There is a price to be paid beyond embarrassment for St. Louis Board of Aldermen antics such as Freeman Bosley Sr. recently panhandling on behalf of his daughter’s college fund. The cost comes when an alderman has a slightly offbeat yet well-intentioned proposal that deserves sincere consideration. Unfortunately, it quickly gets put into the “more city alderman foolishness” folder by many people in the region.
Such is the case with Alderwoman Marlene Davis’ attempt to outlaw “sagging” in the city of St. Louis. This is the act of wearing one’s pants below the waist and exposing your underwear and, sometimes, the higher half of the buttocks.
In 2007, Pine Lawn became the first Missouri city to outlaw the practice. That year, Antonio French, who is now a city alderman, produced this video on the subject. Collinsville, Ill., also enacted a statute in 2011 declaring this silly fashion fad illegal. A year passed without any citations being issued, but the city got its point across and reported that the pathetic practice of sagging was reduced.
I supported both efforts to corral this behavior, and I don’t think it infringes on anyone’s First Amendment or style rights. You can’t wear a cellophane suit or go shopping in your underwear, can you?
Davis is tired of seeing African-American males walking around the city with their pants hanging way below the waistline. I’ve seen guys with their pant waistline around their thighs. Truthfully, I want to kick them square in the backside.
Davis told KMOX her proposal would “provide citizens with some sense of decency and respect that does not require us to look at people’s behinds and their underwear every day.”
French immediately came to the defense of “saggers,” saying via Twitter last Friday, “Today, a bill was introduced to outlaw 'sagging.' Would allow young men to be arrested and locked in jail for 3 months. I don't support this. I don't think it's appropriate to criminalize fashion."
Davis’ proposal would pack some legal punch, because it would be added to a statue outlawing “any indecent or lewd act in a public place.” According to city statute, an indecent or lewd act shall include: “The exposure of one’s genitals, buttocks, vulva, pubic hair, pubic area, or the female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification or which is likely to cause affront or alarm.” The statute does give an OK to breastfeeding moms.
Davis' proposed ban would add to that list “any person to appear in a public place wearing pants below the waist which exposes the skin or undergarments which is likely to cause affront or alarm.”
It might seem like a silly argument at a time when there is much more urgent city business that needs to be addressed. But I applaud Davis for taking a stand against “sagging.”
Commentary by Alvin Reid
