Sunday, March 22, 2009

ALERT! The Fashion Police are Coming!

SAMPLE PERSONAL BLOG
feel free to comment - you will receive credit for it!


Okay, while I was watching the MTV music awards, I couldn't help but stare in curiosity at Lil' Wayne and his *very* low riding baggy jeans. Now, I like baggy jeans. In fact, as a man who is quite thin, I like to wear pants that don't overemphasize my thinness. This is not to say, however, that I want to swim in them.

There are a number of cities in the United States that are cracking down on low riding and saggy pants. The rationale here is that is is indecent to see someone's underpants - seemingly with the idea that undergarments are indecent or equivalent to one's private areas. Fines and potential imprisonment are the penalties.

It is obvious that the fashion of low-riding and saggy jeans represents a direct influence of hip hop culture on today's society. In turn, hip hop culture is influenced by prison culture where the baggy jeans represents a one-size-fits-all policy in institutions where belts are not allowed (to protect the inmates).



The question that arises from these "fashion laws" is that many find it unconstitutional. So, I pose the question to you. Do these laws violate the individual rights of the accused? Should people be allowed to wear whatever they want? Be sure to discuss with your rationale and reference to the material provided.

Some articles to read on this topic....

Low Rider Pants Won't Fly in this Louisiana Town

Blog response to the Louisiana Issue

Do Saggy Pants Laws Violate Rights?

Fashion Police in Flint, Michigan


Here is Lil Wayne in action - Check out those pants!



Let's see what Brigitte thinks.....

73 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To your question I personally think that the government is doing to the people in the specific states are cruel. The people should be allowed to wear anything they want and the law shouldn’t get in the way when it comes to clothing. For example in our school we have a dress code that the ladies shouldn’t be any spaghetti straps at least 2 fingers length and no inappropriate shirts you know the shirts that have sayings on it. But I can see where the government is going though; I wouldn’t want to be that state’s governor to see that haft the state is filled with under wearing shower boys. Another thing I would like to know why aren’t the ladies doing it, it seems to me that all the boys are doing it but not the ladies must be the thong or something or maybe that they don’t need to because knowing us we will notice them no matter what they do. Well I just got one question for you how do they run with their pants around their anus and not waist. To me I would find it difficult but other people have there answers but I keep it like that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my personal opinion, contradictory to the statements made by the two individuals before me, I believe that wearing pants as low as these people are wearing them is disrespectful, plain and simple. I don't want to see someone's underwear! Underwear is for holding in your private parts and wasn't originally intended to be "fashionable" (if one can even manage to call it "fashion"...). I believe that the current trend of low-riding pants is reflecting the same conclusions I make through the observations of everyday life. People are self-centred, disrespectful and arrogant.

    Everyday I am a first hand witness to disrespect. People cutting each other off while driving, people making fun of others because they are different, people not paying respect to authority figures, etc. No one likes when others make fun/cut off/you name it to them, and so why do they feel that it is alright to do these things to others? Didn't Hammurabi say "An eye for an eye"?

    "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others" -Isocrates

    ReplyDelete
  4. Before I post my introductory blog I was looking at Dylan's comment and I have to say I agree to the fact that the low-riding pants ordeal is completely stupid and we should not have to be showing off our underpants and wearing our pants, jeans, shorts, whatever, down across our feet, but Dylan wasn’t there once a wise man after Hammurabi who said “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”?

    ReplyDelete
  5. My introductory blog response post*(first sentence)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well David, considering I wasn't quoting Ghandi, I don't see your point. I was using the quotes in order to reinforce the point I was trying to make, and if I had used the Ghandi quote, I would be contradicting myself. Contradictory statements aren't really a successful tool when one is arguing and so I avoided doing that.

    However, we're now off topic. As much as I'd love to sit here and discuss philosophical quotation, it was not meant to be the main focus of this blog. Hopefully someone can come in here and breath new light into the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Agreed and I wasn't saying that you should've used that point just I was saying that the entire eye for an eye quote you used was and still is seen as wrong by many people throughout the world today as of the entire philosophical made by Ghandi and also in a moral standpoint as well, and since you wish to get back to the discussion at hand I guess we'll leave it at that

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dylan I agree with you,"wearing pants as low as these people are wearing them is disrespectful". It is disrespctful to themselves and towards society. Although you may not agree that "low riders" is fashionable, it still is a fashion trend that many young men and even girls choose to follow. This is just another fashion trend that will eventually die down and become unpopular. Also, (no personal attack towards you or anything BUT) did you know what having long hair on males was considered disrespectful towards society and was a symbol of rebellion? Yet society has changed and accepted young males that have long hair. Just like how society will eventually change and accept males who wear their pants low.

    To answer Mr. Puleys question,"Do these laws violate the individual rights of the accused?" Going by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, these laws do violate the individual rights of the accused. It is violating their freedom of expression. If people are getting fined for wearing their pants too law and showing some undergarments then what about girls who show too much cleavage? They are skipping the step of undergarments and going straight to the skin. Im sure cleavage never offended anybody just like showing your boxers never offended anybody.
    To answer Mr. Puleys second question, "Should people be allowed to wear whatever they want?"
    Yes, I believe people should be able to wear whatever they want as long it doesnt offend or harm society in any matter. There may be freedom but only to a certain extenct.

    ReplyDelete
  9. that*** tenth line, first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems, so far, that everyone is considering this as an issue about whether or not it is "disrespectful to show underwear." Personally I see it in a different light. As Mr. Puley said, the style is reflecting prison culture. This is what I think is wrong with it.

