Miami Beach 411
Like what you see? Let's talk about how
we can help your vacation --> Contact Us
  • Homepage
  • Plan Your Trip
  • Travel Forum
  • News & Events
  • Maps
  • Transportation
  • Tours
  • Hotels
  • Travel Tips
  • Reader's Reviews
  • News Archives
  • Need help? Call us! - 1-305-754-2206

Miami City Bans Saggy Pants Fashion

October 27, 2007 By Suzy in Miami: Local News  | 30 Comments

image

Hold on to your pants folks, the fashion police are on the prowl.  Literally.  This week, the city of Opa-Locka, passed a controversial dress code by actually banning what can be worn on city property. 

Following similar bans in Texas, Georgia, New York and Louisiana, city officials passed the 4-1 vote that aims at eliminating the saggy pants fashion statement.  The baggy, sagging pants purpose: brazenly showing off a man’s boxer shorts.  Typically bottoms are lowered to have the waste-line of pants or shorts fall just below the butt exposing the underwear.  The pants are held there by a belt at the wearer’s thighs. 

Sagging pants popularized in the 1990s by hip-hop artists, have become the style for much of today’s youth.  This is especially true for African American communities, but in the north Miami-Dade county city of Opa-Locka, where over 74% of it’s residents are African American, the questionable style is now an offense.

image

Opa-Locka officials argue that the look was not originated in music videos by rap moguls but rather in seedy prison cells; and tomorrow’s future need not imitate or promote something associated with violence and crime.  In prisons, oversized uniforms were issued without belts to prevent suicide and use as weapons. The style simply spread through rappers, from the ghetto to the suburbs and around the world.  “I don’t think they really understand where it really started from, and what image,” Opa-Locka Vice-Mayor Dorothy Johnson said. “Employers are not really going to hire you looking like that.”

On Wednesday October 24th, the ordinance was passed making Opa-Locka the first city in the state with bona fide fashion police.  The ban prohibits people from exposing boxers, briefs, or bare skin below the belt.  The urban fashion is not allowed in parks, schools, libraries - any city owned property.  Currently, the ban empowers officers to evict people violating the ordinance from city-owned grounds.  The offense is not criminal so there is no fine or jail time associated with the violations but city leaders will be working out penalties for anyone who violates the ordinance.  Signs will also be posted around Opa-Locka with images depicting the fashion faux-pas.

But, of course, the issue has been met with some resistance and people really are up in arms about it.  There are those that say clothes don’t make the man; that people should be judged by their behavior.  Also being thrown around is the larger issue of freedom of expression not to mention those that ask how does fashion move from being objectionable to illegal.  Then there are those that criticize saying the sagging prohibition is unconstitutional and unjustly encourages racial profiling because the wearers are young, predominantly African-American men and that this is unwarranted governmental intrusion.

Actually, nationwide, it’s African-American officials who are embracing similar laws.  Measures in other states are being backed by arguments stating the fashion statement contributes to crime, poor grades and low self-esteem. 

image

The measure’s sponsor, African-American Commissioner Timothy Holmes also argues that discrimination is not the case here. “It’s not decent.  It’s not respectful.  Showing your butt sends a terrible message.”  Additionally, city officials argue though that their goal is to on clean up the social conditions that the sagging pants come out of noting the look epitomizes an offensive lifestyle which often foreshadows destructive behavior.  Incidentally, although she dislikes the look, the only unfavorable vote on the ban came from Vice-Mayor Johnson saying she didn’t agree with legislating morality. 

Behind the indecency law, there may actually be another issue on the table here.  Hip-hop style itself, which critics say is sometimes displayed delinquently, with a distinctive thuggish swagger and disrespect for authority and almost always associated with violence, drugs and crime.

It does seem a fine line this waist line issue is crossing and it’s clear as day that this ban is aimed at a specific generation gap so I can understand the words constitutional, amendment and right being thrown about with respect to what people should wear.  It really is true though that people judge you by what you wear but it remains that this dress code is merely a way to prevent indecent exposure.  Is it not, after all, illegal for me to walk around with my pants dropped exposing my underwear and gluteus maximus?  Ok, sure people would look, but eventually an officer would give me some really shiny bracelets and a pleather ride to a grey building surrounded by barbed wire.

