Your Saggy Pants Are Not Welcome In Dublin, Georgia

Even though other municipalities have tried — and failed — to enact laws regulating the bagginess and sagginess of their citizens’ trousers, the mayor of Dublin, GA, is moving forward with his plan to sign an ordinance that would fine violators up to $200 for low-riding pants.

Because saggy pants are apparently the root of all evil, the town is amending its existing indecent exposure laws to include pants and skirts that sit “more than three inches below the top of the hips exposing the skin or undergarments.”

They mayor says he’s just giving the people, whose priorities are most certainly not out of whack, what they want:

We’ve gotten several complaints from citizens saying the folks with britches down below their buttocks was offensive, and wasn’t there something we could do about it…

It’s time we all have a mutual respect for each other… what a person does in the privacy of their home is fine… But if I had an 8-year-old daughter, I don’t think she needs to be subjected to looking at someone’s rear end.

In response to those who say the law effectively targets young, black males, Mr. Mayor says, “It’s for white, black, man, woman. The ordinance is for everyone, and I’ve seen it violated by all races and sexes.”

Once again, here’s the battle cry for anti-saggy-pants crusaders around the globe:

Georgia mayor to sign baggy pants ban [CNN]

Thanks to Womynist for the tip!


Edit Your Comment

  1. KhaiJB says:

    yes…. Ban Crack!

  2. InsomniacZombie says:

    The physics of the situation really astound me. How the hell do they keep their pants from falling to their ankles?

  3. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    In before the Why is this on Consumerist crowd.

    The answer? If you live in or near Dublin, GA you need to adjust your pant-buying habits and ensure you do not buy pants that are too baggy.

    For those of us planning to buy pants in the near future, this is vital consumer information.

  4. brinks says:

    What next? Telling skinny hipster boys they can’t wear skin-tight pants because we can see their stuff? Oh wait…skinny hipster boys are usually white.

    I don’t really feel like looking at some guy’s boxers, but if he wants the world to see them, there really doesn’t need to be a law against it.

    • CartmanPat says:

      I’d love to tell those little bitches to wear man-sized pants…but they’re not in the same league as those who show their whole ass ALL THE TIME.

    • Mike says:

      +1000 internets

      “Telling skinny hipster boys they can’t wear skin-tight pants because we can see their stuff?”

      I would support this whole heartedly. I feel like slapping those dudes, especially when they wear a t-shirt and a scarf with their skinny jeans.

      “Oh wait…skinny hipster boys are usually white.”

      Yeah, the “we’ll never pass laws that annoy the children of wealthy white people law” was passed sometime in the Reagan administration I believe. It was at the same time they passed the “never attack white people in a war” law.

    • Me - now with more humidity says:

      I just tell them where the look originated: in prison, to indicate that you’re… um… available to receive during an immediate “playdate…”

      That usually gets them to pull the pants up. 8-)

      • Phil Villakeepinitrreal says:

        Heard that too, but it turns out that story isn’t true. There may be truth to it originating in prison, but it was a result of not being allowed belts, not an advertisement for sex.

    • dr_drift says:

      *Ahem* It matters not what size pants I wear, my bulge inevitably shows through. It’s not the size of my pants, you see… it’s how many socks I stuff down the front of them.

      • Beeker26 says:

        As someone who has this problem, albeit without the socks, I am constantly astounded when someone has the nerve to get all in my face about it. I mean seriously, where else would you like me to put it?

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Usually white, but around DC we frequently have what is colloquially known as the “blipster” – a black hipster. They exist, and they LOVE riding around on their skateboards, nearly careening into you as you’re just trying to go home after a long day at work.

  5. TKOtheKDR says:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    U.S. Const. amend. X

    • swearint says:

      I’m more fond of the Ninth Amendment, it gets far too little respect:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      • PsiCop says:

        A huge +1 and hearty congratulations for quoting the too-often-forgotten, yet perhaps most important, Constitutional amendment. Among other things it utterly debunks the Borkian doctrine (i.e. that no one has any right to privacy).

      • TKOtheKDR says:

        Keep in mind that the Ninth Amendment is only valid against the federal government itself. The Fourteenth Amendment imposes the majority of the protections offered by the Bill of Rights upon the states; however, the Ninth Amendment is not one of them. Even if the Ninth Amendment would be applicable in this situation, it would not be able to be used against state governments.

