One doesn't want to laught at the USA...

[Leshy]

...but they just make it so easy sometimes.

Lovers of low-riding jeans, visible thongs and exposed boxer shorts may be obliged to avoid the state of Virginia in the future, or risk a $50 (£27) fine as the cost of their exhibitionism.

Long known to be one of the most conservative bodies in the United States, the Virginian State House of Representatives has broken new legal ground by voting to outlaw exposed underwear, in an attempt to restore sartorial standards in suburban towns such as Richmond and Norfolk.

In the era of low-slung jeans, a flash of black lace or g-string has become a common sight in both America and Europe. But the Virginian "droopy drawers" bill, as it is known to its mainly middle-aged supporters, forbids the intentional exposing of underwear in a way that is "lewd or indecent".

By a 60-34 majority, delegates ruled that the proposed fine was necessary to prevent the youth trend threatening the moral fibre of mainstream America.

"Most of us would identify [exposed underwear] as the coarsening of society," said John Reid, a Republican delegate. "Underwear is called underwear for a reason.'' The bill's sponsor, Algie Howell, told the house: "To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country."

Although the state's senators must ratify the fine for it to pass into law, opponents of the fashion for wearing trousers well below the hips are already acclaiming a landmark success.

The bill has quickly attracted nationwide publicity, and viewers of ABC's Good Morning America found themselves immersed in an earnest debate yesterday about how low trousers should be allowed to go. Other states are expected to follow Virginia's example.

But liberals have denounced a shameless attempt by middle-aged politicians to clamp down on contemporary youth fashions, while forgetting their own sartorial excesses in the past.

Lionell Spruill, a Virginia Democrat, asked his fellow delegates to remember the follies of Afro haircuts, platform shoes and shell-suits, before making the more serious allegation that the new fine would principally be aimed at the black communities, where the fashion originated.

"Please let these kids express themselves," said Mr Spruill. "This is going to be a bill that targets blacks. You know who they are going to stop."

The American Civil Liberties Union has also condemned the underwear bill as unconstitutional and critics have pointed out that some jeans are now sold with boxer shorts stitched into the fabric. But supporters of the bill were unrepentant. The baggy-pants mode of dress is "disrespectful", said Mr Howell. "The vote this morning was a vote that Virginia does want to set an example of what character should be."
Source: The Independent

According to a local newspaper I read on the train, the law had been passed. I'm not entirely sure if they were correct, as I cannot find any other source on the Internet saying that the law itself was already passed, but the fact that it's up for a motion is amusing enough in itself.

[Yahwe]

why is this funny?

[Marilyn Manson]

I cannot abide this fashion for looking like a shit-sack which currently is doing the rounds.

I doubt this needs legislating on though.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

why is this funny?

Because the country which houses the world's biggest porn industry, and has it's national celebrities show up at parties with clothing the size of a postage stamp, is trying to pass a law to allow people to be fined for wearing a pair of jeans which allow the underwear to be partly visible.

I thought we left the whole "Oh my god, a piece of skin!" attitude behind in the Victorian Age, especially considering this is about the partial exposure a piece of clothing, rather than a piece of flesh.

[JonnyBGood]

Don't thread on me.

[Yahwe]

1) its a state law, not a federal law.
2) the porn industry and the celebs are in a different state.
3) you people didn't have a victorian era
4) when flesh is shown off as standard it erodes eroticism
5) they're a democracy why mock them if they feel it necessary

6) I would want you arrested if you were outside in a thong

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

1) its a state law, not a federal law.

I never said it was a federal law.

2) the porn industry and the celebs are in a different state.

I'm completely sure that all celebrities and porn stars are required by law to be in a single state which is not Virginia.

3) you people didn't have a victorian era

I never had a Roman Era, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.

4) when flesh is shown off as standard it erodes eroticism

So going to the beach or the pool regularly would desensitize you to eroticism, on the basis that you already see a lot of flesh?

5) they're a democracy why mock them if they feel it necessary

Because the "right by majority" argument doesn't hold any water, and I am extremely sceptical about whether this law reflects the wishes of the people in Virginia, or just of a minor elite of extreme conservatives.

6) I would want you arrested if you were outside in a thong

Everyone would want me something if I went out in just a thong

Ridiculousness aside, this law doesn't stop people from going out in just a thong, it stops them from going out in full leggings which happen to show the upper portion of someone's underwear. There's quite a difference between the two.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Ridiculousness aside, this law doesn't stop people from going out in just a thong, it stops them from going out in full leggings which happen to show the upper portion of someone's underwear. There's quite a difference between the two.

