I don't see how you can lump in exposure of underwear with studs and other piercings or leashes and collars. Piercings and collars actually OBSCURE skin (albeit minimally), which is the opposite of what all the underwear fuss is about.
<!--quoteo(post=1669494:date=Feb 4 2008, 07:30 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Feb 4 2008, 07:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669494"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm confused then. I understand indecent exposure laws, and how they satisfy our irrational ( but still to be expected ) fear of public nudity, and therefore I can understand ( though disagree ) that some communities might want to prevent underwear being overly prominent in fashion. I would assume that several other topics fall into this category, e.g. some towns don't like people to wear swimwear away from the appropriate places. What I don't understand is why you consider wearing a leash or a nose stud to be akin to a public display of nudity.
Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you and you are simply stating that you don't like these behaviours and feel they should be forbidden. Are you saying that you would support legislation that outlawed facial piercings? I'm not trying to bait you here, I just want to understand your position.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know if the banning of underwear showing should be classified as public nudity - I never though of it as such, but more of a "dress code" thing. I'm really not sure what the creators of such legislation had in mind.
Accessories such as facial piercings or collars/leashes could be considered "dress code" as well. The way I see it, all of these "fashion statements" fall into the same category.
And until leashes, studs and my shorts can hold enough charge to be turned into Tesla weapons, they aren't harming anyone and are (or rather, should be) protected by that first amendment thing all the Americans seem to be so proud of.
Well, I can agree with categorising them all as fashion statements, that seems like an acceptable generalisation. But then again, in that case the proposed/attempted bans on underwear probably don't have anything to do with leashes or piercings, since it is likely that they were pushed as a ban on specific forms of indecent exposure, rather than a dresscode. I can't imagine that any U.S. legislator would dare attempt to enact public dresscodes. Even if they would in effect do just that, they would euphemise it.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited February 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1669512:date=Feb 4 2008, 10:22 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Feb 4 2008, 10:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669512"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know if the banning of underwear showing should be classified as public nudity - I never though of it as such, but more of a "dress code" thing. I'm really not sure what the creators of such legislation had in mind.
Accessories such as facial piercings or collars/leashes could be considered "dress code" as well. The way I see it, all of these "fashion statements" fall into the same category.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The underwear thing is dresscode law disguised by indecent exposure laws. The difference between the two is you couldn't sell a "no leash law"(haw) as indecent exposure. So, yes there really isn't a difference between the two except in head of John Q. Public.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Or more to the point, the head of John Q. Legislator. As in, the 'moral' majority would probably like to regulate all kinds of public behaviour if it wasn't for that darn constitution. What you'll find is on the fringes of existing laws, people will bend them beyond their original intent. I think one could probably make a case that exposing ones underwear either with low rise jeans or (er) high rise boxers is not in anyway a form of indecent exposure. In reality, this isn't a problem, because in general, most communities are reasonably sane and don't pass whacked out laws like this.
Still, I think the bus driver has broken actual laws, never mind his own company's policies and codes of conduct. I expect the two people in question will not let this rest and that the guy will be either suspended or sacked. I personally would be happy to see him sacked. It's one thing having an opinion on leash wearing, but to discriminate because of it is totally unacceptable.
<!--quoteo(post=1669543:date=Feb 4 2008, 02:26 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Feb 4 2008, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] Still, I think the bus driver has broken actual laws, never mind his own company's policies and codes of conduct. I expect the two people in question will not let this rest and that the guy will be either suspended or sacked. I personally would be happy to see him sacked. It's one thing having an opinion on leash wearing, but to discriminate because of it is totally unacceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed, he is a public servant and as such his behavior is totally unacceptable.
Comments
Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you and you are simply stating that you don't like these behaviours and feel they should be forbidden. Are you saying that you would support legislation that outlawed facial piercings? I'm not trying to bait you here, I just want to understand your position.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if the banning of underwear showing should be classified as public nudity - I never though of it as such, but more of a "dress code" thing. I'm really not sure what the creators of such legislation had in mind.
Accessories such as facial piercings or collars/leashes could be considered "dress code" as well. The way I see it, all of these "fashion statements" fall into the same category.
Gives me quite a charge!
Accessories such as facial piercings or collars/leashes could be considered "dress code" as well. The way I see it, all of these "fashion statements" fall into the same category.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The underwear thing is dresscode law disguised by indecent exposure laws. The difference between the two is you couldn't sell a "no leash law"(haw) as indecent exposure. So, yes there really isn't a difference between the two except in head of John Q. Public.
Still, I think the bus driver has broken actual laws, never mind his own company's policies and codes of conduct. I expect the two people in question will not let this rest and that the guy will be either suspended or sacked. I personally would be happy to see him sacked. It's one thing having an opinion on leash wearing, but to discriminate because of it is totally unacceptable.
Still, I think the bus driver has broken actual laws, never mind his own company's policies and codes of conduct. I expect the two people in question will not let this rest and that the guy will be either suspended or sacked. I personally would be happy to see him sacked. It's one thing having an opinion on leash wearing, but to discriminate because of it is totally unacceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, he is a public servant and as such his behavior is totally unacceptable.