Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Montana’s War on Yoga Pants

Montana’s War on Yoga Pants

You can take my yoga pants from my cold, dead, hands.

This story hits a little too close to home.

Yesterday, Republican state Rep. David Moore introduced House Bill 365 in the House Judiciary Committee. The bill would redefine “provocative clothing” in such a way that the wearing of yoga pants in public would be outlawed.

According to the Billings Gazette:

A Montana legislative panel has moved to kill a bill that would tighten the state’s indecent exposure law and consequently ban some provocative clothing.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to table House Bill 365 Wednesday. Republican Rep. David Moore introduced it on Tuesday.

The proposal would have expanded the definition of indecent exposure to include garments that give the appearance of a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvis or female nipple. Moore said the bill could outlaw some provocative clothing, and later said he thinks yoga pants should be illegal in public.

Thankfully, the rest of the House Judiciary Committee had the good sense to table the godawful, yoga pants-hating bill.

Although members of the committee giggled about the bill, no discussion was allowed before the voice call vote to table it.

Evidently, a nude bike event is to blame for HB365. The naked bike ride held in Missoula last summer was a protest against oil consumption.

Next door in North Dakota, a high school banned girls from wearing yoga pants and other tight clothing saying such attire was too ‘distracting.’ Schools in Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Connecticut, and California have all prohibited girls from wearing yoga pants.

Sadly the continued banning of clothing like yoga pants for the sake of ‘modesty’ only serves to reinforce the rather antiquated and negative stereotype that women are responsible for the behavior of men. All the while, giving men (or in these cases, high school boys) an opportunity to sidestep personal accountability.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Is this going to turn out to be a complete beat-up like Miller’s “Hoodie Ban!” hysteria was?

ZOMG Those Crazy Republicans Are Trying To Ban All The Things!!!

OK, Kaye, if you saw me in yoga pants, you’d want to burn every pair in creation.

And, speaking only for misef, I would have learned a LOT less in high school if yoga pants were worn in the day. Of course, the piano legs wore floor-length dresses in those days.

This bill was proposed in Montana, where it’s cold most of the time. People are accustomed to dress in layers. I live in San Diego, and all I can say is that gym wear shows up on the streets a lot more, here.

I think the government has no business telling us how to dress, or eat, or whom to marry. I am sure most of us can think of a few more things.

I lived on Padre Island near Corpus Christi, Tx for awhile. I knew a guy that went to high school with Farrah Fawcett in Corpus. He said she was very attractive even in high school. He also said he and a bunch of other guys almost flunked out because it was impossible to concentrate with her in the same room.

He ended up a petroleum engineer so I guess he was able to recover.

9.5 out of 10 high school boys agree: burn the yoga pants. That is all. Oh, and Slut Walk!

I am so happy for the people of Montana.

Looks like they have ALL their problems solved when their legislators have time to think about regulating what people can or cannot wear.

Although I agree that banning “yoga pants” by law is foolish, your last paragraph is also foolish. You place the word ‘modesty’ in scare quotes as if it is a worthless concept.

I suggest you read the book, “A Return to Modesty” by Wendy Shalit. You might learn something. It really is a very good book.

http://www.amazon.com/Return-Modesty-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/dp/1476756651/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423697636&sr=1-1&keywords=a+return+to+modesty

    Adult women* should absolutely be free to proudly flaunt their camel-toes whenever and wherever they like, without legislative interference. Whether it’s really such a great idea is, as you point out, another issue altogether.

    *I have no problem with individual schools or school districts having dress codes for children. That’s an entirely different issue.

      Milwaukee in reply to Amy in FL. | February 13, 2015 at 9:07 pm

      “Sadly the continued banning of clothing like yoga pants for the sake of ‘modesty’ only serves to reinforce the rather antiquated and negative stereotype that women are responsible for the behavior of men. All the while, giving men (or in these cases, high school boys) an opportunity to sidestep personal accountability.”

      We used to have some sort of social contract. Women behaved decently and men defended them. All men were obligated to defend any woman, even if she wasn’t connected to you in any way. A good man would defend a “helpless” female from the predations of evil men. Decent women would behave decently. Now women want to behave anyway they want and still want to be defended. Of course people of all genders should be able to go about their business and not be molested.

      No deserves to be raped. But throw us a bone. If women are going to be dressed in ‘nothing left to the imagination’ style there will be unpleasant consequences. But we aren’t under Sharia law and ain’t nobody gonna tell any woman what to wear.

      There seems no good answer here.

    Jack Jones in reply to gibbie. | February 13, 2015 at 7:51 pm

    Not that I agree with him on every point, but this guy had an interesting take on Yoga pants:

    “I’ve heard plenty of women say they wear yoga pants because they are comfortable. But somehow I can manage to wear comfortable clothes and not show off every inch of my ass and thighs.”

Rules always get instituted because of idiots that flout common sense. Nude bike riding….even I would want some kind of rule to protect my eyes from that picture.

Personally, I’d ban Uggs.

Or make at least 2 inch hill mandatory to all women 18-40.

Hooray for Montana! “Uncommon common sense”. It’s time to promote my “Clean underwear” bill. And I want to be the Head Inspector. I assign myself to all blondes between 16 and 40. It’s for the “children” and if you don’t agree, You’re a RACIST!

I propose a compromise.