In a nutshell, that’s all the saggy pants look is, people showing off their underwear and asses.  I shouldn’t have to look at anyone’s behind unless I choose to.  Mothers shouldn’t be obligated to take their 7 year-old daughters to parks where grown men are walking around in their underwear and the same applies to libraries and schools.  Really, it should apply anywhere in public. 

It’s arguments similar to that that Opa-Locka officials contend is the reason for this ban. 

In a week where a fashion police was really created causing people to say their rights are being violated, the issue begs the question: whose right becomes more important?  Is it your right to walk dressed however you choose?  Or, is it my right to walk around without having to be exposed to indecency (and tacky underwear)?

image

Discussion at “Klotz” as in “Blood”

Related Categories: Miami: Local News,

Suzy Newhouse is a homegrown herald at Miami Beach 411.  This cat loving, orange and blue wearing, SoFla native credits her strong Cuban family roots as the strength helping her raise her son.

See more articles by Suzy.

See more articles by Suzy

Was This Post Helpful? Please Share It With Others!

You Deserve More Than an Ordinary Vacation.
Travel with Miami Beach 411 Today!
  • Over 10 years of excellent service guiding tours. Awarded a TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence.
  • Large fleet of new motor coaches, tour buses, and luxury vans. Technology you won't find anywhere.
  • Highly skilled, professional drivers and guides. From people who love what they do.
The Miami Beach 411 Travel Store is Open 24/7.
Search for Tours & Transportation

30 Comments on

"Miami City Bans Saggy Pants Fashion"

Doug says:

I was surprised enough to hear this happening in that Louisiana town, but I’m shocked to see it happening in Miami.  I’m no fan of the whole saggy pants thing, but if we’re going to make laws that protect me from having to look at anything I find objectionable, I’d personally like to see them start with polyester pantsuits and bikinis on really fat people.  The fact is that taste is a very subjective thing and if we start passing laws to protect anyone who might be offended by something, we’d never be able to walk out of the house.

The “indecent exposure” angle really doesn’t make sense here if all that’s being exposed is an article of clothing.  When our government is telling us what kind of clothes to wear, things have gone too far.  It gives new meaning to the word “fashionistas”...

Posted on 10/28/2007 at 9:57 PM

... says:

Doug, what was the reaction like to the ban in LA? 

The reason I would think the ban has dubious legality is because it really does target a specific age group which we all know is discrimination.  BUT, I still say the issue here is decency.  If it were acceptable to walk around in your underwear it wouldn’t A) be called underwear and B) be illegal.
I really shouldn’t have to take my son to places where he has to ask me why a man’s pants are falling.  He’s cute and funny about it, always asking if the man needs a belt but it always makes me think of mothers with daughters.  Who wants their young daughter to have to stare at strange men in underwear?  I don’t really think it’s a boxer rebellion but rather an attempt at improving a way of life. 
There are dress codes in offices, schools, churches and even expectations in courts, why not on other city-owned lands like libraries, parks and government offices?
The Opa-Locka ban is not aimed at punishing people who choose to don the saggy pants.  They’re trying to find a happy medium and encourage self-respect.  After all, people have not been banned from sporting the fashion.  They’ve simply been told to pull their pants up.

Posted on 10/29/2007 at 9:59 AM

Doug says:

Hi Suzy,

The problem is that it creates a slippery slope in which the door opens to the government to outlaw and regulate everything that it could possibly find objectionable.  What’s next? T-shirts that criticize Pres. Bush or the Iraq War?  People can choose where they work or what church they go to, but have no choice about whether they use city property.  Besides, the law in Louisiana, if I’m correct, extends to more than just city property.  I don’t know about the local reaction in Louisiana now because it happened after I left, and it happened in a small town well outside of New Orleans.

It just gives the government the ability to criminalize an additional segment of society they couldn’t otherwise harass.  Profiling’s illegal, as is search without probable cause, but outlawing a way a person dresses gives authorities a way to get around those protections.

