Tomayto, tomahto, let’s pretend one regional pronunciation or clothing style is objectively proper and all others are wrong or “slobs.”
It’s like saying, “You kids get off my lawn!” Except the old man is in a public park, with no more claim to this lawn than anybody else, and the kids just happen to be black.
Good point, and that’s why calling people “wigger” and discouraging them from emulating black fashions or fads seems like a segregationist policy. We don’t mind if you marry one of those people, I mean we’ll tolerate it grudgingly, just don’t dress like them or listen to their music or talk like them or show appreciation for their culture or emulate them. Come on in my kitchen and let’s listen to some Eric Clapton.
Google Walmart People for more delightful imagery.
So, conservative government in FL is playing fashion cop once again. But it’s not racist, so that makes it 100% ok!
[citation needed]! Did anybody here say it is okay at all? No, the only debate here is if it is or is not racist (and then there are voices (elsewhere) that everything (okay, everybody) is racist).
I was being sarcastic in my first comment. Government has no business telling anyone how to dress.
If I could just step in for a second.
Like I wrote way up top - the person asking for this law is not white, it’s a black woman of grandmotherly age. That’s kind of important here. I don’t think you guys realize how upset people can get over fashion and its connotations.
Have people honestly forgotten about multicultural motorcycle gangs in the 1950s - greasers, and black leather jackets? Back then elders didn’t want youths wearing those outfits. It wasn’t because of race - greasers came in every race (check the pics, you can find a teased afro next to a ducktail) but because fashion has connotations associated with it, and being “greaser” meant you were rebelling and were going to go get yourself into trouble. Nowadays, a leather motorcycle jacket might be found on a weekend warrior lawyer instead.
Punk was the same. These days it’s “just fashion” but in the late 70s and early 80s it was also a political statement and a serious statement of rebellion.
For anyone who doesn’t think sagging has its roots in prison, well it does. It most likely doesn’t have anything to do with inmate sex, but with ill-fitting prison wardrobes and the lack of belts there. So, people wearing sagged pants are emulating currently incarcerated prisoners. Is it really such a great surprise that an elder member of today’s society doesn’t want same-race youth from her own area represented that way? I’m not saying she’s right - I already wrote there’s no way there ought to be a law. That’s just silly. What I’m saying is that she’s no different than the elders of the 1950s when they looked at a totally different group and said, “They really need to go home and change.”
I honestly believe that the only people seeing a race issue here are the people busy discussing it as one - the Councilwoman was just trying to keep kids out of trouble. As to why the opposed clothing has reflected black culture since the 90s - it isn’t that simple. It has only reflected a selected portion of black culture - black gang culture. That is what rebelling youth have recently chosen to emulate, and that’s why the adult(s) is/are upset.
As an aside, but related: In the mid-70s, at my grade school, 7th and 8th grade girls were forbidden from wearing “dolfin-style” shorts (think Hooters waitress), because they were too short and were considered a “distraction” to male students. The shorts had been popularized on shows like Three’s Company, and were the height of current fashion in SoCal. Someone will always find a reason to be unhappy with someone else’s fashion. It needn’t be a race issue.
The effect will be the same. And frankly I think the proposal probably would have been a non-starter if it had targeted a questionable fashion trend that was prominent among other groups, such as the aforementioned “whale tail.”
When crack cocaine first came on the scene in America’s inner cities there were a number of African American leaders among the voices asking the government to step up and do something about it… but the government’s response (ramping up the “War on Drugs” with extra-harsh sentences for crack-related crimes) had a devastating effect on the black community.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Oh, I already know the law won’t go anywhere. Similar laws have already been tried in other places and failed. Courtesy Snopes:
In February 2005, for example, the Virginia House of Delegates passed the so-called droopy drawers bill, legislation that would have imposed a $50 fine on people who wore their pants so that their underwear was visible in a “lewd or indecent manner.” That bill was killed by a senate committee two days later. In May 2004, Louisiana lawmakers attempted to say no to plumber’s crack by passing House Bill 1626, legislation that would have made it a crime to wear clothing in public that “intentionally exposes undergarments or intentionally exposes any portion of the pubic hair, cleft of the buttocks or genitals.” That bill was also rejected by the state’s senate.
P.S. And then there’s this classic from Bye Bye Birdie.
But unlike this case, the examples you cited were shot down before they ever passed into law. No such luck here.
I’m sure it wouldn’t survive a legal challenge on Constitutional grounds, but until that happens cops are free to use it to harass, fine and imprison people just for how they dress.