        • Groanan says:

          Personally I’d say this falls under the 1st Amendment as speech (which would get carried via the 14th).
          These kids are wearing these clothes as an expression, no different than red bandanas.
          The law would target not only persons who forgot their belt in the morning, but also those who are intentionally trying to express themselves to others.
          I cannot see SCOTUS finding this so offensive that it does not warrant protection.
          On school campuses, sure, regulate the dress code if you have a sound reason, but for everyone else? Liberty should triumph.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        Amen – I love the ninth!

    • dangermike says:

      I don’t see anyone even discussing the passing of a federal law on the matter; rather, this is a situation in which a local governing body is trying to enact a provision to uphold the local standards of their own community, which is precisely the right that #10 protects. Think of as being more akin to a city government passing a code requiring that lawns be trimmed below a certain length.

  6. PanCake BuTT says:

    can we have slack pants standards, cause my sag a bit when i don’t wear a belt. I’m thin by nature, and do try to avoid showing off my designer unders. Any suggestions ?

  7. lawgirl502 says:

    I can’t stand to see those idiots wearing that as if it is cool. Do they actually walk around thinking they are fashionable? ICK

    • brinks says:

      I’m sure they do.

      But man…if you saw the stuff I was wearing in the early 90’s as teenager who was into the grunge/alt scene (think mismatched thrift store stuff and other things that shouldn’t be worn together)…plenty of people probably wished there was a law against it.

      I look back and laugh. Hopefully these guys will have the opportunity to do the same.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        You mean what people are still wearing in Colorado? I felt like I was transported to 1994 when I went there last year. Holy almighty, that entire state must have been keeping Doc Martens in business!

    • ames says:

      well, by their standards, they are cool – otherwise they wouldn’t do it, blondie.

  8. Teechur says:

    I actually just ran through this same issue with all my classes today. Our district now requires pants at the waist, males and females equally, so this story will be a wonderful follow-up.

    Consider me an unofficial member of the “Stop the Sag” movement.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      To the waist?

      I’m a large guy, and none of my pants actually hit my waist. My gut is too big, and it’s impractable for me to find pants that would fit around my waist as it would be then immensely huge pants for the rest of my lower half.

      I would be in violation of your distict’s rules, and yet never actually be wearing anything that could be deemed offensive.

      • Teechur says:

        Rather than a hard and fast rule, to quote the Pirates of the Caribbean…”the code is more what you’d call “guidelines”

        I agree with you…where one’s waist is is somewhat subjective. That their undergarments are showing is not.

  9. smo0 says:

    It really bothers me… I don’t know why. When I’m on the bus and I see it – it’s usually a guy in butt hugging boxer briefs and the underroos ALWAYS end up tucked into the crack.

    It’s not fucking attractive… at all. I really want to say “pull your fucking pants up, no one wants to see that.”

    Honest, no one over 20 does.

    It’s not just race… it’s age – this seems to happen from early middle school through high school… and yeah, it’s both genders and all races….

    • HighontheHill says:

      I have never seen a girl do this. Ever. I have seen all races of males do it, but in these parts it is most commonly the blacks who do it most.

    • Preyfar says:

      Just wait until you’ve seen a sagger get pants’d.

      Not… a pretty sight, no. I’ve seen more than my fair share of wang on the SEPTA R7/Trenton Line in Philly due to saggers getting pants’d.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      Honest, no one over 20 does.

      Trust me, a lot of people under 20 don’t either.

    • xxmichaelxx says:

      I can’t imagine caring what other people wear. What must life be like for someone so concerned about others’ fashion? Miserable, one would think.

      • smo0 says:

        I don’t give two shits about what people wear, I don’t like seeing other people’s asses…. it’s simple.

        Cover it up or gtfo.

  10. Scrutinizer says:

    We’ve gotten several complaints from citizens saying the folks with britches down below their buttocks was offensive,

    What if I find the ordnance offensive, how are you going to protect me from being offended?

  11. r586 says:

    what’s ridiculous is that if you go out just wearing (most) boxers it’s legal as they essentially shorts without pockets…. however cover the up the boxers partially and it becomes illegal. The people of that town should stage a boxer day where everyone just wears boxers with no pants.