And I don’t really buy the argument that the human body is something we have to protect our children from seeing.  That sounds a little puritanical.  I suppose people that would be so hung up on whether their kids see someone’s underwear must also be paranoid about ever visiting the beach! People wear a lot less there.  Unless you think they should start passing laws that we should adopt 19th century dress codes there as well…

Posted on 10/29/2007 at 11:11 AM

Selassie Daughter says:

Doug is absolutely right!!! I am not a fan of the extra baggy pants either and would really prefer if my boyfriend would get pants that fit!!

However, if we do give the government, and we have, this power, we are heading towards an almost fascist government. Doug is right, if people take their children to the beach, why wouldn’t they be concerned that their child sees a woman in a thong, with her butt exposed, and in Miami even men, and be concerned about seeing some “punks” boxer.

I truly find it more offensive when I go to the beach/pool with my son and he has to see half naked women with floss in between butt cheeks, should this be made illegal?

I don’t like going to the club either and having to see women with butt cheeks hanging out, should this also be made illegal.

We have been given freedom of speech, freedom of choice and free will as our natural born rights. If we allow the government to curb this by telling us what to wear we are definitely heading for trouble.

And in any case, this saggy pants is a style and a phase most young men go through, when the responsibilities of life “kick in” so does the right size pants. My boyfriend case in point, now has to wear the right size pants because he got a corporate job, he may still throw on the oversize one on the weekend, but that’s his choice.

Come on people, STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!

Posted on 11/07/2007 at 10:55 AM

Rosie Camafreita says:

We have a men’s clothing store in Miami. Our commercial that airs on spanish tv, deals with kids wearing baggy pants, and how they get arrested by the Fashion Police. It’s a music video, reggeaton music. Check it out, it’s really funny. MASQULINO menswear.

Posted on 03/06/2008 at 6:08 PM

LUIS says:

My name is LUIS ROSA am 18 years old and i have lots of things to say about this ban. this ban is an idoitic move from the government and any other state that passess this law. first of all in the law states that “indescent Exposure” is when you show your private parts Buttocks and penis skin or showing full lenght thats what   indescent exposure is. indescent exposure is not a man or a woman in underwear becuase thats like wearing those at home walking around with out pants the picture i see in this article i see it everyday it does not mean anything. and it is true clothes does not make a man only judge the man by his behavior and personality. i wear real big jeans and i have a belt my pants still fall down still i cant tighted up becuase am too big so it does not mean anything i have to let them sag. what this goverment should do is focus on the big issues such as helping senior with medical insurance or helping childrean stop being sick or a good one figure a way to stop 75% of poverty thats what the government should be doing.and stop wasting so much money on idiotic laws. and to add that the police has more important things to do such as catch criminals or catch petty theft the police does not have time to catch a bunch of teenagers wearing saggy pants is dumb to do and sounds silly. and plus is a violation of our rights even in public outdoor places. to finish this i keep hearing about not getting a job mostly thats a bunch of bull. the reason even though i do wear baggy jeans and 4x T-shirt when i go to a job interview i wear my pants tight and wear my baggy 4x T-shirt under tucked in and wear strap shoes thats what i do when i go to a job interview. and got hired many times so this does not make no diffrence to me. so what i got to say is stop making idoitic laws make laws that are important not dumb and plus if have my pants sagging and a cop shows up am gonna pull up my pants. as soon as the police drive by am gonna kept sagging them so is really dumb to pass a law like this becauase am gonna keep doing this and other people would be doing the same.

