Pull Up Your Pants or Put up Your Hands! - 7/21/08

(A Chicago suburb has had enough of the “gangsta” look)

Being a child of the 60’s myself, and having worn my share of hip-hugging bell bottoms and love beads, I have never for the life of me figured out why tattooed adolescents want to be seen in public with their pants halfway down. We’re not talking hip-hugging here, we’re talking about groin-hugging. And that, just barely. I saw a shirtless guy the other day whose pants hung so low I could see at least four inches of his boxer shorts. And he was holding hands with a girl! Maybe I’m getting old, but I can’t imagine a self-respecting girl perambulating with a guy whose pants could drop any second. But of course, this distasteful trend has been in vogue for several years now. And I am well-acquainted with the Latin phrase: “De gustibus non disputandem est”. Still, I am puzzled.

Well, the folks in Lynwood, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, have had enough. The City Council, with the Mayor leading the charge, has passed an ordinance making it a legal offence for anyone to dress in public with more than three inches of their underwear showing. Personally, I would have gone for one inch, but I guess that would trampling on some civil right or another,

As it is, the good ol’ ACLU is planning a lawsuit complaining that the law is aimed at young men of color. Sure it is. The colors in question being black, white and all shades in between. I see as many young white punks on the street, their pants slung so low that, excuse the expression, their butt-cracks show. Between that and their ball-caps turned backwards or sideways, it triggers an almost irresistible urge to drag then into the nearest alley and address a stern lecture. But what good would that do? As one young man in Lynwood put it, the law impinges on his “personal style.”

Well, how about if my “personal style” would be to wear nothing at all? That would violate any number of number of laws. Would the ACLU come to my defense? If I know them, the answer is, “probably.” The ‘American Civil Liberties Union’ never sees a “right”, no matter how offensive to people in general, that it will not defend.

I have heard two defenses for this “baggy-shirts pants hung low” style, if it can be called that. One is that prisoners are deprived of their belts, and so the low-hung look is a show of solidarity. Solidarity for what, I have no idea. Rapists and killers are shorn of their belts, right along with drunk driving offenders. What virtue can possibly adhere to showing solidarity with rapists, child-molesters and murderers?

The other, even less defensible reason, is that baggy clothes offer many places in which to conceal weapons. If you wish to appear that you have a weapon on your person, I wish you all that goes with that, considering that other persons who actually are carrying weapons might consider you a threat. Such gestures of implied hostility are the enemies of a civil society. Or, on the other hand, all citizens should be armed, just to even things out.

When I see men, young or old, of whatever ethnicity, dressed in this “personal style”, I am at once offended and pitying. Offended, because such dress is meant to be “in your face”; pitying because it is such a clownish way of showing defiance. Should more such “public decency” laws be passed, as in Lynwood, Illinois? I am somewhat torn on the question. I would have to go with the “reasonable person” premise in such cases.

Do I feel an impulse to yank these low-riders pants the rest of the way down? I confess that I do. After which, I would like to have a none-too-pleasant conversation the parent(s) who would allow their sons to leave the house in such a state.