WWTD?

I'm going to write about pants-sagging, but needed an outlet for this amazing file photo. A recent newswire article cited Flint, MI chief of Police David Dicks for cracking down -- no pun intended -- on men who sag their pants and underwear to "unlawful" levels in public. This made national headlines, to the point where the ACLU challenged this addition to Flint's law against disorderly conduct.

However, there is some irony to this idea of "sag your pants and go to jail". Let's look at the history of this trend:
1. Sagging began in the 1980's as a sartorial response from friends for solidarity with imprisoned gang members who
2. Weren't allowed to wear belts with the often over-sized prison issue wardrobe. Thus,
3. Their pants sagged.

That said, doesn't it seem a little strange that the very branch of government that inspired this trend, more or less out of sheer necessity to keep one's clothes on, is trying to portray it as something criminal? Flint, MI isn't the only case. Similar attempts have been made in Atlanta as well as other municipalities and school districts. Sure, "sagging" can be interpreted as a fashion nuisance, especially if someone's underwear or lack thereof is exposed, but does this warrant time in jail?

I say, stop drinking the Haterade.

In siding with the ACLU, the majority opinion is that "sagging" is a trend -- not unlike midriff exposing shirts, tank tops, hot pants, or even wearing a long tunic and pretending it's a dress. Mainly, all of these styles feature some kind of corporal exposure that the wearer displays at his or her own risk. Furthermore, one could argue that recent ordinances against "sagging" could be seen as prejudiced, as this trend stems primarily from poor and lower-income communities. What if this were reversed? Would we have an ordinance against wearing pearl necklaces with polo shirts? No, because it's silly. Like Flint Police Chief, David Dicks.

Flint hasn't been decided yet, but in the meantime check out MTV's response.

"What Would Tupac Do?"