Posted on 03/15/2008 at 9:49 PM

adam mcclellan says:

I have to agree with Doug, it is a sad day when what you wear is regulated. Personally I’m not into wearing baggy pants, but that is just my programming. The statement “If it were acceptable to walk around in your underwear it wouldn’t A) be called underwear and B) be illegal. The only reason it is called underwear is because it was originally designed to wear under the outer layer of clothes. It is basically just another piece of clothing. Underwear was originally invented to protect the outerwear due to humans bathing less frequently in the old days,no more, no less. This allowed their outside garments to last longer. It is no longer just used for that purpose, for many it is just another piece of clothing to accessorize with. Secondly underwear is not illegal. Nudity is illegal. It is individuals who have placed a negative connotation with underwear.  To say that showing your boxers shows your assets is a mute point since most pants and jeans do the same. Actually if you want to be accurate many forms of jeans and pants show more assets than boxers ever will. Heck most beach wear is made of less material than many types of underwear. It is hard to believe that society can’t handle the changes in fashion and feel the need to create gov’t regulation their belief structure eventhough it may be different than others. Just because some individuals believe that underwear is naughty doesn’t mean everyone believes that. If society has issues with how people are behaving then address the behaviors, not their fashion. Who knows, next it maybe hair styles, which cause bad behavior. If society keeps creating laws to protect every individual from being offended then eventually we won’t be able to breath because that will offend someone. We are a diverse society, age, ethnic background, religious difference, cultural difference, etc. We need to become more tolerant of everyone and not so dang sensitive to everything.

Posted on 06/19/2008 at 7:28 PM

Jason says:

HOMOS!! showin their asses to other men!And baggy pants in jail was used to hide weapons so they can do their gang thing and bang up their rivals.Belts,shoelaces ect… are for suicide.

Posted on 07/22/2008 at 8:47 PM

... says:

A Riviera Beach judge has ruled a similar law unconstitutional. 

http://www.nbc6.net/news/17480052/detail.html?rss=ami&psp=news

Posted on 09/16/2008 at 8:55 AM

D says:

My opinion is simple. Dude act like a mature adult and wear appropriate clothes you look like a slob and most of the time what you wear is a direct correlation to the type of person you are. Wear your baggy clothes in your house and when you are out in the street you are actually on government property so obey the law or wear your baggy pants all you want in jail. Society doesn’t need another lowlife on the street.

Posted on 09/17/2008 at 9:30 AM

Doug says:

Contrary to popular opinion, being on government property does not entitle the government to arrest you for violating arbitrary and unconstitutional laws.  Whose tastes represent our government, anyway? There is no consensus on fashion.

The definition of a free society is one in which your right to swing your fist ends with your neighbor’s nose.  Fortunately, the right not to have your fashion sense offended is not among our constitutional protections.  Otherwise, there would be no freedom of expression, which is among them.

Posted on 09/17/2008 at 10:11 AM

Jason says:

D says the right thing..This is the way they dress while incarcerated.If they like it so much they should just stay in there.And I wish people stop using our constitution as a shield for stupid acts and behavior.Man up a do the right thing or just buy a plane ticket oneway and leave our society since you display yourself as an outcast.Am I right???

Posted on 09/17/2008 at 10:58 AM

Doug says:

“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

“When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

“When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

“When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Posted on 09/17/2008 at 5:56 PM

Jason says:

We are speaking out. Incase you haven’t noticed.We are letting the freedom of speech thing get out of hand.So we need to protect our constitution from those who want to use it for reckless behavior before it is too late.The freedom to express yourself should be for a noble cause and not indecency.This is a way of displaying how we are about to self destruct as a society.Then we can start complaining when the real BIG BROTHER comes out.

Posted on 09/17/2008 at 9:09 PM

Doug says:

Herein lies the problem, Jason.  What constitutes nobility and decency and reckless behavior vary from individual to individual.  They’re largely matters of opinion.  I don’t want the government to determine what my taste and beliefs should be.  Something like fashion sense seems relatively small in the scheme of things, but the kinds of arguments you’re making are the same kinds of arguments that people have used throughout the ages to persecute anybody that disagreed with them: gays, Jews, blacks…whatever.

American society is based on the idea that we have the freedom to choose what we want in life, to the degree that it doesn’t prevent others from doing the same.

