Here’s what’s interesting about these criminal bans on pants worn low enough to show one’s underwear: the pants in question are all on boys and there is no mention in the article that the proponents of these ordinances are concerned by the visible thong.
This is why I’m skeptical it has much at all to do with “public decency” and everything to do with the cultural associations of pants that are worn essentially around one’s ankles. Arguably, from the standpoint of someone who worries about “public decency” enough to enact legislation, women walking around flashing negligee should be more of an affront for its overtly sexual nature. Baggy pants and plaid boxers, while silly looking, do provide full-crack coverage and do not imply a proclivity on the part of the wearer to take anything up the butt.
Also, while the boys are wearing their pants “incorrectly,” we might say, in that they *could* be worn at the waist if the wearer so chose, their female counterparts are wearing their pants as the manufacturers designed them to be worn. What gives and why does the word lechery come to mind?