    Is Prison Culture honestly something we want to be celebrating? People who steal, rape and murder? It's not like we celebrate Nazi's by growing Hitler Mustache's. There should be laws against these kinds of things, this isn't the culture we want to be honouring.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As much as it is a fashion trend, it is still disrespectful. If it's acceptable to be exposed in that way because it is "fashionable", then why can't people wear someone giving the middle finger on their shirt? If someone asks them "why do you dress or wear something like that?", if they respond "it's a fashion statement", does this make it acceptable? My point being, who decides what is fashionable and what is acceptable to wear? As much as it may be "fashion" to some, others like myself still find it offensive.

    Also, in regards to the long hair, I understand your point. However, I do not believe that these two things can really be compared. It is not like people with long hair are indecently exposing themselves. In fact, it is actually quite the opposite if you think about it. Less of me is being exposed, opposed to people being able to see more of the individual when they are wearing their pants so low!

    In response to DaveyWavey, I also see your point. As you mentioned, low riding pants started in Prison (one size fits all). Why do people try to be like criminals? It's a strange ideology! Does acting like a criminal make you "popular" or "cool"? The last time I checked, the definition of "Cool" didn't include "acting like a criminal". As Mr. Puley told us in class, we find the roots of low-riding pants as "fashion" in "Hip Hop culture". The whole "Hip Hop culture" is very confusing to myself, as it creates some strange trends. Take "Grillz" or "Grills" or however you spell it, for example. "Grillz" seem to have some popularity (stemming from Hip Hop culture) these days and I find it rather strange. "Grillz" to me are like dentures. When I think dentures, I think elderly people, and to most people, elderly people are "not cool" and so why are people trying to act like these "uncool" people? Their time will come when they will have to put in a serious investment to teeth maintenance and replacements and so why are they so eager to start at a young age? Now, I have never seen an elderly person with diamond or golden teeth, but you get my point (I hope).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dylan, I think you’re absolutely correct. Taking a quote straight out of your comments in which you ask “who decides what is fashionable and what is acceptable to wear?, this is a very valid and important question to ask. America and the media have so much influence over how North Americans are perceived. It does not say much, nor does it add to our creditability when half of your young population (not only youth) are dressed like so.
    Now, I need to make it clear, I don’t believe in common stereotypes and I commend people who truly are trying to make a statement. People who are intelligent, open-minded and make a valid point about society, and breakaway from the common cookie cutter image are not common, but are around. However, I think it’s safe to say a large percent of men wearing such pants is not the case. I highly doubt, based on what I hear and the interaction with many people that contribute to this trend, that people are really wearing them for the right reasons or are even qualified to do so.
    For example, when people think of lawyers most likely they think of a white haired, white man. Very rarely do we think of lawyers, or good lawyers to be black, Asian, short, young or women. Any disagreements?
    But to go back to Dylan’s question, we as North Americans are probably one of the biggest hypocrites around. We claim to be an open, liberal, sexually charged society, yet we censor so much that we could probably rub out several European counties off our planet. We censor words we know are already coming, for example “fu-bleep”, oh gee I wonder what he could of possibly said? Or there’s another classical form of censoring, putting a big necklace or vase of flowers in front of a women, who willingly chose to be posed like so, in an adult magazine no less! Now I understand the need to censor, but must we be such big talkers about how open we are, when we’re clearly not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DaveyWavey - "Is Prison Culture honestly something we want to be celebrating? People who steal, rape and murder?"
    Don't just assume that everyone in prison falls under one of those categories and are evil just because they are in there. You have to understand why and what they did. We are not celebrating anything by wearing our pants low. It is just a fashion statement that relates to prison culture.

    dylanthebassist- "Why do people try to be like criminals? It's a strange ideology! Does acting like a criminal make you "popular" or "cool"?"
    I agree with your statement 100% but the reason why I believe people wear there pants low is to look "tough". You have to remember that where these laws are coming enforce are a totally different society than what we live in. Everything is about social statuses and if you cant meet the requirements then you go to the bottom.
    Once Again I do not believe that there is anything wrong with wearing low riding pants. Sure they may look like idiots but its still their own unique style. Every group has their own stereotyped style.
    Gangstas- Baggy clothing with a du rag
    Emos- tight pants with long black bangs swiped to the side
    Rockers- heavily-decorated leather motorcycle jackets with other leather accesories
    Country musician- the cowboy style
    Each type of music genre has their own style and just because "gangsta"
    is tied to something negative, everyone thinks it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I really don't care my self if people wear there pants low. I mean its not going to kill anyone, but on the other side of the coin, what if this makes come people feel uncomfortable? This may be from the fact that some people don't like looking at another person underwear. Is it ethical to censor a person just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable? There is also so many other things in the world that would deserve to be censor over a person with low pants, such as all the violence that anyone can watch on TV. I mean they/* can even be a very funny sight. Have you even seen seen someone with low pants try to walk up a curve and almost fall over because of there pants? In fact if low riding pants should be banned, its not because of decency, but because they can be a safety hazard.

    I don't even see why the government would even spend the time to create and enforce this kind of law. I mean would the fine even be worth it? How much could they charge you with for it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I personally don't see how anyone could find low riding pants to be offensive. For one, you see somebodies underwear but the last time i checked, underwear wasn't see-through; it's not indecent exposure, it's just fabric, no skin. Secondly, the style fits into a baggy clothing fad. Almost everyone who low-rides also wears a very baggy shirt, making it impossible to see their underwear anyway.

    Also, in the late 1960's, it was very popular to wear really short jean cut-off jean shorts that almost failed to cover a person's thighs [1]. This fashion statement exposed more skin than today's low riding jeans do and I have yet to find information about the banning of that fashion statement. They wouldn't ban cut-offs but they'll ban full length jeans because it represents prison culture?

