sign of the times or backward thinking?

While on the one hand I can agree with this ruling for fashion sense, on the other I see it as old dogma resurfacing.

You all know Elvis (the pelvis) Presley was banned from performing in Mississippi? Well, in his home town and place of birth, Tupelo, MS . he was banned from performing.

A city ruling yesterday shows just how far that moral superiority resides in the deep South...

www.djournal.com...

The City Council voted 5-1 to prohibit anyone from wearing pants or skirts that ride more than three inches below the top of the hips and expose skin or underwear.

How does one define the top of the hips? Do the hips have a bottom and a top? I just thought that there was a hip area. When measuring the hips, there isn't a defined spot, just measure at the widest point.

If it's the waist, I'm in violation. 3 inches below the waist isn't very far down. What about really tall people, like over 6 feet? 3 inches on them is like 6 inches on short people.

I hope they have a sign posted for tourists.

Below is the whole article in a nut shell:

The City Council voted 5-1 to prohibit anyone from wearing pants or skirts that ride more than three inches below the top of the hips and expose skin or underwear.


Read more: djournal.com - Tupelo OKs droopy pants ban

On a personal level, it bugs me to see people dressing like this. I am only thirty years old, and this was extremly fashonable when I was young - but I hated it.

If these young people knew where this started - they probably wouldn't do it anymore. In prision, droopy pants is how one inmate would signal another inmate that he was available.... True story.

However, personal feelings aside, this is America - and I beleive people should be able to dress how they want - so long as it doesn't reveal private parts (as I don't think kids need to be exposed to that).

Originally posted by snowspirit

The City Council voted 5-1 to prohibit anyone from wearing pants or skirts that ride more than three inches below the top of the hips and expose skin or underwear.

How does one define the top of the hips? Do the hips have a bottom and a top? I just thought that there was a hip area. When measuring the hips, there isn't a defined spot, just measure at the widest point.

If it's the waist, I'm in violation. 3 inches below the waist isn't very far down. What about really tall people, like over 6 feet? 3 inches on them is like 6 inches on short people.

I hope they have a sign posted for tourists.

The hip is defined as where the hip bones stick out, usually above the waste line.

The measurement specified would place all pants roughly around the waist, while still not alowing the majority to show their ass crack off.

Oh yeah, we just love crack and muffin tops

I'm not sure where to go on this. I do think you should keep covered in public ( I have nudist views, but feel that it should be privately in your own home, or a facility that has this), but how far should we go?

I felt like buying a bunch of belts and giving them away, but I'd go bankrupt (and that's only to those that don't cover their rears).

Ive actually embarrassed kids by telling them I feel sorry for them being so poor as to not be able to afford clothes that fit

I understand not wanting to see someone's ass crack, but for jeans or shorts to have to sit at the waist
That sounds like the dreaded "mom jeans", that I refuse to wear.

I'm in my early fifties, and am still small enough to wear jeans and shorts that sit at the hip, and not be in any danger of exposing any butt crack but I don't think I would pass the town's measurement of 3 inches.

When my weight is proper, I don't mind if skin peeks out ( still no crack!), and times when the "muffin top" is there, I keep it covered with a longer top, but to mandate this as a violation just seems so backwards......

What type of clothing is next to be in violation, I wonder.

yeah I'm not sure on where to go on this either. While freedom of expression (and performance) is what makes us all unique and individual, a display of flesh (or lewd motion ) in the bible belt is still a no-no.

Personally I find it more lewd to fondle your parts in public which seems to be the norm amongst some groups.

Kids will be kids and we all rebelled against authority in one way or another, long hair used to brand you with a stigma of being a hippi, that evolved to hair color and eventually to shaved heads.

I find it ludicrous that those who expose their vent path think they are cool doing so, but perhaps some need more venting than others?

yeah, like the title and backward thinking it was lame I know...

Social stuff used to deal with this.

Now we are all supposed to love each other too much to point your finger and laugh at idiots. Seems like a better plan than making cops into kindergarten teachers.

Crack is Whack!!

I have no issues with a law like that, sometimes it's necessary to force people to wear a belt or pull their pants up. No One wants to see your butt cracks or underwears people. Do it in a photo shoot, rock it in club, but in everyday life..No!!! Have you ever seen a guy trying to run across a street with sagging pants?? One day someone is going to get hurt because of their sense of fashion.

I'd hate to be the cop trying to enforce this one. Yes it bugs me but really, making a law against it??

I do enjoy laughing and commenting on kids that dress like idiots though. Especially the guys wearing the girls skinny jeans, I make it a point to laugh when walking by.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
yeah I'm not sure on where to go on this either. While freedom of expression (and performance) is what makes us all unique and individual, a display of flesh (or lewd motion ) in the bible belt is still a no-no.

Personally I find it more lewd to fondle your parts in public which seems to be the norm amongst some groups.

Like when the sports people that are always adjusting themselves on tv

Some of the entertainers are doing this also, the way MJ used to. Grabbing at their crotch. We're even seeing some of the women entertainers doing this now. That gets gross.

I would say they should throw away their measurement of "3 inches" and just say "no underwear or butt cracks should ever be seen".

it's almost draconian i actually can't believe a law like this has been passed in 2012, really this thinking is victorian, as long as they are not publicly exposing their genitals does it matter? it really is something unimportant that will only waste police time and is probably some sort of cash generating scheme (the article highlights a fine rather than a jail sentance). this is total bureaucracy.

btw here in Florida we already have ordinances in places like school, which btw I agree with. there's a time and place for everything.

newsfeed.time.com...

I can see issues with this. Where one's hips and waist (not waste people, it's waist) are varies from human to human. heck some people are so square you can't find their waist without having them bend to the side to see the indent. And no, it's not where your belly button is. If you bend to the side you will find it where your skin folds. If you are female your waist is actually pretty far above your belly button.

But yeah, just keep the butt covered and everything will be fine.