Ooh! I actually went back and did a bit of checking - need to contact Snopes. Since 2007, another city in Florida, Opa-Locka, has already had this type of ordinance in place. (That may be the only other existing one.) In 2013, that city extended their ordinance to cover women - they weren’t originally included.
It sounds like it’s partially the black community who wants this ordinance passed. They don’t want small children seeing older children walking around this way and thinking it’s okay to do. Here’s an article from the Ocala Post. Also, here’s another article that again directly quotes Rich who makes the point that this law is not about race or gender.
Edit: Snopes contacted.
That was snarky of me but I’m really interested to find out how.
For anyone who doesn’t think a citation is needed, well, [Citation needed].
…and I saw the Snopes article too a few days ago, and I saw that it asserted this fashion is inspired by prison clothes. I didn’t see any of its sources backing up that claim.
Here you go. This should calm your fears.
Even this article in Madame Noire, which would love to out-and-out deny the claim, admits that the roots of the fashion are “possibly” belt-less prison culture. The only debate is the added myth (which I already denied) of a sexual component to the fashion.
While it is (possibly, but not confirmed) true that the belt-less pants sagging had its roots in prison culture, the prison “style” has less to do with a prison homosexual mating call and more to do with unavailability of belts and shoe strings due to fears of rampant suicides. Likewise, the mass introduction of the prison jumpsuit might have eliminated the sagging problem. However, those in prison, who do sag now, do so for the same reason that the average kid on the street does so: out of comfort and because of a pop culture trend, which was ironically influenced by the plight of the belt-less prison inmate.
Or there’s this blog: A Different State of Black which gives the prison and eventual welfare explanations for the look. It only denies the homosexual aspect.
I’ll finish up with this academic write up for University if the West Indies on the subject: “Saggy Pants and Exposed Underwear: The Politics of Fashion, Identity Transactions and the Navigation of Homophobia”. In making a claim of the origins of the fashion it references not one, but four other studies.
The sagging pants phenomenon where some men wear their pants below the waist revealing their underwear originated in the United States and is very popular in hip-hop culture as fashion. The style has its roots in American prisons where inmates wore saggy pants because they were denied belts that could be used to commit suicide or as a weapon to hurt others. Hip-hop is a visual culture where adherents engage in show and tell performance. The African-American and Latino men who wear saggy pants deny the prison roots of the style and firmly locate it within hip-hop fashion (Brunson III, 2011; Malone, 2002; Sinopole, 2008; Williams, 2010).
I think you may find the study interesting. It was completed because some people believe that sagging pants have a sexual component, and in Jamaica homosexuality is a crime. Style isn’t. So the author wanted to know why people wore that style, and how they navigated wearing it in a homophobic society - regardless of their own sexuality.
Feeling better now?
What, talk about myself? At length? Okay. 
I guess I’ll never “know,” in the literal sense. But I do know that reading that dumb article was creepy as hell; it almost certainly was me they were describing (the vast majority of my fellow students either rocked a country-preppie thing, or a metal/redneck look). The shoes in question – which were for a time associated with West Coast gangs – were a giveaway; I was the only dude who had them.
Meanwhile, there was pretty much only one place where kids were allowed to hang out within town limits, which was openly monitored by LE. There was a rumor going around that they were compiling a list of troublemakers, based on those observations. Logically, it was kind of impossible to not mingle with the “bad” kids (again, small school/single contained hangout spot), so the worry was that you’d end up on The List accidentally. I actually did have a higher-than-average experience level with mind-altering chemicals, but those behaviors were (at least at the time of that article) strictly limited to rare visits to a bigger city, were totally under the radar, and in no way mercantile. At home, my peers were basically dorks and band geeks; partying was staying up late to watch weird movies, drink a lot of caffeine, and maybe make a prank call. I was about the least threatening “gangster” possible.
And yet, my harmless friends and I got bothered by LE, pulled over for imaginary infractions and such, quite often. At the time, I just chalked it up to boredom on their part.
I ended up moving back home after an abortive college attempt (~ 20 years old), and was arrested – along with a large group of teens and adults – in a raid on a local backwoods drug dealing operation. All the other people swept up, adults included, were released within a couple of hours. But I was held for a few days, on felony charges of helping run their pathetic little drug ring. These were people whose names I didn’t even know, and with whom I’d probably exchanged a handful of grunts during a handful of very reluctant visits. But the LE officers interrogating me were sure that I was an integral member of the group. It was weird, but I again chalked it up to a combination of boredom/fishing and bad luck.