  12. Zeratul010 says:

    In other news today, Dublin, GA government officials are baffled at the recurring thumping noise that echoes throughout the halls of the municipal building. The officials are at a loss to locate the source of the noise, but it seems to be localized somewhere within the attorney general’s office. The attorney general, at home due to a persistent headache, could not be reached for comment.

  13. CalicoGal says:

    Tryin’ to make a law against stupid.

    Also, I *have* seen a girl doing this. A young black female wearing men’s attire. I believe she was a lesbian.

  14. kevslim says:

    I really don’t care either way, I’m just amazed as to why this fashion trend seems to live on (while every other trend seems to die off or at least go through cycles of popularity).

  15. kylere1 says:

    They should just smack them for indecent exposure and be done with it.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      Well, they did amend the existing indecent exposure laws rather than write a new one so I guess they just wanted to make sure this was covered.

      No pun intended.

    • Gulliver says:

      Explain what is indecent about it? Have you been to a beach? Is that indecent? IS a guy wearing shorts indecent? If so, should a billboard that has a guy in boxers declared indecent? It may not be your style, but why is it the government or your business how anybody dresses?

      • j_rose says:

        When you go to the beach you expect to see people in beach clothes. In most cases, young men wearing swim trunks are more likely to have them covering MORE of their behind than the young men sagging their pants. When you’re in the general public, you don’t expect to see butt cracks. It’s a big difference.

  16. Vanilla5 says:

    I’m 26 and people in my age group (as well as older and younger) are still doing this crap. I’m all for freedom of expression but (and this is my opinion) you just look like a dumbass when you have to hold your crotch and walk like a penguin to keep your pants “up.” It’s not 1991 anymore, guys (and girls – I’ve seen that too).

    The City of Pine Lawn (a low-income, partly blighted neighborhood in St. Louis, MO) tried to enact a similar ordinance because developers that wanted to come in and spend money pulled out after really spending some time in the area. Methinks the heavy below-the-butt pants wearers had something to do with this (in addition to their crooked police force). I mean, Pine Lawn isn’t a very nice area in general – but neither is Jennings and there was plenty of money put into that area in the last 5 years.

    I wish young people really understood that people will judge you for wearing your clothes like this – whether it’s right or not to judge.

    • gtrgod01 says:

      Pine Lawn is a lost cause (always has been, always will be till it’s completely bull dozed) and I seriously doubt low hanging pants had anything to do with developers pulling out of any proposed deal.

      As for Jennings, don’t be fooled, that place is still on the downward spiral. I lived there for many years and still have family in the area. The Target they built over there hasn’t really done anything but give people a new place from which to steal. The only parts that have gotten better are the parts they bull dozed….although the grass on all those empty lots could still be stolen. Bonus though, you can pick up foreclosed properties for 5k-15k. It’s not everyday you can pick up 3 or 4 houses for a cumulative total less than most peoples car loans.

  17. Hungry Dog says:

    From what I’ve seen all the really unintelligent people are the ones that do this regardless of ethnicity.

    • NarcolepticGirl says:

      How do you know they are unintelligent?

      • SonarTech52 says:

        Exactly.. I used to sag when I was a teen, (although it was no where near what it shows in the picture..It was more a 1/4 to 1/2 moon as opposed to the full moon show above) and I was able to keep a 4.0 in college in the electronics field, and have always been in the top of my classes..(not trying to brag, just making a point)..

  18. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    What bothers me is that what they did was change their bylaws so that low pants are in the same category as “public masturbation, fornication, and urination.”

    So, I wear low pants and suddenly I’m a sex offender?

    • savvy9999 says:

      if you are purposefully displaying your underpants in public, actually, yes.

      • CJ SIege says:

        That’s bat-shit crazy, that is. Seriously?

        Why do we have this strange obsession with obscuring our true form with clothing?

        Finally, how could you POSSIBLY equate any sexual offense with willfully displaying your underwear? It’s impossible!

        • JulesNoctambule says:

          ‘Why do we have this strange obsession with obscuring our true form with clothing? ‘

          I could launch into some anthropological details here, but I don’t think it’s of any use so I’ll just add that in my case, it’s all about preventing sunburn. Lobster-red is never a good look.

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        Unless you were engaging in lewd acts or unless your body parts were showing, it is not a sex offense to walk around in boxers.

  19. MustWarnOthers says:

    It really is a stupid look. I’m pretty open minded to just about everything fashion wise (I’m not a hater), but it has been going on far too long.

    The roots of the look are embedded in prison culture. Specifically those that indicated they were down for buttsecks. It’s one of those dumb things the bad parts of hip hop culture helped cultivate (the good being the DJ’ing, good graffiti, breakdancing etc).

    I’m 28 now and I really thought it would be dead by now. It actually has started to die a little bit as compared to previous years. Artists like Jay-Z and Lil Wayne have adopted the slimmer jeans look, which is slowly seeping through the rest of the “culture”.

    • NatalieErin says:

      The prison part is right, but the sex part is wrong. Sagging in prison is the result of poorly fitting clothes and the prohibition of belts, not any sort of sex-signaling.

      • XianZomby says:

        I kind of thought that buying oversized pants made it easy to conceal a weapon. And also that while wearing those intentionally oversized pants, and while being incarcerated, and while having your belt removed due to being in jail, you ended up with pants that drop below your ass. The end result is is a fashion trend that indicates you are both dangerous due to potential to conceal, and that you have street cred from having been locked up and losing your belt.

        How wrong am I?

  20. CJ SIege says:

    Yay, freedom!

  21. arcticJKL says:

    How about a law issuing a fine to anyone doing this at a place of business that posts a sign prohibiting it.
    It lets people have the freedom to dress as they want and others to deny them service. There will be a real penalty (the fine) if they do it in certain private places. Thus an area that has no problem with it would have few stores with signs but other areas would be empowered to prevent it on their property.

  22. knoxblox says:

    Ala the Craigslist adult services section ban, I think this also denies the police an easy way to catch criminals. Nothing like watching cops nab a bad guy because he’s tripped over his pants.

  23. no_wallmart says:

    Georgia must have come a long way if they feel like they can make judgements on taste. I’ve been go Georgia and I have to say, I’m offended by all the fat people – why not make a law banning fat people? That mayor is a moron. I don’t like baggy pants either. I also don’t like acid washed jeans. Who decides?

  24. momtimestwo says:

    I saw a teen the other day at the grocery store, white kid, with his pants below his ass, and he had a chain attaching each each leg to each other. So not only did his dumb ass have to hold his pants up while he walked, he couldn’t take big steps to walk because of that chain.

  25. Extractor says:

    They already tried that in Flint, MI. I believe it was a total flop or unconstitutional.

  26. Doug81 says:

    I was in Dublin this weekend. I didn’t notice any saggy pants or the lack of them though.

  27. NarcolepticGirl says:

    That would suck for my boyfriend. He can’t keep his pants up even with a belt.
    No idea why. I guess it’s the way he’s shaped.
    But his ass/underwear is constantly hanging out no matter what.

  28. Extractor says:

    Former Chief of Police Flint Mi
    “Federal grand jury charges Richard and David Dicks in 13-count …
    May 21, 2009 … FLINT, Michigan — A federal grand jury has expanded its fraud case against former … Will Dicks be allowed to Wear Baggy pants in Prison?”

  29. NarcolepticGirl says:

    What’s the difference between this style and guys walking around in thin shorts (like the college jock kids do)? Or women walking around in halter tops?

    It’s not like you can see any private parts. I’ve seen way more women expose more of their breasts than a kid with pants hanging down but boxers to cover his ass.

  30. FilthyHarry says:

    Here’s how it breaks down…

    If you think ridiculous fashions are ridiculous, you got taste.
    If you think ridiculous fashions should be outlawed, you’re a dangerous person and its time to be put in a home.

  31. NarcolepticGirl says:

    You know, I’m sick of those crazy kids with the long hair, too! They should enact a law to ban long hair!
    Other things we should ban:

    tank tops
    unpadded bras
    bathing suits
    men’s unlined slacks
    tight jeans
    bicycle shorts
    anything spandex
    push-up bras

  32. tweeder82o says:

    and it’s legal to wear pants hiked up to your navel, a la urkel?

  33. laughingisfree says:

    This is understandable. In Dublin, GA there are two majority group country folks and blacks.

  34. PsiCop says:

    FWIW my favorite anti-sagging-drawers anthem is Tighty-Whites by Maddlines (available for your viewing pleasure on Youtube).

  35. lostalaska says:

    Plumbers of Dublin Georgia consider this you’re notice!

  36. Aennan says:

    Dublin’s entire existence is to be the bathroom/McDonald’s stop if you’re driving from Atlanta/Macon to Savannah. It’s the last stop before about 60 miles of trees and interstate exits with nothing on them.

    For Dublin, this is a pressing social issue. I mean, they all have their green jackets already. (

  37. Mr.Grieves says:

    It’s over. The communists have won.

  38. B* says:

    Does no one there have anything better to worry about? Really? No other laws or offenses to deal with? Oh how I WISH saggy pants was the problem of the day in our city.

  39. Gulliver says:

    Despite all the jokes, I find this a stupid law. If this is legal, I propose everybody who does not dress in a shirt, tie and suit coat be deemed offensive and fined for their transgression. The fine doubles for those who wear stretch pants, crocs, curlers in their hair, too much make up, shows their feet or toes (some people get turned on by feet you know) and does not have white enough teeth. They are all offensive.

  40. dolemite says:

    Well, expect your plumbing bills to go up.

  41. joemama321 says:

    This coming from the town whose across-the-river sister city brings you this gem:

    “Hey kettle. It’s pot. You’re black.”

  42. Dr.Wang says:

    They are funny, on the TV show Cops, when a sagger tries to run from the police, their pants always fall to their ankles, tripping them every time! Makes ’em look really stoopid. I bet the police prefer saggers, it’s like having all potential criminals walking around with leg-irons ready to self-deploy.

  43. mmeetoilenoir lurktastique says:

    The deeper issue here is that it’s pretty much a “poor man’s penalty.” Most people who sag don’t have $200 lying around. If you don’t pay the fine, that means jail. So, it’s yet another means that (largely) minority men could be incarcerated. Aren’t our jails full enough without someone serving time for their damn pants and poverty?

  44. DanKelley98 says:

    That poor mayor. He’s apparently never been to the beach.

  45. Shinumo says:

    Tough place for plumbers in dublin Ga.

  46. iParadox{InLove} says:

    I give +1,000 internets to Georgia.

    Plus a big woot for living in Georgia.

  47. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    While I generally refrain from making generalizations…I’m pretty sure that anyone walking around with their pants thusly sagging as seen in the photo above is a catastrophic failure and will never be of any use to society at all.

    I’m also pretty sure that you can’t make such a practice illegal, so long as their boxers provide sufficient coverage as otherwise required by law.

  48. kingoftheroad40 says:

    I laugh at the fact that they do not know that it means you belong to someone prison already hands off.

  49. resu says:

    In response to those who say the law effectively targets young, black males, Mr. Mayor says, “It’s for white, black, man, woman. The ordinance is for everyone, and I’ve seen it violated by all races and sexes.

    Actual signs in Dallas:

  50. banmojo says:

    Having been through GA, which is a major conduit for drugs up from FL, I can tell you that a very particular demographic wears those baggy pants, and they are impossible to tell apart from the druggie gang bangers, which have become a major public safety issue (small farming communities rocked recently by violent drug/gang related crimes – check the news posts coming out of GA!). Good for this mayor, take a stance against gangs/violence. This is not fashion, this is tribal behavior which is associated with a higher incidence of violent crime. Lose the baggies, get back in school, smarten up and fly straight! You might live longer than your brother did, and actually do something positive for society with your life.

  51. FrugalFreak says:

    YaY Dublin!

  52. HungryHippo says:

    It’s just a law the city created so the local law enforcement can have an excuse to approach people the city ethnically profiled. The same thing is going on in Evanston, IL. There are some areas that are sketchy and groups of young black males sometimes gather at corners or behind buildings (maybe up to good/bad) which case they are almost always sagging pants. A simple demographic/cultural profiling law like this will enable cops to stop them and possibly nab them with bigger crimes. Not sure if law is good or not, that’s how I think why they decided on this..