    The swastika was a symbol of many different cultures that represented many different things; however, if it was worn on a shirt, many people would find it offensive [2]. So, just because it represents something frowned upon in society, low riding jeans shouldn't be banned.

    I once saw a woman crossing the street while wearing a towel. That towel covered the same amount of her body as a short dress would, but since the towel could represent bathing, which you do naked, does that make it wrong to wear on the street?

    The same question could be asked about wearing a bakini. No one would be offended if someone wore a bakini on a beach, but if it were worn casually, certain people would raise a fuss.

    The point is, fabric is fabric, clothing is clothing. As long as someone is covered up, I don't see why there would be a problem with the way that person is dressed.

    [1] Wagner, Christopher. "Boys' Jeans." Tripod. 21 March. 1998. 10 April. 2009.
    http://members.tripod.com/~histclo/jean.html

    [2] "The Swastika." Jewish Virtual Library: A Division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. 2009. 10 April 2009.
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Swastika.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. really short cut-off jean shorts***: Second paragraph, first sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I know I am probably repeating what has been said already but I need to make a larger post soooo...

    The Gangster style in my opinion is one of the dumbest styles I've ever seen and should have never been thought of but in looking at this "fashion police" ordeal I think this is taking away people's rights. There are a lot of fashions that show off their under garments other than gangster fashion such as scene(or emo). The fact that there is a law being put around this fashion so you cannot dress like this without being fined is ridiculous. Sure sometimes you can see these people's under garments but people have done much worse and go along their lives with it and are not being prosecuted. For example in New York City there is a man called the "Naked Cowboy" and all he wears is a cowboy hat, cowboy boots and a pair of "Tighty Whities". To say that gangster wear is more "offensive" than this is as obscure as something can be. The fact is, is that the government making these people change their clothes is a breach of their rights. As long as these people are not exposing their genitals then what is the problem? In gangster wear people are wearing large boxers for the most part. This would be like complaining about a person wearing a bathing suit or shorts underneath their pants. Oh and one final comment, to the long hair comment made a while back, much like gangster style is considered now long hair was in the 60s and 70s since it was seen as disrespectful to parents, to the law and to themselves. Neat and tidy hair represented someone who was well put together, organized and reaching on success while long hair was considered lazy, falling apart, and seen as being a person who would end up working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Looking at now, long hair is considered just another hairstyle and times have changed, looking at gangster wear maybe it is unaccepted by some of society today but in around 10-20 years the entire ordeal will be over and done with, that is considering that rap manages to thrive for that long.(hopefully no haha)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Alright so I don’t have a problem with low riding pants to an extent. Now I don’t wear my pants at my waist and I don’t think I know many other males that do either (of course that all depends on your idea of were your waist is.)Although I think wearing your pants as low as Lil' Wayne is going too far. I don't really need to see your underwear. It is just something I can live my life without seeing.

    I do agree with DaveyWavey's idea of banning this style as it has to do with the "one-size fits all prison culture. It is very odd style but I agree with Harujuku Boi's way of looking at the style. It makes the person wearing the pants look tough. It is just part of the style. Part of the "gangsta" image is being tough and being in trouble with the law. Take a look at 50 Cent. Shot numerous times, been in trouble with the law and he happens to wear his pants low. He is also immensely popular. Now those may be coinedences but it is still a way many hip hop artists act.

    I agree with these states and their wanting to ban this fashion sense, but how low is bannable, were do we say that’s too low. Is it a matter of judgment? Will all police men have a ruler and measure the amount of underwear showing? It may be something that cannot just be enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't understand how you can say that this type of fashion should be banned. Why, because it exposes one type of fabric and not another? As previously mentioned, a baggy shirt would usually cover any exposed areas anyway.
    If someone wore a pair of underwear underneath their boxers, would it be alright to low-ride your jeans? Obviously, a single layer of material is simply not enough to cover the genital region of the body. While you're at it, you should ban swimsuits as well. Crotch-less leather chaps also have to go. They must signify motorcycle gangs in some insignificant way that people should complain about it. Hell, if this "no low riding" thing works out, I'll be the first to expose a variety of fashions that are too questionable for society.
    Or is it because it signifies prison culture. To my understanding, prisoners aren't allowed to have shoelaces in their cells either. Does that mean that if I take the shoelaces out of my shoes that I should be fined or arrested? Clearly we now live in the midst of insanity if I'm unable to leave my house without shoelaces or a belt.
    No, it is not necessary to wear your pants down low, nor is it necessary to question whether or not it is right. If you want to expose your underwear, feel free. The most complaint you should receive is "I see London, I see France.."
    I don't agree with what certain people do in society either, but who cares, it's their business. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In response to anyone who doesn't understand how someone can become offended, feel free to read any of my previous comments or comments by others who are offended.

    In response to steve_afro's statement that "the style fits into a baggy clothing fad", it still doesn't make it acceptable! Because a group of people decide that it is fashion, it does not automatically make it acceptable in the world. There are many people that do not care to see others exposed in such a way and thus, anyone who wears this "style" or supports this style is being ignorant.

