The end times are upon us
- Thread starter Bruce Wayne
- Start date
Way to go!- fashion spawned from prison.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm8JyaO_E_4&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
I'm the founding member of the Pants Are Too D@m# Low Party. As a karate expert, I say pull your pants up 'cause I'm gonna kick you above the belt.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0[/YOUTUBE]
I'm the founding member of the Pants Are Too D@m# Low Party. As a karate expert, I say pull your pants up 'cause I'm gonna kick you above the belt.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0[/YOUTUBE]
Wouldn't be the first time.
Whose Adidas?
I'm going to stockpile food, and buy some ammunition for my 7.62x54r rim fire Romanian army rifle, to prepare for the end times....
... after I quit laughing!
... after I quit laughing!
Absolutely the most absurd invention I've ever seen.
Why?
this particular pants fashion, if i am not mistaken, has been around for at least 20 years, more or less, since i remember this style in junior high.
Watching Beat Street [YOUTUBE]rhkOPNRV8Pk[/YOUTUBE] or Breakin'
both came out in '84. i don't think you see sagging pants.
I think it blew up to all of mainstream America, around when O.P.P. became a national teenage anthem since I don't recall early hip-hoppers wore low jeans, like melle mel, or then RUN DMC, or even as late as kid n' play.
I am no historian of hip-hop, fashion, or even black culture in America, and i was only 8 when Breakin came out, i could very well be wrong and not remember.
Kinda went from parachute pants to those crazy things MC Hammer used, to now they all look like sissy's that just got out of prison. On those shoes, if I bought a new pair of shoes without laces I would be really pissed!
Wearing a garter belt in prison. It might have its attractions and usefulness, but I won't say for what.
You damn kids, get off my lawn with your crazy clothes! 
People often have significant cultural, social, or historical reasons for adopting certain styles of dress, whether it be the Macaronis of the 18th century or those who wear "prison" fashion today; those fashions may be inscrutable to outsiders, which is partially the point.
Take, for example AlanL's avatar, a portrait of Paul Revere by John Singleton Copley, currently on view in (what I hear) are the glorious new American galleries of the MFA Boston. Copley painted him in his work clothes, a simple shirt and vest, to demonstrate his political opposition to the British government. I'm sure that his casual attire appeared ridiculous to those used to seeing men portrayed in their finer, more formal clothes in portraits. But Revere was agitating for change, and clothing signified that stance visually in his painted "avatar."
Of course, we privileged (and yes I think most of us are, look at the stuff we discuss buying--even an Orient watch is expensive to many, to say nothing of an $80 non-iron, French-cuffed dress shirt) B&B members don't see street fashion in the same light. I'm sure many of us think that the adopters of those clothes a) have no point b) are too ignorant to even know if they did have one or c) just silly. Is that because many of us are in the same hegemonic economic, political and cultural position to young black men as the British were to Revere?
These reactionary posts are tiresome, let's confine them to the Barber Shop. Now back to our normal posts drooling over Allen Edmonds shoes, Brooks Brothers, Saddleback leather bags, and cheapie automatic watches please.
People often have significant cultural, social, or historical reasons for adopting certain styles of dress, whether it be the Macaronis of the 18th century or those who wear "prison" fashion today; those fashions may be inscrutable to outsiders, which is partially the point.
Take, for example AlanL's avatar, a portrait of Paul Revere by John Singleton Copley, currently on view in (what I hear) are the glorious new American galleries of the MFA Boston. Copley painted him in his work clothes, a simple shirt and vest, to demonstrate his political opposition to the British government. I'm sure that his casual attire appeared ridiculous to those used to seeing men portrayed in their finer, more formal clothes in portraits. But Revere was agitating for change, and clothing signified that stance visually in his painted "avatar."
Of course, we privileged (and yes I think most of us are, look at the stuff we discuss buying--even an Orient watch is expensive to many, to say nothing of an $80 non-iron, French-cuffed dress shirt) B&B members don't see street fashion in the same light. I'm sure many of us think that the adopters of those clothes a) have no point b) are too ignorant to even know if they did have one or c) just silly. Is that because many of us are in the same hegemonic economic, political and cultural position to young black men as the British were to Revere?
These reactionary posts are tiresome, let's confine them to the Barber Shop. Now back to our normal posts drooling over Allen Edmonds shoes, Brooks Brothers, Saddleback leather bags, and cheapie automatic watches please.
I can clearly see they're asses.
Somehow I feel like I would hike up my pants and fasten them tight with my belt if I ever found myself in prison. Harder access if you know what I mean.
The invention is pretty neat. It's like a belt for people who don't know what a belt is for. Doih!?!?!?
The invention is pretty neat. It's like a belt for people who don't know what a belt is for. Doih!?!?!?
This is a perfect example of a grammatical error that makes more sense than the intended, correct form.
- Thread starter
- #16
Or suspenders for people with bad shoulders.
And the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics goes to.......
Similar threads