Only women who actually do yoga, should be allowed to wear yoga pants.

As for me, I’m a thong man.

just another R statist, not much difference in the D statist. We really need the government to be the fashion police. They do everything so well…

    tom swift in reply to Barry. | February 12, 2015 at 3:34 am

    D and R statists are very different.

    The D’s think big; they’re out to ream us by messing up energy, immigration, finance, health care, international treaties, defense, domestic surveillance … and to pervert government with rampant PC-ness and chronic racism in all aspects of American public life.

    The R’s want to impose the sartorial equivalent of anti-litter laws.

    In the annals of Crimes Against Humanity, the two simply can’t compare.

I think to be constitutional, they have to specify that the ban only applies to people who really shouldn’t be trying to stuff their various lumpy, puffy and misshapen parts into yoga pants. Then it would fit under the Court’s famous “I know it when I see it” definition of obscenity.

‘modesty’ only serves to reinforce the rather antiquated and negative stereotype that women are responsible for the behavior of men.

Really? That’s all you can think of?

I’m for banning cleavage, male rear cleavage and female frontal and rear cleavage, in public.

So tired of having eyes assaulted by people’s lack of sense of what is appropriate for business, school and public events.

Some people look obscene or ridiculous in yoga pants, others look fine. But for school classrooms, they are inappropriate. For yoga class or exercise, they are great. Same for sports bras/midriff tops for running. Those are not class room and business attire – and some people just shouldn’t wear them outdoors.

YouTube has a series about what horrible outfits some people wear to Walmart.

It shows some people really need guidance and educating about appropriate attire in public. As they say in the South, ‘their Mamas didn’t teach them anything.’

Modesty is a form of Good Manners and Human Decency/Propriety.

Women may have a legal right to wear provocative clothing – but it is not a thoughtful, kind thing to do to vulnerable males.

Men are aroused by what they see and it is not kind of a woman to advertise what you are not selling or offering for free.

Neither is it kind/thoughtful/good manners to wear provocative/distracting clothing in school or business settings. When getting dressed, both males and females need to have some common sense, good judgment and thought/concern for other people.

Some parts of the female and male body should only be viewed in intimate settings. However, I believe in the holy life-long faithful male/female covenant/vocation of marriage and that sex and nudity should be confined to the married couple.

You can take my yoga pants from my cold, dead, fanny.

buckeyeminuteman | February 12, 2015 at 2:03 pm

I can’t even begin to imagine what it would feel like to sit on a bicycle seat whilst nude. And in the summer-time too!

Outlawing types of clothing is ridiculous, but that said, there’s a lot of clothing I can’t stand to see anyone in and yoga pants are right there. They are just grotesque and it’s rarely tall women with long legs in them. It’s usually Fat City in them. Blech.

What will people wear to Montana’s WalMarts?

Unless you advocate everyone being able to walk around nude on the sidewalks of your hometown, you’re guilty of imposing your dress code on nudists. All this tutting about the ‘morality police’ is hypocritical unless and until all communities (read that *consent of the governed IN those communities) are clothing optional.

MarlaHughes: Thanks for exposing the ‘morality police’ canard! However, you don’t take it far enough.

‘Morality police’ are an inescapable fact of life. You can’t not have morality imposed on you. In the case of ‘everyone being able to walk around nude on the sidewalks of your hometown’ someone is imposing the moral view that this is OK.

The idea that there should be no rules is self-refuting.

When someone uses the ‘morality police’ argument, what they really mean is ‘shut up’.

So let’s have the discussion about what kinds of morality we want to impose with the power of the state, and what kinds we want to leave to ‘the private sector’.

Kemberlee Kaye:
I meant this comment for you, and it was misplaced. Sorry. But there was a time when any decent man defended the honor of any woman, thinking of that woman as his mother, sister, wife, or daughter. Kipling wrote of the Birkenhead Drill, when men stood at attention while the women and children were loading into life boats, all the while knowing that many of them would die without a seat in a lifeboat. Surely we all despise the fact that more 1st class men survived the Titanic disaster than 3rd class women. Women would say “I’m not that sort of girl, I’m a good, decent girl.” But that day and age has passed. When an Italian cruise ship hits the rocks the crew pushes women out of the way for a seat in the life boats, and mention women’s liberation. Yes, there is a price for being protected. Don’t want to pay the price? Don’t be surprised when the protection disappears.

The difficulty then is the male rapist is individually accountable, while all the slatternly dressed women accept no responsibility for the state of society.

“Sadly the continued banning of clothing like yoga pants for the sake of ‘modesty’ only serves to reinforce the rather antiquated and negative stereotype that women are responsible for the behavior of men. All the while, giving men (or in these cases, high school boys) an opportunity to sidestep personal accountability.”

We used to have some sort of social contract. Women behaved decently and men defended them. All men were obligated to defend any woman, even if she wasn’t connected to you in any way. A good man would defend a “helpless” female from the predations of evil men. Decent women would behave decently. Now women want to behave anyway they want and still want to be defended. Of course people of all genders should be able to go about their business and not be molested.

No deserves to be raped. But throw us a bone. If women are going to be dressed in ‘nothing left to the imagination’ style there will be unpleasant consequences. But we aren’t under Sharia law and ain’t nobody gonna tell any woman what to wear.

There seems no good answer here.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend