NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1409590,00.html

o dear o dear, no more thong glimpses for the men of Virginia. But seriously haven't the police got better things to do than handing out fines for people who don't dress according to the state guidelines. Whats next enforced uniform!?

Close-formation marching...starched brown collars...bonfires outside of public libraries, perhaps?

Close-formation marching...starched brown collars...bonfires outside of public libraries, perhaps?
Yeah, it's bad. I live in Virginia, Dobbs.

of course, this means that the plumber will have to conceal his buttcrack.

Funny. You no longer have to conceal a handgun in Virginia, but you have to cover that buttcrack.

Well, it's not exactly law yet, and I'd suspect that it won't pass either the Virginia Senate, Governor or Supreme Court. It's just a retarded law, that probably won't get passed.

But what are the odds that they are going to fine an attractive young woman? They are going after the physically unappealing people... And if you read it closely, it is slightly racist.

Though I don't care either way about the law, I don't like seeing it myself, and wish women would have more respect for themselves, I don't think it is law-worthy.

However, why is it that no matter what law is passed, the first thing everyone starts doing is to cast aspersions that it must be fascist?
In Advanced Logic, that is what is called a "Red Herring Argument," followed closely by a "Slippery Slope Arguement". I'de put in the Latin terms, but am too lazy.

WWJD
Amen.

WWJD
Amen.

WWJD?

Why, convert to Islam, obviously...

WWJD
Amen.
Leave doors open. Remember, he was born in a barn.

Yeah, it's bad. I live in Virginia, Dobbs.

of course, this means that the plumber will have to conceal his buttcrack.

Funny. You no longer have to conceal a handgun in Virginia, but you have to cover that buttcrack.
"The right of the people, to wear and show boxers, shall not be infringed."

There's only one answer to this, my Virginia-bottomed friends...

You must go commando.

Yep.
A victory for moral people.
Good work, Virginia.

There's only one answer to this, my Virginia-bottomed friends...

You must go commando.

motion seconded

Maybe Virginia is trying to live up to its name and do its best not to get any :fluffle: ?

Think about it…free yourselves from the trappings of your skivvies. Take your Fruit of the Looms to the steps of the state capitol and wave them for your lawmakers to see. It could be like an old fashioned bra-burning, but everyone can get involved!

I motion for us all to go undie-less in solidarity of our Virginia brothers and sisters. Just watch those zippers guys. Ladies, maybe we can get a group discount on waxing.

Hey, works for me. I'll send the message along. I've got a friend who makes sure I know she's going commando as is... may as well give her an excuse...

Though I don't care either way about the law, I don't like seeing it myself, and wish women would have more respect for themselves, I don't think it is law-worthy.

However, why is it that no matter what law is passed, the first thing everyone starts doing is to cast aspersions that it must be fascist?
In Advanced Logic, that is what is called a "Red Herring Argument," followed closely by a "Slippery Slope Arguement". I'de put in the Latin terms, but am too lazy.

WWJD
Amen.
i believe this law is slanted more toward MEN

i wish MEN would have more respect for themselves


viriginia passed a law last year not just disallowing gay marriage but ANY arrangement that gave a gay couple ANY of the same rights as married people (power of attorney for medical reasons for example)

i dont see any reason why they wouldnt pass the "no boxers showing" law. theyll just use to to harrass teen boys.

*adjusts his perfectly legal open carry holster*
*makes sure everyone can see the Kimber 1911 hanging out of the holster*
*adjusts his pants so that his illegal buttcrack can't be seen*

i believe this law is slanted more toward MEN

i wish MEN would have more respect for themselves


viriginia passed a law last year not just disallowing gay marriage but ANY arrangement that gave a gay couple ANY of the same rights as married people (power of attorney for medical reasons for example)

i dont see any reason why they wouldnt pass the "no boxers showing" law. theyll just use to to harrass teen boys.

Is it really that law abiding there that the police can spend their whole time looking at everyones ass. Now its part of their job? Come on. I agree about people respecting themselves but you can only enforce it to a point and this goes beyond it IMO

Boy, I wish I could live somewhere where the concealment of undergarments was a primary concern of law enforcement.