    Think about it. If I was to wear a swastika on my clothes, and because I had a group of people telling me that it is cool, does it makes it right for me to do so? Although people are telling me that it is cool to do so, it does not make it just as there are many people who would take offense to such a "fashion" statement. This situation and the "low-riding pants" situation run parallel as they both must be dealt in the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I personally think that what the government is doing is completely wrong. I find nothing wrong with wearing you underwear below your anus; in fact I find it quite enjoyable (dark chalklate sags his pants). It feels great to sag your pants. Have u ever though that some people just cant afford one of those $50 belts that they are selling at Sears in Eastgate Mall.. that’s what I though. I would rather let my pants fall to my ankle then wear a piece of sting as a belt. To ken, you say you don’t know how someone can run with their pants around their ass(refer to post 1), well it is something my friend Darwin would call “Adaptation”. when someone have done something for a while they get used to it am I correct? And when they get used to it some of they start to get good at it , am I correct? It is the same with runway models., they get used to wearing those high-heels that’s how they are able to walk in them. For those models that you see trip over themselves the reason why is because they aren’t used to wearing high-heels or they just probably slipped on a very, very clean and shiny spot on that particular run way.

    Harujuku Boi-“Yes, I believe people should be able to wear whatever they want as long it doesn’t offend or harm society in any matter.”
    I don’t find no harm in showing off one’s underwear. It is not like the person is intentionally trying to show their penis or vagina (for the girls who think that’s sexy, but hey this is a free country so do what u want), that there Dillian is what I call disrespectful

    ReplyDelete
  23. Personally speaking, I think what the government is doing is just disrespectful. People have a right to freedom, meaning a right to dress and look how they want; by taking away these privileges people are just going to rebel so they can make their own statement. Clearly the fad right now is "baggy pants", and since fads don't last long, i don't see why this is posing such a serious problem.

    Wearing baggy pants is not revealing, its just showing other fabric of clothing, it would be different if someones butt was hanging out, but its not revealing any skin. You see girls walking down the street all the time revealing their stomachs, legs, etc. and no one ever has any laws against that do they? People ban things because they don't agree with it, you might not feel comfortable wearing your pants that way, but other people do. There not harassing anyone, not causing trouble or mischief, so everyone should just leave them alone.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. dylanthebassist- "Because a group of people decide that it is fashion, it does not automatically make it acceptable in the world".

    Exactly dylan. That they whole point everyone in the world is not going to accept a certain style. Where you are from or how you were raised gives you that intuition that saggin your pants is disrespectfull. Well I can say the same thing for hair. Where I come from If a guy does not have dreadlocks or braids and they wear let their hair reach their shoulders, that is very disrespectfull in many ways, but I do not want to get into that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To dylan's comments of acceptance please refer to my comments but also as said earlier the swatstika is a religious symbol for many and how can you say its disrespectful wearing something like that when they are only showing their religious practice? Also, I am only using capitals to show the emphasis on the point, IT IS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS, these people are not showing anything vulgar other than something, as I AND steve_a_fro said earlier, like a bathing suit or shorts. If people thought it trendy to run down the streets in the nude then YES it is disrespectful and should be stopped but this is just another fashion that is really doing no harm. The only reason some people think this is doing any harm is because they have never seen it before and as discussed in class, people dislike change. As I said in my other comment long hair was seen the same way and now do we care? The answer is a big resounding NO.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Honestly Dylan, I really don't think that there's anything overly wrong about wearing a swastika in public. Personally, I think the swastika is a cool symbol; everyone just hates it because it represents the holocaust. However, those people who say that a swastika is a symbol of hatred are simply ignorant to the fact that that symbol represents many different things to different groups of people, as I have mentioned in a previous blog comment. For example, did you know that the swastika was stamped on Buddah's heart and was called the "Heart's Seal" [1]? If I were a strong believer in Buddhism, should I not be allowed to wear this symbol, which clearly represents something other than hatred?
    I guess in response to what you're saying about it being "cool" to do so, it all depends on what they meant. If they meant that it was cool to wear a swastika because it represents a holocaust, then no, I would not agree with it. If the KKK decided to use a maple leaf as a symbol of hatred towards black people, does that mean that we have to completely change our flag because somebody decided to take our symbol and alter its meaning? If they said it was cool because the symbol is cool, which is it, then they should have no reason not to wear it. It is the same for these baggy jeans. I'm sure a lot of people have fallen victim to this fashion because of peer pressure. It adds a cool and tough appearance to whoever is wearing it. I'm sure that not everyone who likes baggy cloths also loves murderers, rapists, and thieves.
    Who would be offended by jail? Everyone has been saying that it's disrespectful to wear your cloths as though you're in prison. That makes no sense to me. People have the freedom to wear whatever they want. The fact that certain people want to stop people from contributing to this fashion is disrespectful. It's disrespectful to anyone in prison (as strange as that sounds). It's disrespectful to anyone wearing this fashion, since they're basically being accused of being future criminals. It's disrespectful to say that these people don't deserve a choice in what they wear.
    How about the scene fashion? That could be considered to be a mockery of anyone who's ever tried to commit suicide, since it represents the "emo" people in society.

    The point that I'm trying to make with this comment is that people should have the right to wear whatever they want. There are different meanings to everything and everything could be considered disrespectful to somebody. Why is revealing your boxers (if you don't wear a baggy shirt) disrespectful? It shows what's hiding someone's genitalia. You should be thankful for knowing that at least they're wearing their underwear. Is it disrespectful to the people in society because it represents prison? If anything, I think it's disrespectful to the people in prison for saying that we shouldn't represent them as though they're no longer valued members of society.

    [1] "Meanings of the Swastika Symbol." Theosophy-nw. 13 April. 2009
    < http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/swas.htm >

    ReplyDelete
  28. sorry I haven't posted in awhile but at least we got 2 different things going on at the beginning of the comments respect and the law and i'm starting to think why shouldn't it be everywhere instead of the places that do go by law dress as the government says. Still the way that people dress is horrible to me its like watching a horror movie can't understand why people are always getting killed by a person in a mask with kitchen utensils or anything else out of the ordinary. Why can't the government give us a dress code so we all don't have to be disrespectful to other people and themselves it would be weird but in the end it would be suitable.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think it all comes down to what the word "fashion" actually means. According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn the word fashion means:the latest and most admired style in clothes and cosmetics and behavior.
    Right now in North America with many of the youth, wearing your pants low is the most admired trend to follow, thus makes it a fashion. Wearing low pants is a very popular culture right now and if you dont believe me then why are there areas that are banning this fashion statement? They are banning it because many people are following this trend. I agree with what Steven is saying 100%.
    There are many other fashion trends out there that are offensive to other cultures yet we do not complain about it so why are they complaining about this one? It is just a stereotype that if you wear your pants low then you are a thug and against society. Just like how all gay guys have earings and wear pink(*sarcasm). There is nothing wrong with wearing your pants down low. I don't understand why the government is wasting their citizens tax dollars on issues like these when there is a worldwide recession going on?
    People are simply just ''hatin'' on this fashion so like Maino says "Hi Hater, Bye Hater".

    ReplyDelete
  30. steve_afro: "I really don't think that there's anything overly wrong about wearing a swastika in public. Personally, I think the swastika is a cool symbol"

    I beg to differ. It would be extremely offensive to wear the swastika in public. Not only to Jews but to war veterans as well as any proud Canadian who owes their freedom to the troops who fought for us. It is the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt saying "I support terrorism." I believe in freedom of speech to a certain extent, but this is wrong all together. I mean, living in this country is a privilege, it is a great place to live. If someone walks around with a swastika on it shows how little appreciation they have for our country. And in all honesty: if you can't appreciate this country then get out.

    ReplyDelete
  31. David, why is that? It's because the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear of a swastika is the holocaust. However, there are many religious and cultural meanings behind that symbol. Why should we deny them their interpretation because the Nazi people have tainted it?
    By wearing a swastika, it might not be disrespecting the Canadian troops or the Jewish people, but could just show respect for the Japanese, Chinese, and whatever other culture the swastika represents in a positive way.
    It is the connotations of this symbol that make you all think this way.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You're saying that the only thing that the swastika represents is hatred. If i wore a swastika, it would not be the same as saying "I support terrorism." because a swastika and terrorism do not go hand in hand. They are not the same thing at all. If you do not believe me or beg to differ, do some research.

    ReplyDelete
  33. steve_afro: I do understand what your trying to say about how the swastika was originally a Buddha symbol. But we have to understand that it's meaning has been forever altered. It will never be restored to it's original meaning and will always be associated with hatred towards Jews and all the terrible things that happened.

    Also in response to this question: "If the KKK decided to use a maple leaf as a symbol of hatred towards black people, does that mean that we have to completely change our flag because somebody decided to take our symbol and alter its meaning?"

    Honestly, yes, if the issue grew to the same intensity as the Nazi situation. Yes, I would think it would be the right thing to do to change our flag. Simply because I don't think our nation should ever be associated with such a hateful cause. Even though we had the symbol first.

    Harujuku Boi: "I don't understand why the government is wasting their citizens tax dollars on issues like these when there is a worldwide recession going on?"

    I totally agree with you here. Even though this is an issue that the government should debate on, they shouldn't be worrying about it now. There are hundreds of other issues more mandatory than low-riding pants. Global warming, war, recession to name a few. The issue of low-riding pants should be considered eventually, but right now it doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Honestly, this topic just goes around in circles! I think we can all see that, as we all have different views, and this is one topic that I am sure will never have a clear "right" answer. However, I will finish with this.

    In regards to Steve's "Swastika" comment, I don't think that you are being just. I am quite aware that the symbol has a religious background to it, but you are forgetting something very important. Around 6 million people were killed by people who were associated with that symbol. Therefore, it should not be put up on a pedestal as it will forever be connected with negativity. I also never said that religious groups shouldn't be allowed to use that symbol. Of course they should be allowed to wear it, as it has spiritual meaning to them. However, when people with no connection to the symbol religiously wear it, that is when lines are crossed. One can only assume that they are supporting "Nazism" as they have no Hindu connections.

    One also has to remember that the two symbols aren't exactly the same either though. When viewing the two symbols, yes there are similarities, but can one really consider them the same symbol? The "Peace" sign and the Mercedes-Benz symbol are also very similar, but one cannot consider those two symbols to be synonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Minwoo, I think you make a very valid point when you say “people wear there pants low is to look "tough". This is an important point as there are many underlying messages being sent with this trend. It allows people to look tougher and more superior, and its human nature to think with superiority comes respect. This form of “respect” can be practiced in social situations and relationships, and may not send or portray the best examples or handling situations.
    Also, I found what Paulsax said interesting as it sheds an interesting light into what the government is considering.
    “I agree with these states and their wanting to ban this fashion sense, but how low is bannable, were do we say that’s too low. Is it a matter of judgment? Will all police men have a ruler and measure the amount of underwear showing? It may be something that cannot just be enforced.”
    It’s sometimes funny to think that laws will be created and enforced dealing with such issues. Like Paul said, it’s going to be very hard to determine and create sensible guidelines and criteria. Every person is different, there height, weight, status, is different. To create “one standard” or bar for people to strive for and must meet is not any different from the origin of this trend, as it comes from “one style” prison culture.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I agree with what Pari was saying. People want to look "tough" in order to be respected. However, respect to most civilized people is something that is earned. May it be through hard work, being courteous, or obeying the laws of society, respect is something that comes with time and cannot be enforced onto others. With people acting and dressing in certain ways to get "respect", people aren't learning how to use their intellectual skills to deal with problems. One who relies on using their appearance to get their way will encounter problems in life as they do not have the knowledge and the "know how" to deal with real world issues. For example, imagine two individuals going into a job interview at a respected office or business. The one person is used to people respecting him for how he looks and the other gains respect from others by his actions and attitude. Who is going to get the job? I think it is kind of obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As Steve_a_afro said "Why is revealing your boxers (if you don't wear a baggy shirt) disrespectful? It shows what's hiding someone's genitalia." I agree what if someone was going "comando" under their jeans, but had them up high enough that you don't notice. How is this different? You don't have police making sure you are wearing underwear, do you?

