Yoga Pants are illegal

[The Woodsman]

The controversy over yoga pants and leggings being worn as pants in public schools has spurned me to do some research on the matter. I think the solution to this problem is a simple one, because technically speaking, it is already illegal to wear tights as pants in public. All we need to do to end the yoga pant scourge is to enforce the laws we already have. Let me explain.

I live in Michigan (unfortunately), so I'll use Michigan's indecent exposure law as an example. I know most of you live in other states (good for you), but most of the states have similar laws. According to Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931, Chapter 48, 750.335a.(1): "A person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person". The word "person" is defined further on in the act under 750.335a(2)(a): genitals, pubic area, buttocks, and female breasts.

The term "person" has been used in indecent exposure laws by english speaking countries ever since the UK's "Vagrancy Act" of 1824. It has usually been interpreted as being a "genteel" expression for the genitals. However, in 1997, an Australian court argued that there "may be circumstances in which the exposure of the breasts of a woman is capable of being regarded as obscene, and that it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the exposure of a person's buttocks could be obscene". What "person" means probably depends on the laws and morals of the jurisdiction where the law is being enforced. In Michigan, it means the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, and female breasts.

We can ask what exactly constitutes "exposure". According to my American Heritage College Dictionary, expose is defined as "to make visible". Visible is defined as making "perceptible" and "conspicuous". Conspicuous means "easy to notice, obvious".

So, exposure doesn't necessarily mean showing bare skin. If your person is perceptible and conspicous, you are guilty of indecent exposure. What damns yoga pants and leggings is that they are made of thin material, and fit in a skin tight manner. This fails to make your person inconspicous, and that is why they are not legal to wear like other less form fitting pants in public. For proof of this, visit this article: Fitness-Fashion Faux Pas: What NOT to Wear to a Public Gym | Women's Voices For Change

Since these tights can't legally be worn in public, they also cannot legally be worn in school, because schools are public places.

 

[kermit]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that yoga pants are more modest than many wormen's bathing suits (and even some men's) that can legally be worn in public. Now school dress codes are generally much more strict than the legal standards. If a school says that they are not allowed I see no problem with that, but to say they are not legal to be worn in public fails some basic smell tests.

For long before either you or I were born, young women have been pushing the boundries of decency. For most of my life the trend has been toward tight and/or short bottoms (pants, skirts, shorts, etc). Yoga pants are really no different than urber-tight jeans.

 

[The Woodsman]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that yoga pants are more modest than many wormen's bathing suits (and even some men's) that can legally be worn in public.

What is acceptable to wear often depends on the context. Bathing suits are worn for bathing, either at the beach or at a pool. Understandably, law enforcement would be lax in those areas. But I've never seen a bikini worn in a grocery store. I have seen bathing beauties covering themselves with sarongs when they are away from the beach, though.

If the only way to ensure children have a decent and wholesome learning environment in their schools is by actually enforcing the indecent exposure laws, then so be it. If that would mean banning things like skimpy bottoms and forcing women to wear loose fitting shorts like men, then oh well. What's more important? Allowing indecency, or our children's education?

 

[Hetta]

Yoga pants are not "indecent". Just because others don't feel able to wear them because they don't have curves or have too many curves (as per the linked article) doesn't mean that others can't wear them.

Perhaps bicyclists should start wearing baggy shorts because bicycle shorts would be indecent too.

I am more interested in my kids getting a thorough education than I am about what anyone is wearing.

 

[Prayer Circle]

These yoga pants would be acceptable I'd think.

One has but to research on Yahoo images, 'Yoga pants' to see what the obscene factor would be rightly referring to.

 

[pgp_protector]

What is acceptable to wear often depends on the context. Bathing suits are worn for bathing, either at the beach or at a pool. Understandably, law enforcement would be lax in those areas. But I've never seen a bikini worn in a grocery store. I have seen bathing beauties covering themselves with sarongs when they are away from the beach, though.

If the only way to ensure children have a decent and wholesome learning environment in their schools is by actually enforcing the indecent exposure laws, then so be it. If that would mean banning things like skimpy bottoms and forcing women to wear loose fitting shorts like men, then oh well. What's more important? Allowing indecency, or our children's education?

Ya need to come visit California.

 

[pgp_protector]

These yoga pants would be acceptable I'd think.

One has but to research on Yahoo images, 'Yoga pants' to see what the obscene factor would be rightly referring to.

Maybe some form of yoga burka would be acceptable also?

 

[Hetta]

Maybe some form of yoga burka would be acceptable also?

LOL.

 

[RDKirk]

The controversy over yoga pants and leggings being worn as pants in public schools has spurned me to do some research on the matter. I think the solution to this problem is a simple one, because technically speaking, it is already illegal to wear tights as pants in public.