Semper ubi sub ubi.

Maybe I should get a job in law enforcement. I have plenty of experience in looking at low riding jeans.

Boy, I wish I could live somewhere where the concealment of undergarments was a primary concern of law enforcement.

Semper ubi sub ubi.

Amen to that

Yep.
A victory for moral people.
Good work, Virginia.
The "Land of the Free" is very quickly becoming the "Land of the Hopelessly Repressed"
Next time I'm in Virginia I'm wearing my boxers outside my jeans.

The "Land of the Free" is very quickly becoming the "Land of the Hopelessly Repressed"
Next time I'm in Virginia I'm wearing my boxers outside my jeans.

Not "firearms repressed" though.

You could wear the handgun of your choice on the outside of your jeans and walk around without a problem.

I should note, I do prefer it that people keep their undergarments to themselves unless there's a more proper situation for it... but I'll be damned if I'll MAKE someone do it.

There are only a few things involving clothing I think should be regulated by law:

1) Mucous membranes. If it leaks, cover it. Not sanitary if you sit your bare ass where someone else's bare ass has been, nor if a woman's lactating and drips all over a table. I really really wouldn't want to be sitting where a couple was sitting while making out bare-assed... not without a good bleaching first...

2) Children need to be not freezing their asses off. This is just a matter of cruelty.

Aside from that, I have my preferences, but I have no objective moral claim to them not running around sagging all over the place. Hell, the coverings of the mucous membranes can be clear for all it matters, so long as its not spreading disease.

Now, I'd spend a lot of time not looking at anyone, ever, but that'd be my problem for being slightly prudish.

Not "firearms repressed" though.

You could wear the handgun of your choice on the outside of your jeans and walk around without a problem.

Yet you get fined $50 / £27 if your caught with a certain garment showing. I think we have entered the twilight zone

The "Land of the Free" is very quickly becoming the "Land of the Hopelessly Repressed"
Next time I'm in Virginia I'm wearing my boxers outside my jeans.

That makes me wonder... are they going to ban Superman and the other superheroes? MOST of them have their boxers on the outside...

Good lord, Virginia's laws are being written by Lex Luthor!

I should note, I do prefer it that people keep their undergarments to themselves unless there's a more proper situation for it... but I'll be damned if I'll MAKE someone do it.

There are only a few things involving clothing I think should be regulated by law:

1) Mucous membranes. If it leaks, cover it. Not sanitary if you sit your bare ass where someone else's bare ass has been, nor if a woman's lactating and drips all over a table. I really really wouldn't want to be sitting where a couple was sitting while making out bare-assed... not without a good bleaching first...

2) Children need to be not freezing their asses off. This is just a matter of cruelty.

Aside from that, I have my preferences, but I have no objective moral claim to them not running around sagging all over the place. Hell, the coverings of the mucous membranes can be clear for all it matters, so long as its not spreading disease.

Now, I'd spend a lot of time not looking at anyone, ever, but that'd be my problem for being slightly prudish.


I don't believe that fat people should be allowed to wear bike shorts. I wear them because I'm in good physical condition (great legs) and actually ride a bike long distances.

There's nothing quite as revolting as seeing a 150 kilo woman in bike shorts and a halter top.

I don't believe that fat people should be allowed to wear bike shorts. I wear them because I'm in good physical condition (great legs) and actually ride a bike long distances.

There's nothing quite as revolting as seeing a 150 kilo woman in bike shorts and a halter top.

Perhaps, but other than the discomfort of looking at those people, wearing those clothes is not harming anyone. So there should be no need to legislate it.

I don't believe that fat people should be allowed to wear bike shorts. I wear them because I'm in good physical condition (great legs) and actually ride a bike long distances.

There's nothing quite as revolting as seeing a 150 kilo woman in bike shorts and a halter top.

Yeah. And they should also hide their faces and hands, because those pudgy fingers give me the willies. Didn't the Taliban have outfits for that sort of thing? We should get some.