    Also to Dylanthebassist "However, respect to most civilized people is something that is earned." "The one person is used to people respecting him for how he looks and the other gains respect from others by his actions and attitude. Who is going to get the job? I think it is kind of obvious." There is two issues with that. One a suit is a form of respect, so what if the one who is use to getting respect goes in a suit and tie, and the one who earns it goes to the interview dressed in their street cloths. The interviewer is going to most likely hire the one dressed in the suit. Why, because it gave him more credibility or respect in the eyes of the interviewer. The other problem is human instinct. Humans have always used clothing to show their dominance over others. Look at how any one in power dresses or has dressed. Any world leader dresses in a suit. The Pope has his robes and hat. Even cars, in a sense cars are just another layer of "clothing" for some people. So not all respect is earned, even you first impression of someone, how do you get it? What do they look like, how do they stand/sit?

    ReplyDelete
  38. John, I think you are a little confused. I am just saying that if people use clothes to get respect, they won't know how to gain it in the real world. Since they would only know how to gain respect through their appearance, they would not have the people skills to gain respect. Let's say that the two individuals go to their interview wearing the exact same thing. Who is going to get the job? The one who has acquired the people skills to gain respect will most likely get the position. The person who relies on their intimidating appearance would not know how to act in that situation as their confidence would not be there (ie. their clothing that demands "respect" would not be present). That is what I am trying to say. In this situation they are both dressed the same and so the one cannot rely on their appearance to get them ahead.

    I hope that kind of clears up what I was saying.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  40. After some serious thought and reading other posts, I think Dylan has hit the nail on the head when he states that it is a matter of opinion and there will never be a "right" answer.

    I think Minwoo has found a more important idea to look at.
    Harujuku Boi: "I don't understand why the government is wasting their citizens tax dollars on issues like these when there is a worldwide recession going on?"

    If governments spent time on things that were actually important I am sure we would not be in quite the mess we are, but that is a different story. Personally I think if the current economic situation continues it may be a smart thing for parents with young children to do. Buy clothing that is too big and allow their kids to grow into it. Heaven knows how fast kids can grow so instead of buying new clothes every other month buy pants that are a size or two big and invest in a belt.

    This situation is ultimately one that may not be solved anytime soon, if ever but as of now governments have much more important things to worry about that how people wear their pants.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dylan I agree with your above post. It’s just human nature to want to take the easy way out, if putting a pair of jeans gives you instant results, then that is more than enough for most people. But in reality attaining respect is not that easy, and that’s why it is respect, and being respectful is a put on a higher moral pedestal.
    All in all, I highly doubt that we will see this idea pass in the near future. When the time comes, which I’m sure it will, the government better be ready for a lot of protest. There’s a lot to modify and take into consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Okay so I listened to Brigitte's video and well by the sounds of it some towns already have this law enforced. I would loved to find some statistics and find how this law is working for them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dylan, the colour red also symbolizes bloodshed. Red represents the number of people that died in the holocaust just as much as a swastika does, if not more. Does that mean that red should be banned? A swastika merely represents the Nazi party and their ideas. Not all Nazi members were supporters of genocide. Claus von Stauffenberg fought for Hitler in all of his major combats, but he actually tried to assassinate Hitler later on in life.
    That symbol is just a picture, with many different meanings behind it, just as the colour red, a kitchen knife, or anything else that has a connotation that deals with death.
    A swastika is also a lot worse to wear, in my opinion, than baggy jeans.
    Really though, I think it has already been mentioned, but there are so many things that the world is facing that the government should focus on. I'm concerned about where the economy is headed, not how low my neighbour is wearing his jeans. To me, the fact that some people wear their jeans low is so insignificant that I find it rediculous that the government is trying to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. We gotta remember that this "low riding" style comes from a different society where respect is earned in a different way.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Also another very valid point, respect is earned different ways all around the world. Respect in our culture can be found in many ways. To some people low riding pants may be their way of trying to earn respect.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I disagree paul I think the only way why people use this Low Riding pants look is to act like the people in music videos and movies.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hey Ken, How about we put you in their shoes and see how you feel about it afterwards. Sure they may see it in the music videos and movies but its still their style and way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I am not going to lie, while going to Washington D.C. we stopped in Maryland and drove into Washington as the hotel rates were cheaper. We stayed in neighborhood were the population was mostly black and almost everyone young to middle aged male was wearing their pants low. I felt out of place, like an outsider and it was scary. I am not used to being a minority and dressing differently than everyone else. I know I had no reason to be afraid (other than the fact my hotel had a gate and 24/7 security guard), but I was. Although this doesn't really have much to do with the topic, I can see how people want to wear their pants like this. It helps them fit and make them stand out less. Most people don't want to stand out in a crowd, they would prefer to blend into the back

    ReplyDelete
  49. People do this low-riding style for every single reason stated basically, the real problem is why are we going against this fashion trend? It does not make sense to me. To those against this low riding trend read my previous comments and read about the entire long hair fiasco before posting please, because I'd like to see how you can justify that one.(If that is the right word to use)

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don’t know exactly why people want to wear their pants like that. They have to squat and waddle to walk, otherwise they’ll be walking around with their pants around their ankles. Of course, this will look like they just went to the washroom, and that might offend people, right? I agree with whoever said that the government should stop wasting their time on these laws and start focusing on the economic problems unless the way someone wears their pants effects how much money a Country has, there’s really no point. If people want to copy the fact that they don’t have a belt they can hang themselves with, that’s fine. I think it’s weird, but that’s my opinion. Somebody else might like walking like they have something stuck up where the sun-don’t-shine.

