What did the pants do?

[brightrosefox]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4963512/?GT1=3391

Yes, lawmakers are going to ban young people from wearing low-slung, low-rise pants that look like they could fall off the hips any second. I see both points: On one hand, it is kinda annoying to see people's underwear and buttcracks, and people are still impressionable enough to be swayed by famous actors and singers who wear the pants. Teens might think they need to get in shape and lose weight just to wear the pants, just because their celebrity idol does it.
On the other hand, people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. But of course there are still things to consider.

I keep thinking back to what shiefox said in response to my post about body image. I think he's right: People are, for the most part, responsible for their thoughts and actions. We see a commercial or a product, we suddenly have a desire to buy or emulate it. We're vulnerable. We're impressionable. These things are out there for us to cry and lament and spend money over because we respond to them. However, the opposite is also true. If we never saw an ad for a particular anti-wrinkle cream or hair gel or a clothing fad, would we even bother? Are we governed by what we see, or by how we see it?
Honestly, I think it's both. Yes, we are totally responsible for our urges, and when we decide to get up and go do these things, buy these products, wear these clothes, we can stop ourselves. We can say no, we're broke, we don't need it. We don't have to stare at the skinny bikini models in magazines; we can get up off our own asses and go do what we need to do.
But really, those commercials and ads do get intrusive, don't they. Sometimes it's very hard to look away from something screaming at you to buy or use. But in the end, we do have a choice. And this new law makes me wonder if freedom of choice is being either abused or restricted in appalling amounts.

I dunno. My mind is subject to change. I'm on the fence about it. Feel free to give opinions.

Comments

erm...

[my-piece-of-sky.livejournal.com]

i'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. i can see not wanting to see people's buttcracks, i do get annoyed when i see girls wearing pants like that...however, i wear, pretty much exclusively, low-rise jeans. i hate having jeans covering any part of my stomach area...it goes back to my stomach problems, it just feels constricting and gross. in fact, as it is friday, i'm wearing low-rise jeans to work, with *gasp* a shirt that is of a reasonable size so that my gut isn't all hanging out. but, if i wanna show a little belly, it's my prerogative. people need to lighten up. this is *not* the job of government [although it is a good revenue builder, and i suspect that's the key reason behind the push]

Re: erm...

[brightrosefox.livejournal.com]

I honestly agree with you. Jeans that touch my stomach feel uncomfortable. But the article is talking about those reeeeaally low-rise jeans, even ones I wouldn't be caught dead in. Not regular low-rise, which most of us wear, but the "hey, she's wearing a pink polka dot thong!" kinda. So I can understand the whole mess. But yeah, people really need to relax and just let us wear what we want!

Re: erm...

[my-piece-of-sky.livejournal.com]

ya, i read the article, the language really irked me though, while i know it's targeted mainly at the thong bearing jeans, it said that jeans had to be waist level and not 'tummy bearing', which made me go 'grr...' plus, although i tend to go 'gross' when i see people's thongs, most of the people that are ascribing to this style are actually covering their 'unmentionables', so while i personally find it gross, i don't think it's really *obscene*