live in a state that isn't involved in all this crap, because if it passed in Va., it potentially could pass in any other state.

I'm sure glad that I'm an alpha, because I'm smarter than those beta kids, and the epsilons are ugly and will never do anything more than opperate the elevator for me. I'm sure glad to be an alpha. (okay... so I know that it a) isn't a good enough attempt at the quote, and b) that this is from Brave New World instead of 1984, but the govt. in BNW did about as much regulation as 1984's did, the 2 just went about it in very different ways.)

... didn't they have an Jr. Anti-Sex League in 1984???


and what was that about the age of consent?

This law is inane. If it does pass, it can't be enforced well, and it will be taken to court if it is enforced, where it will proceed to be shot down by the judge.

However, public nudity isn't a constitutional right, as it's considered obscenity. Not that I nessicarily agree with calling nudity obscenity, but the judicial system does.

And as far as 1984/Brave New World distopias are concerned, they are a world apart. In fact, the Huxley's world promoted sex, if you remember.

This law is inane. If it does pass, it can't be enforced well, and it will be taken to court if it is enforced, where it will proceed to be shot down by the judge.

However, public nudity isn't a constitutional right, as it's considered obscenity. Not that I nessicarily agree with calling nudity obscenity, but the judicial system does.

And as far as 1984/Brave New World distopias are concerned, they are a world apart. In fact, the Huxley's world promoted sex, if you remember.
Regarding public nudity being obscenity, it all depends on your community.

Perhaps this would be a good start?

http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/clothing/11ftyco1.jpg

No. One of the little girls is wearing a flowery skirt. She's not dressing like the others. She must be beaten and told she'll be going to hell.

(Sarcasm, of course)