I don’t like the baggy pants look any more than you do, but I see a bigger danger in letting the government dictate what my tastes should be.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed up this idea rather succinctly in <i>The Friends of Voltaire:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Posted on 09/17/2008 at 9:25 PM

Jason says:

Now this is what I call America.Right or wrong we will defend the constitution.Yes many of us only want what’s better for society while others want only for themselves.Ohwell. We tried. But I still say we should try harder.Maybe if we have dress codes enforced more stricktly in Schools, Work places, Gov Places, Restaurants, and so on they will understand that many places in society will not tolerate that. I know that in the night clubs they are starting to not tolerate it these days.Besides that kind of dressing can only fly with Hollywood.Regular people look stupid,silly and seem to have a case of LOW self esteeme trying to be them…hahahaha.. Sorry had to throw that in.

Posted on 09/18/2008 at 10:42 AM

Juan Salas says:

I AGREE, people showing there butt off to other dudes, in prison it was normal because they wouldn’t give you belts or shoelaces, so the homos who wanted some “hot, hot man stuff?” would put there pants under there buttocks to show there gayness….i might expose the top part of my boxers, but i dont sagg…
i wear a military belt with my initial on my buckle and some dickies, pulled up and a bit baggy, not saggy. and a white or colored T-shirt..

Posted on 09/18/2009 at 8:48 PM

KIMOSABE says:

WoW this discussion is a year old…Ohwell I still think the fashion is kinda HOMO.

Posted on 09/18/2009 at 10:02 PM

OLGA says:

Olga

I AGREE WITH YOU IT IS A HARD SUBJECT SPECIALLY WHEN YOU PUT IT TO THE ONES ACTUALLY DOING AS HUMAN NATURE IS HARD TO ADMMIT THAT YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG AND GET DEFFENCIVE IF IT AFFECTS YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT PUBLIC IS PUBLIC, AND YES I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO SCHOOL WITH NO BUTS AROUND AND NO GIRLS SHOWING THEIR CLACKS AS WELL THIS IS NOT JUST A MEN ISSUE IS ALSO FEMALES WHY DO I NEED TO SEE THE CLACK OF YOUR ASS WHEN YOU SIT DOWN.
AND YES I DO WANT TO GO TO THE LIBRARY WITH MY KIDS AND SEE THIS,IF I CANT WALK DOWN THE STREET WITH MT TITS OUT BECAUSE IT IS INDECENT THEN WHY CAN I WALK DOWN THE STREET WITH MY BUT OUT, IF I CANT WALK DOWN THE STREE WITH PUSSY SHOWING THEN EXPLAINE THE REST.
THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE GOVERMENT TO DICTATE THOSE THINGS AND WE ARE ALL FINE WITH THAT SO LETS JUST TAAKE A SURVEY AROUND THE NATION AND THE MAYORITY WINDS AFTER ALL IT IS A DEMOCRATIC CONTRY RIGHT.
AND YES I AM ANOYED WHEN I SEE THOSE BUT OUT WHAT ARE YOU TELLING ME TO DO TO KISS YOUR BUTT YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN KNOW ME OR MAYBE YOU MIGHT SEEK EMPLOYMENT AND I WILL NOT ANYONE LOOKING LIKE THAT IN PLACE OF BUSSINESS
IT IS NOT PROFESIONAL.
DO WHAT YOU WANT WERE IT DOES NOT OFFEND OTHERS…

Posted on 10/27/2009 at 9:45 AM

KIMOSABE says:

I still don’t understand the purpose of wearing pants that don’t stay on.
LOL

Posted on 10/27/2009 at 9:55 AM

--CMK-- says:

So explain something to me. Why is it different between men and women? Why is it when women expose their tacky underwear, we don’t make a big deal about that? Sure, it’s stupid that guys sag their pants the way they do, however, I don’t think that sagging your pants is a serious issue that people should find offensive. I highly doubt that men who sag their pants are thinking in the morning while they’re getting dressed “I wonder how many people I can offend today.” They’re getting dressed. Honestly, it’s not a big deal, or at least, it shouldn’t be.

They’re making a statement. When I was in high school, I was gothic, so was there something wrong with that? I was also making a statement. So what’s the difference?

