+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... (/thread-8671.html)
Pages:
1
2
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Chaerophon - 05-13-2004
While I realize that certain fashion statements can get a bit out of control, I wonder what right lawmakers have to legislate clothing design so long as it meets certain base standards of decency. If the mini-skirt was okay, then why not this? Certainly there are limits, but shouldn't good taste be the arbiter and not the law? I don't know, but I have a gut feeling that these guys are crossing a distinct line with this bill. This is not to say that I like the sluttification of teenage girls; however, adolescent clothing guidelines should come from the parent, not the state. Is Louisiana even much of a home to the so-called extremist "evangelical right"?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4963512/?GT1=3391
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - DeeBye - 05-13-2004
I heartily support this law when applied to males, and vigorously oppose it when applied to all the purty womenfolks :D
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - ShadowHM - 05-13-2004
Now there are men who just should not be doing this.
*thinks of plumbers butt*
*thinks of the buttless old men whose pants always sag*
*thinks of the neighbour chain-sawing in baggy sweats*
*shudders*
*shudders again*
On the other hand, there are all those purty beefcake types. :) You know, the ones who have outgrown the zits but still have have that nice slender butt? :D
Now they should get to wear baggy pants!
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - degrak - 05-13-2004
This post does not exist.
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Baajikiil - 05-13-2004
Quote:The Times-Picayune notes that this is the fourth effort in five years to legislate jeans-wearing etiquette state-wide in Louisiana.
Well, I doubt it will go through this time either. Some of the situations may come close to indecency/obsecenity, but I don't think that such a law is required.
Quote:I heartily support this law when applied to males, and vigorously oppose it when applied to all the purty womenfolks
I'd agree completely if not for the fact that the most frequent female offenders are just a mite too young; like highschool and lower.
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Cryptic - 05-13-2004
Are they on crack? It seems pretty cheeky and bass ackwards to me. Surely someone will get to the bottom of this!
:P
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Obi2Kenobi - 05-13-2004
"Mom, Bart's swearing!"
"Bart, stop swearing and go to your room."
"But, but, but, but, but..."
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Vandiablo - 05-14-2004
Quote:*thinks of plumbers butt*
*thinks of the buttless old men whose pants always sag*
*thinks of the neighbour chain-sawing in baggy sweats*
*shudders*
*shudders again*
... so you'd rather have us, er, them wear TIGHT pants??
Where's that Fat Elvis pic? Somebody must know what I'm talking about...
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - DeeBye - 05-14-2004
Vandiablo,May 13 2004, 10:25 PM Wrote:... so you'd rather have us, er, them wear TIGHT pants??
Where's that Fat Elvis pic? Somebody must know what I'm talking about...
![[Image: fatelvis.jpg]](http://s88432259.onlinehome.us/images/fatelvis.jpg)
I win at the internet.
edit: I censored a part of fatelvis.jpg that might be a tad not-work-safe due to gonadal outline.
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Chaerophon - 05-14-2004
Quote:I win at the internet.
But at what cost, Dee!?! What cost?
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - DeeBye - 05-14-2004
Chaerophon,May 13 2004, 11:34 PM Wrote:But at what cost, Dee!?! What cost?At the cost of Fat Elvis's testicular comfort.
I consider the picture a valuable learning tool. If you are dressing up as Elvis, and are a tad on the "portly" side, be sure to order the jumpsuit with the extra large crotch.
Otherwise, you know, you'd just look like an idiot.
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - ShadowHM - 05-14-2004
Vandiablo,May 13 2004, 10:25 PM Wrote:... so you'd rather have us, er, them wear TIGHT pants??
Just wear a belt that keeps yer trousers up. :P
I say this in the same spirit that keeps me from exercising my legal right to go topless if I choose.
Some saggy things just shouldn't be out there for public viewing. B)
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - kandrathe - 05-14-2004
I think the whole over exposure problem would be solved with a little...
![[Image: pbcx-400.jpg]](http://home.mchsi.com/~russerickson/pbcx-400.jpg)
:)
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - LavCat - 05-15-2004
ShadowHM,May 14 2004, 07:12 AM Wrote:I say this in the same spirit that keeps me from exercising my legal right to go topless if I choose.
Some saggy things just shouldn't be out there for public viewing. B)
Shadow, where you are do you have the legal right to go topless?