    Also, it really depends on the person. You see a black person wearing their pants like that, you automatically think “gangster”. If you see anyone else wearing it like that, you think “wannabe-gangster”. Picture this. I hot woman/man is walking down the street in only a bikini/speedo. Now change the scene. A large woman/man walking down the street in only a bikini/speedo. Is it any less offensive either way?

    ReplyDelete
  51. In response to Sarah's last question about if it's any less offensive or more if different types of people wear certain clothing, I think that it depends on what people are wearing. Certain people express themselves through their clothing and others are just comfortable in their bodies as they should be. So I personally don't think it is offensive if a larger person wears a bikini. BUT, when people decide to wear there pants around their ankles I think it's their own opinion. If they think they look cool and want to continue to walk around looking like a penguin let them. It gives us all something to laugh at, which is kind of harsh but really, the only people who think its cool to dress like that are the people who actually wear those styled pants.
    The government should really get over trying to create these laws because if they don't allow people to wear clothes like this they're going to move onto something else, and God only knows what that will be. The government needs to stop wasting time and focus in on matters that are actually important to the majority of the population and create programs that will effect everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Also, Brigette Dale made a valid point when she mentioned how some women are dressing. Women are just as bad as any man walking around, maybe a little bit worse. You only see men showing their underpants and walking around with their pants down low, but at least everything is covered. Women on the other hand are flaunting their "sexy" undergarments, chest and stomach. So why is it that only men are banned in certain states from showing off their boxers while women can walk around in whatever they please? I don't get the logistics in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  53. A lot of people seem to be asking the same question. Why is it that women can dress the way they want, which can be worse then men, but men with low-riding pants seem to be getting in trouble? I think you have to look at who is creating these laws. Older males. To them its probably just not an appropriate style. As to why women are allowed to get off with it, yet again who is making the rules. Just think of the stereotype of old men, they often are portrayed as loving younger women, so in some ways this may be true. They would rather see women dressed like that on the street over men.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hayman youu are absolutely right!
    the government is wasteing his time on this foolish law, its just boxers or whatever we've all seen them before... If you don't like seeing men with paints low and showing their boxers or whatever, just don't look! Its easy as that. I don't think older males are making this happen at all John, even when i was little i remember little kids dressing like that to "fit in" or act "cool"... Its really just a look that means something to the dresser

    ReplyDelete
  55. Truly that is not what i mean. when i was talking about older men i was talking about those who create laws, not this fashion. Look at those in the US with the power to create laws.

    ReplyDelete
  56. pants**....

    The government needs to look on all aspects of this, because " kids will be kids" like my grandma says. Most of the guys wearing low rise pants are following the trend and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!

    We need to to accept that it is trend. Trends are not ment to be judged by the government. Do we say oh look at his tacky ugly suit? Why can't everyone just mind their own business? Dress the way they want. Lil Wayne is a good artist, he doesn't care about his boxers showing.. It would be another story if something else showed but there isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ohhh now i understand John thanks for clearing that up for me. You are right. People are way to judgemental. It is actually funny.
    But if females had the power to create those rules, do you think the law would listen to them more then the males?
    I actually am uncertain about that one

    ReplyDelete
  58. Im pretty sure noone woulf follow those rules if women were to make it up.People don't even listen to the males who made this rule.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yes Steven, he may have turned against Hitler in the end, but he was still a Nazi. Also, the colour red is a natural occurrence and to ban it's presence in society would not make any sense. How many naturally occurring Swastikas do you see daily? The Nazi Swastika is something that has been fabricated and the associations that come with it come from historical fact. There are many things that are red in this world, however, there are only a few things that can be associated with a Swastika, and so the banning of the Swastika would be much more logical.

    This "Little Wayne" may be a good artist, but he is not a good musician.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Like, I suppose it is understandable as to why some people would feel uncomfortable seeing someones underpants, but you can see them everywhere, on the streets, in the stores. So does that mean if you feel uncomfortable seeing underwear, that you feel weird seeing them in the stores too? It is almost becomming common to see them, and I think as trends change people are going to have to accept some pretty outrageous styles. Personally, if I was a male, people would not be seeing my boxers, but to each their own. Just leave them be, it's a phase that they will out grow soon enough.

    And everyone is right, no one is going to listen to these laws anyways, so stop wasting time trying to pass them. Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Oh, and to banning red, that's quite the idea. It's everywhere, on stop signs, it's the colour most commonly represented with Rememberance Day, as well as Christmas and Valentines Day. It's also the colour of blood, so what is going to happen do when we bleed? In other words, to ban it wouldn't really be the best idea any one has ever come up with. Dylanthebassist, your idea to ban the swastika is much better and I completely agree with you. Except for the fact that the swastika didn't always have a negative connotaion to it, until Hitler adopted it as his symbol. Unfortunately we only use the negative connotation for it, and when we see it, we automatically think Nazi. Which is kind of like the Arabs, they were not represented as poorly by Hollywood until a series of incidents occured, that put them in a negative view in some Americans eyes.