I can't find any difference and I'm curious where you think it is. Can people wear what they like even if it offends others, or not?

[demiGOD]

i've been living in virginia beach, and been working on base in norfolk, for the past 4 years - virginia is generally a conservative state, and will do everything in their power to keep the state conservative to counter the deeply-infested culture bash of the military (90% of the atlantic fleet are based in virginia)

to give you some examples, i got pulled over for speeding - i was doing 39 on a 35 mph road, goddamn rediculous... also i got ticketed $105 (cursing and public intoxication) on the beach for yelling out whatsup mother****ing ****errrrrssSSS!!!! to my friends - they actually have NO CURSING signs posted at every intersection on the beach - i hate virginia with a passion..

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I can't find any difference and I'm curious where you think it is.

I believe the difference to be mainly in the crotch and buttock areas. Of course, that is entirely based on my experience with jeans, perhaps you are accustomed to crotchless and buttless ones, in which case I can understand your confusion.

Can people wear what they like even if it offends others, or not?

Considering a large amount of people hold a large amount of opinions and beliefs, clothing is always going to be offensive to someone. I can see, for example, how a girl in a regular pair of jeans and a T-shirt might already be offensive to the more orthodox members of the Islamic religion.

Considering commercial advertisements and music videos, undoubtedly also broadcasted and displayed in Virginia, regularly make use of models in clothing far more revealing than the clothing this law proposes to ban, I fail to see how this law has any applicable use whatsoever.

[JC]

Fats girls in tight tops that reveal the belly area with overhanging fat offends me .

[Ninja_spammer]

Just dont wear any underwear with them.........

[Dace]

or wear thongs without jeans ...

[furball]

Looks like the bill's been dropped

[Leshy]

Thank God. Although it looks highly ridiculous (make that bordering well across the line to retarded) on the dude on the photo, it's not particularly offensive.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by The BBC Report

Another Republican senator, Thomas K Norment, warned that media reports had ridiculed lawmakers by making them look as though they were focussing on futile topics.

"I find that an indignation, which dampens my humour," he said.

Laughing out loud.

[Sarina_Joy]

I will never for the life of me understand why women can't just buy pants that cover their arses, instead of that god awful dental floss look. If I had my way I'd ban my staff from wearing thongs, thankfully the company director has recently sent a memo round stating that staff must wear trousers that come up to their waist - no more hipsters - (yes this is the kind of shit the director spends his time doing) so no longer will I have to walk over to the drinks dispense and see one of my waitresses bending to lift a tray or whatever with their pants and arse on display :)

[Leshy]

Goddamn office nazi woman!

[JonnyBGood]

Turns out the system really works guys!

[Ninja_spammer]

Which system?


Or are we talking a more general 'rawr im young and hate everything that isnt individual (As defined by a group of other people who mass produce fashions) and cool' type system?

[JonnyBGood]

The legal system of the USA? Your second sentence just scared me

[Ninja_spammer]

Weak minds are easily frightened..

[JonnyBGood]

In university the other day I scared a fat guy and he ran and my god I was laughing for at least ten minutes afterwards.

[Ninja_spammer]

Was that how long it took him to get out of your LoS?

[Knight Theamion]

The dentall floss look on fit girls can be quite a turn on, and it is not disrespectfull in anyway

!

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Because the "right by majority" argument doesn't hold any water, and I am extremely sceptical about whether this law reflects the wishes of the people in Virginia, or just of a minor elite of extreme conservatives.

oh yes. this makes sense.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

oh yes. this makes sense.

Please state which part of that sentence you fail to understand.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Please state which part of that sentence you fail to understand.

'right by majority' + 'minor elite' = idiocy

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

'right by majority' + 'minor elite' = idiocy

Ah, you fail to see the structure in the sentence. I shall rewrite it more elaborately for you.

"Referring to the decisions of a democratic vote as correct or the best outcome, on the basis that a majority chose that outcome, is in my opinion not valid, because the majority is not always correct or does not have the knowledge required to select the best choice.

Furthermore, in going with the 'it was democratically voted for' argument, I dare to raise questions just as how democratic this vote was, and whether it does indeed reflect the wishes of the majority rather than that of a minor conservative elite who have been elected."