To the best of my knowledge the local law was changed a few years ago so that it was no longer permitted to go naked. From time immemorial the undergraduates here have gone naked on the occasion of the first snowfall of the season. In recent times the custom had gotten out of hand: one night in a local restaurant I witnessed about fifteen stark naked students overturning tables. One blew to me a kiss. Unfortunately they also broke a stained glass window and trashed a police car and a few other things.
In some nearby communities it is or was the law that men could go topless, but that women could not. I would think this sort of law could be overturned, but I am not sure of the status.
As for me, I only go topless (or bottomless) in the dead of night when I am pretty sure no one will see. I am not an exhibitionist, and I have no desire to be arrested.
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Chaerophon - 05-15-2004
never topless
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - LavCat - 05-15-2004
I know where Shadow lives (more or less). My question was as to the law there.
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - gekko - 05-15-2004
Obi2Kenobi,May 13 2004, 05:22 PM Wrote:"Mom, Bart's swearing!"Sorry, but you misquoted the Simpsons there. The "but, but, but, but..." comes when Bart tells Rev. Lovejoy and his wife a (apparently) dirty joke (from last night's Mad TV, IIRC). As Mrs. Lovejoy repeats "Make him stop! Make him stop!", the rev kicks Bart out of the house to Bart's repeated protests.
"Bart, stop swearing and go to your room."
"But, but, but, but, but..."
"but but, but but but..."
gekko
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - Chaerophon - 05-15-2004
The law being that you can parade around topless... Clear?
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - DeeBye - 05-15-2004
gekko,May 15 2004, 12:09 PM Wrote:I think you're right. The "Mom, Bart's swearing!" line comes from the episode where Bart wants the videogame Bonestorm.Obi2Kenobi,May 13 2004, 05:22 PM Wrote:"Mom, Bart's swearing!"Sorry, but you misquoted the Simpsons there. The "but, but, but, but..." comes when Bart tells Rev. Lovejoy and his wife a (apparently) dirty joke (from last night's Mad TV, IIRC). As Mrs. Lovejoy repeats "Make him stop! Make him stop!", the rev kicks Bart out of the house to Bart's repeated protests.
"Bart, stop swearing and go to your room."
"But, but, but, but, but..."
"but but, but but but..."
gekko
From snpp.com,
Quote:Bart: Milhouse has Bonestorm!
[inside, Milhouse's hair is being blown back from the TV]
Milhouse: This is great...and all I've done is enter my name!
"Thrillhouse".
[screen shows "WELCOME THRILLHO"]
Bart: [walking in] Say, cool dude, can I play too?
Milhouse: [scrambling] Uh, uh, it's only a one player game.
Bart: Then how come it says "Second player score"?
Milhouse: [pause] Mom! Bart's swearing!
edit: who the hell is "Bat"?
Wow, this sounds a bit outrageous... - DeeBye - 05-16-2004
Chaerophon,May 15 2004, 01:14 PM Wrote:The law being that you can parade around topless... Clear?It's not quite as simple as that, I'm afraid. The devil is in the details.
Yes, a woman in Ontario can walk around topless, but not if she is doing so in an indecent way that promotes a sexual purpose. The wording I used is entirely my own, but suffice to say that hookers cannot walk around topless in the hopes of making a few extra bucks.
This all stems from an incident in which a woman named Gwen Jacobs decided to walk home topless on a very hot day back in 1991. She was pro-women's rights, and was pissed off at the fact that men could walk around barechested in extreme heat and she could not. She did this to challenge the current (at that time) law, and was subsequently charged with public indecency. She was convicted, and appealled. Her appeal went through many Ontario courts until it finally landed on one in 1996 that overturned the indecency conviction. The court agreed that what she did was not an indecent act, and therefore wasn't criminal.
The overturning of the indecency conviction by an Ontario court (I forget which one) is the precident set that legally allows women in Ontario to walk around topless. I don't think any wording changes to the Constitution or laws were made, but I could be wrong.
It's not like any of this matters though. Ontario women either don't walk around in public with their breasts exposed, or I'm just not looking in the right spots. It's not like it's booby central here in Ontario. And to be quite frank, no one really cares. They're just boobs. If I saw a hot supermodel parading down the street topless I'd say "Oh look! Boobs.", and then I'd say "HEY LOOK GAS IS 95 CENTS PER LITRE CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??? ARGGHHH, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS CRAP!"