:rolleyes:

I'll agree, no article of clothing should be wider than it is long...but frankly, bike shorts don't look good on anybody, unless said person is actually riding a bike. If this giant woman you reference was trying to get some exercise, I'd be willing to cut her some slack for her efforts.

Though I don't care either way about the law, I don't like seeing it myself, and wish women would have more respect for themselves, I don't think it is law-worthy.

However, why is it that no matter what law is passed, the first thing everyone starts doing is to cast aspersions that it must be fascist?
In Advanced Logic, that is what is called a "Red Herring Argument," followed closely by a "Slippery Slope Arguement". I'de put in the Latin terms, but am too lazy.

WWJD
Amen.

Not really. A law that writes a state dress code is clearly over the line. Public nudity laws are a bit archaic, but they're long standing. Laws that dictate how clothes must look assumes that the government has the right to meddle in matters of fashion and culture. These are facsist sentiments.

Think about it, there's no logical difference between underwear peeking out from the top of your pants and a law about what color your shirt must be or what style. How would you feel about a law requiring dress atire after sundown? It's not a slippery slope argument. There is a very clear difference between giving government the power to push their personal taste on the people and letting people express their tastes themselves.

Besides, if I'm talking to trash I'd like to know that up front and not have to discover too late that they're only dressing tastefully to stay out of trouble with the law.

BTW, I think that the red herring is this law proposal in the first place. Unless Virginia has the best educational system, the highest per capita income, the lowest crime rate, and the lowest polution and unemployment rates, and this underwear thing is really just the last thing that they have to fix before the entire state of Virginia is lifted physically up into heaven.

Is it really that law abiding there that the police can spend their whole time looking at everyones ass. Now its part of their job? Come on. I agree about people respecting themselves but you can only enforce it to a point and this goes beyond it IMO

I don't really think its a matter of self respect. I happen to dress very conservativly (in stark contrast to my political sensibilities) but however high up I pull my trousers and how low I let my boxers ride they almost always work their way around to the wasteband of my boxers peeking over the tops of my belt.

Sure it's usually covered by a shirt, but would I be required to check my underwear status every time I bend over to pick something up, or reach over my head to take something off a shelf?

Well I think that the answer is clear to all virginian men should this law come into effect. No more undies :) We'll have to switch to button flies though. Safety first.

The "Land of the Free" is very quickly becoming the "Land of the Hopelessly Repressed"
Next time I'm in Virginia I'm wearing my boxers outside my jeans.
Seeing as how I can go to school and freely speak my mind, I fail to see how some common decency qualifies as "hopelessly repressed". :)

It passed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/09/politics/main672682.shtml

It passed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/09/politics/main672682.shtml

ure seriously shitting me my goodness, ok so crime is so low that people are actually gonna bring this through? Its not even an enforceable law !!!!

I'll agree, no article of clothing should be wider than it is long...but frankly, bike shorts don't look good on anybody, unless said person is actually riding a bike. If this giant woman you reference was trying to get some exercise, I'd be willing to cut her some slack for her efforts.
no they look god awful on bikers too.

Well I am also from Virginia and in my opinon, as long as they do not reveal too much and it does not offend anyone, people should be allowed to wear what they want. It is our freedom as Americans to do this. I do believe, however, that people should not abuse this right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1409590,00.html

o dear o dear, no more thong glimpses for the men of Virginia. But seriously haven't the police got better things to do than handing out fines for people who don't dress according to the state guidelines. Whats next enforced uniform!?
How is that in any way Constitutional?

They tried similar idiocy in Louisiana but it got shot down.

To you people in VA, you know it is a sad day when LA looks sane and reasonable in comparison.

Looks like the Senate shot it down two days later.. but...

...The guy who put the bill up was... a democrat...?

It passed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/09/politics/main672682.shtml
Umm.. it passed the House before being unanimously shot down by the senate two days later because unlike the morons in the house, they actually realized that it was a silly, needless law that only made lawmakers look absurd and as if they have too much free time on their hands...