After I left town for good, the school system instituted a general drug-testing policy for all after-school and club activities, which caused a bit of an uproar. During all of that, the infamous List was finally publicly referred to, in the course of justifying the new rules. Caveat: I could be wrong about the particulars; I no longer lived there, and my memory of that time period could best be described as “fuzzy.” But, in any case, The List – grouping kids into criminal classes by dint of what they wore, or who they chatted with after school – was a real thing. Did it specifically list grumblebum, known wearer of thug clothes and suspected hillbilly syndicate associate? I’ve never read it, so I’ll never know. I’m no conspiracy theorist… However.
What I do know is that I was targeted early in life for my fashion choices, then routinely stopped and questioned, and ultimately arrested – completely groundlessly – for pretty much the exact suspected activity “proven” by my dress. Within roughly six years.
The two blog posts repeat the assertion. They don’t prove it or support it.
Those four citations apparently have quotes from people denying the prison roots of the style. Please notice that the sentence before that gives no citation to back it up: “The style has its roots in American prisons where inmates wore saggy pants because they were denied belts that could be used to commit suicide or as a weapon to hurt others.”
It’s a plausible explanation, but I haven’t heard any fashion experts or followers of this fashion say that’s what inspired it. In fact, the closest we have to testimonials so far (on this thread) are those four citations denying the prison roots of the style.
Please don’t pull-quote the closing sentence of a paragraph like that and pretend it stands alone. It really doesn’t. Doing so changes the entire meaning. Not all sentences are meant to be islands, and if you’ll read earlier in the same paragraph, you’ll also find this single sentence, The style has its roots in American prisons where inmates wore saggy pants because they were denied belts that could be used to commit suicide or as a weapon to hurt others. (and it’s attributable to the references as well). I included the whole paragraph because I’m honest.
Now, if you’re looking for a video (or three) about the subject, here ya go:
Homosexuality may not be a part of the style out of prison, but in prison things might go differently.
Here’s a video of a few prisoners letting some high schoolers know just what it means in prison.
Or you can watch Eddie Griffin and laugh for a bit.
Before this I stayed completely away from any sexual connotation the style may have in prison, because it doesn’t really translate to the street. I only said that prison is the origin of the style, but I guess now I’m forced to say that prisoners themselves say that’s the origin of the style (because it is).
Still don’t believe it? You won’t.
The four citations were not at the end of the paragraph, so it reads as if they are only meant to support that one sentence. You did not quote the full paragraph. I’m not going to call you dishonest for pointing to parts of it, but there’s no reason to call me dishonest for that either. Go back and read it again. Here’s the full paragraph again from page four of the paper you linked:
The sagging pants phenomenon where some men wear their pants below the waist revealing their underwear originated in the United States and is very popular in hip-hop culture as fashion. The style has its roots in American prisons where inmates wore saggy pants because they were denied belts that could be used to commit suicide or as a weapon to hurt others. Hip-hop is a visual culture where adherents engage in show and tell performance. The African-American and Latino men who wear saggy pants deny the prison roots of the style and firmly locate it within hip-hop fashion (Brunson III, 2011; Malone, 2002; Sinopole, 2008; Williams, 2010). Contemporary hip-hop is guided by hegemonic masculinity because the sagging pants are preferred to tight fitting clothes that are associated with gay men. African-American males who wear tight fitting clothes are heavily criticized for being gay by other African-Americans who police black masculinity with its long history of homophobia (Penney, 2012).
Like I said, the four citations appear to be all about men who “deny the prison roots of the style.” I understand that some academic papers will put citations at the end of a paragraph intending them to apply to or support claims made throughout the paragraph. That’s not clear in this case, because there are citations sprinkled throughout the paragraph.
You can take Eddie Griffin as an authority if you want. I’m going to stay skeptical about that one. The other two videos almost work against your claims. The first one has a “scared straight” prisoner telling teens that someone will sexually assault them if they wear sagging pants. He doesn’t say the trend started in prison, or that prisoners use it as an intentional signal that they want to have sex. He says what horny prisoners might do. The second video you linked to is even more damning. “Johnson had a warning for the new generation of inmates. They might be asking for trouble from the old-timers. ‘You know, they got this thing where they sag their pants past their butt. It’s a style. They call it some sorta gangster style. It’s sexy.’”
A “long-time inmate” seems to be saying that the style comes from young people outside! Sounds like it’s new to him. People who are just coming into the prison. He didn’t say anything about the style originating in prison, or that anyone in prison used it to intentionally signal their sexual status or desire.
Like I said before, it’s plausible, but I maintain a healthy skepticism. And you still haven’t given any good sources to back up your claim that it’s a prison-inspired style. If anything, you’ve given very good sources to refute your claim, from Fleece Johnson and from the four citations in the middle of the paragraph that you quoted.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