    Sorry, I know thats a little off topic.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I have a question. It seems a lot of people would simply "flip the bird" to the government if they passed a law against "low-riding" pants. The same people are also saying that the people who do not like "low-riding" pants have to "deal with it" as "low-riding" pants is a trend. Here is the question though. If a law against this fashion is passed, why can't the "low-riding" pants people "deal with it". If one group of people has to "deal with it", why does the other group get away with it? It seems like a lot of people aren't willing to practice what the preach.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Also Hayman, one also has to acknowledge that there are differences between the religious "swastika" and the nazi "swastika", they are not exactly the same. I think it would be acceptable to ban the Nazi image, as the religious "swastika" could still be used.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Oh for sure, the Nazi symbol is just a reminder of the pain and hardship that the Jewish people of that time endured, and no one needs to feel as though they are still being discriminated at because of a symbol. Even if we ban the symbol we will still remember the occasion but the negative symbols that still live on will no longer be taunting to people who are of that race.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Exactly! It's not like it's doing any good as is, and so it might as well be banned. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain. People will still remember the holocaust and the Nazis, but there would not be that constant reminder every time you see the symbol.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The symbol is a sign of learning though. When I see the swastika I think of all that our troops did for us in World War 2. By banning this symbol future generations would eventually find the symbol and be ignorant to it. Heck we may even see it acceptable to wear on clothing. Would it not be better to have them educated about the symbol than to have them be oblivious.

    Like the low riding pants law it is also a bit unattainable. Are we going to blur out old historic pictures and film? What about all of the learning that can come from that? Shall we ruin some historic items just to remove this horrible symbol?

    One may say that there isn't a lot to lose, but when u divulge into we can see that there is for more to lose than meets the eye. By banning this symbol we aren't just banning it we are also banning an important piece of history. If we lose the symbol how long before we lose the memories of what happened? These memories maybe horrible but they keep us from becoming ignorant. As soon as we are ignorant about the past, well before too long we will see the past repeat itself.

    Anyways way off topic but just had to say that.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Do these laws violate the individual rights of the accused?"

    Well as one who wears his pants below my waiste, thus showing off my underwear, i don't believe it is to of any harm to anyone. If someone chooses to look and notice my ass hanging out thats their problem. it's comfortable to me. i find that it would be like violating my individuality in society if there was a law where i couldnt wear the clothes i wanted, or how i wanted. i seriously don't see how it's a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I do not find this trend attractive; however, many individuals still choose to follow this style. Is it the influence from media idols, especially one such as Lil' Wayne, that provoke people to wear their pants that low? I suppose it is part of it, but also a personal choice. We come from a society that style and image is what matters most. Is wearing your pants super low, and showing your boxers a crime, or just a cry for help to fit into this "image" we envision? All things considered, the question isn’t just about the accused of wearing pants too low, but should there be laws against fashion sense itself? Many may believe that low rider pants are attractive, but even so, there was a time when tie dye shirts were also consider “in style.” It is just a matter of time that this “low rider pants” ordeal will fade out into a fad as well. There are not many trends that have staying power, but I will give that low rider pants have been here for quite a while. It is only a matter of time, that another one will come along and sweep low rider pants off their feet, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Before I give my opinion on low riding pants, I just want to say that all of you excluding maybe 2 or 3 people are totally and completely contradicting yourselves over and over again. You say that this style is “wrong”, “disrespectful”, “something to laugh at” but what about what you wear and how you present yourself? What’s right too some might be wrong to others, where does anyone get off saying that what someone is wearing is “wrong”, “disrespectful” or even “something to laugh at”? How would you feel if the tables were turned? If you were the source of someone else’s joke?

    For the government to actually consider and attempt to enforce such laws is absolutely ridiculous. Like some people mentioned already, there are far more important issues that the government should be more concerned about than how low someone is wearing their pants. Also what happened to living in a free country? Whether it’s Canada or the United States, everyone always assumes that we are living freely in this part of the world but how free are we? We can’t even wear what we want without having someone ridicule and judge us and now we could even get fined or arrested for choosing to wear our clothing a certain way. How absurd is that!?

    ReplyDelete
  71. It wouldn't let me post everything all at once so here's the rest...

    Also something that was mentioned before about woman and how they wear whatever they want and get away with it. Sure they don’t get arrested or fined but they don’t get away with it. No woman can wear what she wants and not hear the gossip and names she is being called not only by men but also by other woman. It just doesn’t make any sense to me why people feel the need to ridicule others when they do the same things but maybe in slitely different ways. I’m not saying that I haven’t said anything negative about anyone before but when that negative comment is about a person’s appearance I stop myself and automatically regret what I said because I’ve learned from experience that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Until you get to know a person, you’ll never understand who they are or what they stand for just by looking at their appearance. How many killers out there wore suits and acted “normal” in front of everyone then went and killed innocent people. I bet most of you didn’t know I was Arab until you were told in class. Why is that because I don’t dress like an Arab? It’s just a stereotype that comes along with every style of clothing, every colour of skin, and every ethnicity in the world it does not mean that that person is going to live up to that stereotype and it sure as hell doesn't make it wrong just because you don't agree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Saara, it may seem as though I am continuously contradicting myself but my opinions on matters change when people present valid points. My mind isn't completely sold on one side or the other, so I mean I'm learning more about how other people view the topic and starting to realize more as I go, thus making my opinion and comments continuously changing. I don't think that should be considered contradicting, but more like expanding my opinion to try and have a point of view that comes from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Who cares the man makes money and were just trying to find out with whats wrong in his presentation. This is pretty biased if u ask me. Its an opinion that is not shared with every age group. Yes I can see where it posses a problem but who cares. The man can afford more belts than all of HWDSB. Which should actually look at some of the good things like how he is a success story. Biased opinions won't get anyone anywhere.

    ReplyDelete