Show me some arrests for such clothing, and you will have made your point. Right now, the legality is just your opinion.

 

[The Woodsman]

Show me some arrests for such clothing, and you will have made your point. Right now, the legality is just your opinion.

If there is a reason why women are wearing tights as pants in public and getting away with it, it is because law enforcement has been lax, not because the law itself has been changed. Michigan's indecent exposure law clearly means that your person (genitals, pubic area, buttocks, breasts) must not be conspicuous. Tights fail to make your person inconspicuous.

 

[The Woodsman]

Yoga pants are not "indecent".

In my state, "indecent exposure" is defined as exposing your person in public. Yoga pants fail to conceal your person.

 

[pgp_protector]

In my state, "indecent exposure" is defined as exposing your person in public. Yoga pants fail to conceal your person.

Using your definition, then going out in public is exposing (showing) your person(yourself) in public, so don't go outside & break the law.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exposing
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

 

[Prayer Circle]

Maybe some form of yoga burka would be acceptable also?

Impertinence aside, I think anyone who does take the time to search images of yoga pants would see where ultra-right wing conservative mind sets would argue they are indecent. More so than a bikini? Hardly.

Since Indecent Exposure Laws vary by State one would have to research to find out what they're 'safe' to wear and also argue in matters of rebutting the charge should one be cited for daring to wear such garb.

And as a total non sequitur, aka/ way off topic but because I just thought of it. I checked that State laws link for Arizona's definition and as a side note, since the underlying issue in this thread itself is indecent exposure, and noticed that there may be cause to challenge the recent Arizona transsexual bathroom bill that recently passed permitting, through sexual bias, one gender privilege alone, male, to invoke their right to enter public women's facilities as full anatomical males as long as they claim to identify as women.
Perhaps it could be argued by Christians and others opposed to thenew 'law' that the Arizona indecent exposure laws would make that exercise a violation of the State laws defining indecent exposure.


Fight! The tide of PC. (Pointed Contempt for Morality) While there's still time. While it's still legal.

 

[Hetta]

In my state, "indecent exposure" is defined as exposing your person in public. Yoga pants fail to conceal your person.

Maybe if they are see through. Who wears see through yoga pants?

Seriously? How does a woman concela her "person"? A suit of armor, perhaps?

 

[SnowCal]

OP needs to remember that HINAL and that trying to interpret laws with the help of your college dictionary can get them to mean just about anything.

Yoga pants are not illegal. Sorry to disappoint you but the law doesn't ban them. You should encourage your state Republican party to change that. Send links to Jon Stewart when it gets proposed please.

 

[DaisyDay]

If the only way to ensure children have a decent and wholesome learning environment in their schools is by actually enforcing the indecent exposure laws, then so be it. If that would mean banning things like skimpy bottoms and forcing women to wear loose fitting shorts like men, then oh well. What's more important? Allowing indecency, or our children's education?

Yeah, loosing fitting shorts are rarely available to women, ready-made. Even women's board shorts are not the baggy kind guys get. Unless you sew or wear men's clothes, you're pretty much out of luck.

 

[RDKirk]

If there is a reason why women are wearing tights as pants in public and getting away with it, it is because law enforcement has been lax, not because the law itself has been changed. Michigan's indecent exposure law clearly means that your person (genitals, pubic area, buttocks, breasts) must not be conspicuous. Tights fail to make your person inconspicuous.

Point is, "illegal" is only your opinion if police aren't bothering to make arrests.

And as has been mentioned, most school dress codes are stricter than street legality anyway. They don't need to be dressed on public decency laws.

 

[DaisyDay]

Maybe if they are see through. Who wears see through yoga pants?

Not on purpose. Some company recently had to recall theirs because they were see through. :o

Seriously? How does a woman concela her "person"? A suit of armor, perhaps?

Burkas and mumus.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yoga pants are not "indecent". Just because others don't feel able to wear them because they don't have curves or have too many curves (as per the linked article) doesn't mean that others can't wear them.

Perhaps bicyclists should start wearing baggy shorts because bicycle shorts would be indecent too.

I am more interested in my kids getting a thorough education than I am about what anyone is wearing.

My bold. If only the kids felt that way too our educational system might actually produce excellence.

 

[The Woodsman]

Maybe if they are see through. Who wears see through yoga pants?

You don't need to wear see through to be guilty of indecent exposure.

Expose means to make visible, which means to make conspicuous.

If you follow the link to the article I cited, you'll see an image of a girl wearing gray colored yoga pants. They are not see through, but her vulva is clearly visible. I suspect that this would violate the indecent exposure laws of any state.