Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Sex and Christianity > Virginia may ban exposed underwear

Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 9 2005, 07:10 AM

QUOTE

House passes bill targeting underwear exposure

RICHMOND, Va. The [Virginia] House of Delegates has passed legislation targeting young people who wear their low-riding pants that allow their underwear to show. The vote was 60 to 34.

Delegate Algie Howell of Norfolk says he proposed the bill on behalf of constituents who said they find the exposed underwear fad offensive. The measure calls for a $50 fine for anyone who exposes his underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."

Delegate Lionell Spruill of Chesapeake urged his colleges to defeat the bill. He said the measure targets young black people and that it probably is unconstitutional.

The measure now goes to the Senate.

At least they're spending their time on important matters. You can wear skimpy swimsuits to the beach, but make sure you don't show the top of your underwear in Virginia!

Posted by: Tocis Feb 9 2005, 07:12 AM

Aaah, ain't that so much more important than, say, maintaining freedom of speech or other unnecessary... wait, what was the word again?... human rights?

Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Feb 9 2005, 09:33 AM

Wow... thank goodness they finally did this.

I know that I'm always outraged whenever I see cloth that is meant to go underneath other cloth.

Posted by: Ian Feb 9 2005, 09:51 AM

I personally feel a lot safer knowing they will take care of this issue that has plagued society since the invention of underwear.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 9 2005, 10:19 AM

I think it looks stupid, but I just laugh and go on. I would really like to see the pants fall all the way down and trip them for a real good laugh, but ban it? That's idiocy.

Would that include women's bra straps also?

Posted by: non conformist Feb 9 2005, 10:24 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Feb 9 2005, 01:19 PM)

Would that include women's bra straps also?

I certanly hope so. I think there should also be a ban on really long socks when wearing shorts. Everyone should wear ankle socks.

Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Feb 9 2005, 10:50 AM

I'm for banning backwards baseball caps.

Those offend the hell out of me.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 9 2005, 11:01 AM

I tell ya what...I would rather see the underwear than the lack thereof resulting in this:

Posted by: aminor7 Feb 9 2005, 12:21 PM

Would this also apply to women's thong exposure?

Posted by: Mo Biggsley Feb 9 2005, 12:34 PM

They need to go after the real criminal . . .

. . . like guys who pull one pant leg up to mid calf.

Posted by: SilentLoner Feb 9 2005, 12:37 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Feb 9 2005, 02:01 PM)

Wow... thank goodness they finally did this.

I know that I'm always outraged whenever I see cloth that is meant to go underneath other cloth.

Posted by: Reach Feb 11 2005, 12:14 PM

QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Feb 9 2005, 07:10 AM)

At least they're spending their time on important matters. You can wear skimpy swimsuits to the beach, but make sure you don't show the top of your underwear in Virginia!

Taxpayers' money must be too plentiful if one has to look for such legislative ways of spending it.

Life is too short and too precious for such nonsense.

Posted by: Karl Feb 11 2005, 12:48 PM

QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Feb 9 2005, 10:10 AM)

QUOTE

House passes bill targeting underwear exposure

RICHMOND, Va. The [Virginia] House of Delegates has passed legislation targeting young people who wear their low-riding pants that allow their underwear to show. The vote was 60 to 34.

Delegate Algie Howell of Norfolk says he proposed the bill on behalf of constituents who said they find the exposed underwear fad offensive. The measure calls for a $50 fine for anyone who exposes his underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."

Delegate Lionell Spruill of Chesapeake urged his colleges to defeat the bill. He said the measure targets young black people and that it probably is unconstitutional.

The measure now goes to the Senate.

At least they're spending their time on important matters. You can wear skimpy swimsuits to the beach, but make sure you don't show the top of your underwear in Virginia!

This is probably the same group that quashed the teen Naturists a while back.

Of course, to the deranged, hypocritical neo-cons, job loss, slave labor and inner-city blight aren't offensive.

To the rabid fundie neo-cons, loss of women's reproductive rights and being forced to be baby machines certainly aren't offensive.

To the religio-statist neo-cons, loss of human rights isn't offensive.

QUOTE (Reach)

Taxpayers' money must be too plentiful if one has to look for such legislative ways of spending it.

Life is too short and too precious for such nonsense.

They don't give a shit.
Just look at all the lobbyist offices on K Street in D.C. There's some good groups to spend money on.

To the brain-dead neo-cons, an $8Trillion National debt and record trade deficits aren't offensive.

To the "compassionate conservative" neo-cons, increasing child poverty and hunger certainly aren't offensive.

To the greed-obsessed neo-cons and their corporate cronies, illegal aliens (which can work for the rich for next to nothing under the table...yay!...hey wait, let's make it that way for everybody!) or lack of border security and resulting dangers to the U.S. populace certainly aren't offensive.

Yes, "offensive" underwear is a critical fucking issue these days. There's a "worthwhile" issue for some of those "brilliant" legislators to get concerned about! Why don't we just have all the women wear fucking burqas and all the men wear sheets? That'll "solve" everything!

As for the neo-con oligarchists, I detest those fucking bastards with every fiber of my being. If there was a hell, they would surely belong in it.

K

Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Feb 11 2005, 01:09 PM

There is no hell, there is only Amemait.

Posted by: Valgeir Feb 11 2005, 06:45 PM

Eh, this doesn't bother me for three reasons.

One, I live in New York.

Two, I agree with it.

Three, it wouldn't hold sway over me anyway. If you haven't been able to tell yet, I'm that guy that wears the kinda-tight jeans with boots and a t-shirt with my hair in a ponytail, haha. No "gangster" clothes for me.

Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 11 2005, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (Valgeir @ Feb 11 2005, 09:45 PM)

I'm that guy that wears the kinda-tight jeans with boots and a t-shirt with my hair in a ponytail, haha. No "gagster" clothes for me.

That's what they'll be outlawing next year.

Posted by: Valgeir Feb 12 2005, 08:42 AM

I also look good in dressier clothing with my hair down, according to some people.

But if they try to make me cut my hair I swear I'm finishing the job the doctor started with circumcision.

Posted by: Agnosticator Mar 2 2005, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (Valgeir @ Feb 12 2005, 11:42 AM)

I also look good in dressier clothing with my hair down, according to some people.

But if they try to make me cut my hair I swear I'm finishing the job the doctor started with circumcision.

My stars ma! Have you gone mad!

I'd sooner chop of my walking legs before my third leg! No locks are worth losing Mr. Peepers!

Posted by: Eccles1:2 Mar 3 2005, 03:11 AM

I think Virginia should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her underwear.

Down with pants! Up with skirts!

Posted by: Reach Mar 3 2005, 04:00 AM

QUOTE (Eccles1:2 @ Mar 3 2005, 03:11 AM)

I think Virginia should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her underwear.

Down with pants! Up with skirts!

Some underwear make great slingshots.