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Ah, you fail to see the structure in the sentence. I shall rewrite it more elaborately for you.

"Referring to the decisions of a democratic vote as correct or the best outcome, on the basis that a majority chose that outcome, is in my opinion not valid, because the majority is not always correct or does not have the knowledge required to select the best choice.

Furthermore, in going with the 'it was democratically voted for' argument, I dare to raise questions just as how democratic this vote was, and whether it does indeed reflect the wishes of the majority rather than that of a minor conservative elite who have been elected."

other than being less well written how exactly does this help?

let me be clear:

1) if you want to be anti-democracy, knock yourself out, but a tyranny would be more likely to pass laws you thought were 'funny'

2) you can't say that something democratically voted for by the majority only represents the will of a minority

not unless you don't know what the words mean.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

1) if you want to be anti-democracy, knock yourself out

I'm not anti-democracy, because it is the best thing we have in my opinion, considering that a benevolent dictatorship is pretty much an utopia. However, even being pro-democracy does not mean that you are not allowed to question the will of the majority.

2) you can't say that something democratically voted for by the majority only represents the will of a minority

Lesson on a democratic state:

You have a large population. You have a small government. The population is in the majority. The government is in the minority. The government may make a decision that does not reflect the wishes of the population, eg. the majority. Hence, we may have an outcome that in a democratic state, and chosen by a democratic vote, represents the will of an overall minority.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Leshy

You have a large population. You have a small government. The population is in the majority. The government is in the minority. The government may make a decision that does not reflect the wishes of the population, eg. the majority. Hence, we may have an outcome that in a democratic state, and chosen by a democratic vote, represents the will of an overall minority.

you're funny.

like AIDS

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you're funny.

like AIDS

Considering AIDS seems to be, in fact, the current funny thing to use on an Internet Forum, I'll take that as a compliment

[MAdnRisKy]

or perhaps yawhe, when faced with the choice of two mediocre candidates a majority of total votes may er in favour of one candidate. That however does not mean that his opinion now suddenly represents the majority of the voters

edit damn posting speeds give a guy time to read a thread!

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

or perhaps yawhe, when faced with the choice of two mediocre candidates a majority of total votes may er in favour of one candidate. That however does not mean that his opinion now suddenly represents the majority of the voters

yes it does.

why not use the 'preview post' button in future?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Considering AIDS seems to be, in fact, the current funny thing to use on an Internet Forum, I'll take that as a compliment

given that you can't understand a quite simple democratic process.

i am unsurprised at your inability to understand other things.

[MAdnRisKy]

oh come on how does it. Unless the right to abstane suddenly stops you being considered as a voter. To me that is a vote in of it self. To you it probably just looks like apathy.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

given that you can't understand a quite simple democratic process.

How about instead of trolling, you just explain your point of view then. I'm sure that would be considered as much more informative to the thread than you slinging mud like a girl

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

2) you can't say that something democratically voted for by the majority only represents the will of a minority

the majority elects these representatives. then the representatives 'do things'

do you follow? or must you carry on spamming?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the majority elects these representatives. then the representatives 'do things'

You say this as if the only possible course of action for these representatives is in line with the opinions and interests of the majority that elected them, or that these representatives were actually chosen by a majority to begin with, which does not need to be the case either.

[MAdnRisKy]

Don't feed the troll Leshy, he won't answer a serious arguement. He will answer you though but at no point will he attempt to refute or provide an alternative point of view, he will however insist that you must be stupid for holding yours.

He's a like one week fling that won't go away. Ammusing at first but kind of irritating and then scary when you're having coffee at say work with collegues and it keeps interjecting its own voice no matter how often you ignore it. Pretty soon you'll find him trailing you round threads pointing out how wrong you are every time you post.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Leshy

You say this as if the only possible course of action for these representatives is in line with the opinions and interests of the majority that elected them, or that these representatives were actually chosen by a majority to begin with, which does not need to be the case either.

1) of course they are elected by the majority.
2) if they do not act within their mandate they will not be elected again and the majority still have the option of rebellion.

3) the obvious point is that there is absolutely no suggestion that these US politicians were not acting within their mandate and you look childish when you keep suggesting they're just a conservative minority simply because you 'don't like it' and 'think its funny'

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

Don't feed the troll Leshy

Yeah, I know. He's just grasping @ straws now.

Edit: Fixed for Yahwe.

[Yahwe]

'at'