Posted on 03/15/2010 at 4:19 PM

Uncle SAM says:

huh… you know what.. I’m not getting into this one..I give up… America if *farmed* It’s people like this that says everything is ok. SO NAIVE!

Posted on 03/15/2010 at 11:23 PM

fred says:

this is the best news i ever heard, the idiot wannabe gangtas dirtbags

Posted on 05/06/2011 at 6:22 PM

kimosabe34 says:

lol

Posted on 05/07/2011 at 9:41 PM

kimosabe says:

Im tempted to say something but I won’t Unkle Sam… People are Naive!!!!

Posted on 05/07/2011 at 10:13 PM

Marc305 says:

What I don’t get is how this “fashion” (if you want to call it that) is still around 22 years after it started. Everything else from 1990 that was cool, that your parents did, is never cool for the next generation, except (I guess) saggy pants. Even the brand new generation of kids has adopted this style. Imagine if parachute pants was still en vogue? It is just silly! let it go!!!

Posted on 06/04/2012 at 12:33 PM

Emit says:

The city ordinance in opa locka that goes by No if and or no butts or known as ordinance 07-19 infringes upon The freedom of expression and needs to be abolished !

Posted on 07/05/2012 at 10:57 PM

Tricia says:

I would also like to make it illegal for girls to wear those short shorts that look like underwear with their cheeks hanging out - and no I am not talking about girls in the “hood.” I am talking about my Ivy league campus and the numerous campuses and wealthier neighborhoods I have traveled to across the U.S. as a Recruiter and Admissions Professional.  Now, where did this tiny short shorts trend start from?  Why are these tiny shorts and tight tee shirt that barely cover the midriff area of the stomach (now in style to be exposed) being marketed to young girls who dictate their fashion tastes from names like Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus and Rhianna? I see them in every major department store and trendy shop - on mannequins from tween to juniors fashions.  A girl in this shorts may be so brash to sit down in one of these outfits because of the surprise - we always get a glimpse of the undies or thongs they have on, as we would with a fella with saggy jeans whose long shirt rises with a reach or a stretch. Believe me as a person that travels around to college campuses around the country that this saggy pants look is not restricted to a ghetto prison thug look, the Punk Look ... Sags, the Hipster Look ... Sags, even the Prep look Sags under that blazer - It just depends on the person, their influence, their style - and yes I am talking about WHITE young men.  Trends come and go all the time in fashion from the baggy jean that is now getting skinner to the larger tees that are now getting more fitted - but to profile BLACK and Colored Men (yes Latinos, etc.) and give them a record for clothing… not skin is unconstitutional and immoral. 

The police are not to go into the suburbs and enforce this law but rather the towns and cities more densely populated with minorities. The same population that they stop and frisk almost routinely (If a young man is stopped they must empty their pockets or else).  Just think about this trend and who it affects. This boy or man could be a student, a father, a leader, a business owner, a teacher - but any record at all jeopardizes their future.  This law could potential place young men in a perpetual system of failure instead of using these efforts and funds to educate and inspire through community programs, learning centers and recreational activities that build character.  To these “Moral” black organizations pushing this law says: Turn against your own people… and target the young ones first.  Disgusting and despicable - more than any view of boxer shorts can be in my opinion.

Posted on 01/26/2013 at 2:06 PM

marty feroli says:

Doug, you make an excellent argument, however I do believe that there should be laws against indecency, like using foul language in public. As far as Im concerned these people should be embarrassed. It looks so ridiculous and it appears to be symbolic of a generation who wants to subject the rest of us to the lack of self respect they have for themselves. As an accomplished musician I say, If you want to listen to c-rap turn it down or roll up the windows in your car. As a father of a six year old girl I say, take a shower and pull up your pants pull up your pants. The only people who want to see your underwear are the people who need a good laugh.

Posted on 04/17/2013 at 8:27 AM

Kimosabe says:

6 years since this thread and they still haven’t pulled up there pants or covered their crack

Posted on 04/17/2013 at 11:42 AM

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Discuss the surrounding area in our hugely popular Miami forum.
Today's Miami Specials
Like what you see? Let's talk about
how we can help your vacation
--> Contact Us