Law Threatens to Dictate Clothing Style
Alexis L. Plair
Restrictions on low and sagging pant waists could be just one step too far against our constitutional rights. Many begin to wonder where society should draw the line.
An article from New York Times reveals that new restricting laws have been enforced in Delcambre, LA. A CNN article states that these laws are also being pushed in cities such as Atlanta, Georgia and Trenton, New Jersey. The laws prohibit showing underwear, and therefore prohibit sagging pants. The trend of sagging pants prevails in a widespread range, and the new law affects a vast abundance of people.
Some might consider sagging and baggy pants an immature, juvenile attempt at rebellion. I call it fashion. The inclination of sagging pants has been popularized through the same methods as any other style and it is just as valid as any other style. Wherever the style might have originated, society picked it up in large numbers; I have yet to see a decline in prevalence.
Some accredit the style to the Hip Hop culture, and feel it correlates with delinquent behavior and disrespect for authority. In rebuttal, sagging pants can be seen anywhere from the boondocks to the suburbs, and a variety of people wear them.
Styles tend to spread and branch out as this one has. I see it not as a form of rebellion, but instead an objective manner in which to wear one’s pants.
Freedom of expression through clothing and personal style seems as if it is slowly becoming more and more restricted. At this rate the US government will have gone back on their ever-so-true word in promising ensured individual liberty.
Many people who choose to wear their pants in a sagging style, do not always have on boxers, briefs, or shorts underneath. However if they do, is that not the equivalent of a bathing suit seen on the beach? If someone wore short shorts that reach no lower than boxer short, the law does not declare that illegal. The law allows any man or woman to walk down the street in a speed-o; should it then not allow a portion of one’s underwear to show?
Dislike the style at your own accord. There is no unlawful act in discouraging an uprising trend you want to see fade out. There is no unlawful act in not approving of the style and feeling it should demolish. There is no unlawful act in expressing one’s views, or restricting them in a private residence or establishment.
What is unlawful in a “free” country is to restrict low-hanging garments that do not reveal inappropriate body parts by law.
In the government’s defense, showing underwear could be classified under a category similar to that of indecency. Still, I disagree with the thought that the government should deal with this issue using law.
Out of all of the issues that America faces, our leaders choose to cause uproar and difficulty by banning a certain method of wearing pants. Out of all the tings needing brainpower to come together and solve, such as the war, poverty, unemployment, and violence, our government chooses to use that brainpower to enforce complete covering of undergarments. As opposed to unifying the American people in times of political incongruity within citizens, our representatives choose to stretch the boundaries of political control.
Often times representatives in the US government have reasoning for their decisions that the general public might fail to see. However, even with them given the benefit of doubt, it leaves citizens to analyze their decisions and potentially infringe. We must consider whether the path our county’s leaders are taking will lead us to prosperity, or into potential demise.
