Louisiana commissioner proposes ban on public pajama-wearing


133 Responses to “Louisiana commissioner proposes ban on public pajama-wearing”

  1. Is this  a new thing with people going out in their jammies? Just this week I saw 2 people, 2 different locations ( bookstore and mini-mart) out in their pyjamas.

    • EH says:

      I like how disqus makes you login in order to type any comment, but once you type a comment and then log in, it throws your comment away once you get back to the page. Poor engineering by a company who apparently doesn’t use their own product.

      • penguinchris says:

         This only happens sometimes. Not sure under which conditions it does this, but it isn’t by design – when working properly, it saves your comment after making you log in and it reappears when you’re back at the comment page.

  2. ikoino says:

    Obviously a Frank Zappa fan: http://youtu.be/NCdYI6-Uz7M

  3. Navin_Johnson says:

    In my Chicago neighborhood this practice is rampant.  It used to mostly be women, but now I see tons of men doing it as well.  Thumbs waaaaay down.  This story = me conflicted.

    • ChicagoD says:

      Yes. Like so many of the stories, the snark is easy, but when you live somewhere where it’s happening you think, huh, that is pretty nasty.

      And for all the deep thinkers on this, I generally wear a T shirt and underpants to bed, so I will be strolling over in my pjs ASAP.

      • marilove says:

        How is wearing pajamas “nasty”?  It’s still clothing.

        • ChicagoD says:

          Come visit Logan Square for a few hours. Pajama pants are not made for regular outdoor wear.

          • marilove says:

            And why not?  Because you don’t like them?

            If you’re worried about the “outline” of the crotch, then what about tight pants?
            You could always just … not stare at crotches.  That might help.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Pajamas and threadbare revealing sweats seem to be interchangeable as sleep/corner store/Walgreens wear.

            I’m not offended by it, it’s just uhhh…aesthetically not ideal?  And yep, it’s hard not to notice (whether you want to or not) somebody’s junk when their see-through, panty line, pink sweats/jammies have “PINK” or “Princess” or something emblazoned across the ass.   I’ve been tempted to walk one block to my corner store in my sweats, but I always catch myself and take the *seconds* it requires to put on some pants. Apparently I do this because I’m like totally old timey, and a hundred years old..

            This is actually not in reply to you D, I honestly can’t figure out how to reply to the correct poster with this new system.

          • ChicagoD says:

            marilove, I might note that *I* am not the one who keeps bringing up crotches. I have no inherent objection to women’s crotches, and I see at least one penis a day, so that’s not a big issue to me. However, just because I sometimes like to see women in their underwear doesn’t mean I always want to see all women in their underwear all the time, you know?

          • dambrisco says:

            I prefer my women to wear long, traditional dresses or, preferably, a full burqa. I mean, clothes that outline any part of the body are just too revealing for public wear.

            Then again, that’s what we get for living in a country  where people get to choose how they dress.

            In other news, someone in Caddo ought to start a religion that requires the wearing of pajama pants in public. Would strike up some fun discourse.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            What a clever point.  I mean obviously the only volunteer alternative to wearing your dirty Tweety Bird sweats out shopping is a *burqa*.

          • OtherMichael says:

            @boingboing-fbcce68c3853e923f0983996eee5573e:disqus  “You could always just … not stare at crotches.  That might help.”

            Oh, yeah? And then how could I identify people? Ever think about that, smarty-pants?

    • chgoliz says:

      Are we talking flannel pants, or actual two-piece pajama outfits?

      Must depend on the neighborhood. I see lots of sweats and other gym wear on the south side, but not a lot of pajamas.

  4. coryf says:

    And what about sweat pants?  Is there really all that much difference?  (Not being snarky)

    While I sympathize with dude’s desire to not be assaulted by those with less (or different) fashion sense, taste, or sense of decorum, a law is not the way to get this changed.

    • Jer_00 says:

      Sounds more like this guy has a desire not to be “assaulted” by some other guy’s equipment.

      Seriously – his big complaint is that he can make out portions of the other guy’s schlong through the pajamas.  If that’s the real problem then either the clothes don’t meet the legal indecency standard, or the indecency standard is too lax OR the clothes are fine and the commissioner’s imagination is running away with him and taking him into the recesses of his own psychology that he thought were sufficiently buried.

      Either way, there’s no need to create a new “Fashion Police” division of the cops.  There are public decency standards that can be enforced. 

      • marilove says:

        Seems to me he needs to stop staring at the crotch of other men.

        I bet he has the same complaint about tight pants. ‘Cuz he clearly enjoys staring at other men’s crotches.

    • MetalPorkchop says:

      Apparently a law is what it takes to change this sloth behaviour.  I’ve recently moved to the suburbs of a smaller city (pop. about 250K), I’ve also lived in a tiny place of about 15K, a city of about 1 mil, another of about 8 mil, and a village of about 300.  I’ve noticed that more people in smaller towns (but not the village), and particularly the suburbs, choose to look like slobs.  I’m not talking about farmers or construction workers.  Everyone from teenagers to middle aged types seem to love their pjs and sweats in public.  Sweats are ok if you’re jogging or maybe walking your dog.  I think looking like a slob makes one appear lazy and unhygienic, and those are poor character qualities.  I’m not saying put on your suit or heels to go grocery shopping, but seriously put some effort into looking and being presentable.  I think it’s sad that good manners are hard to come by, and now people are self centered jerks and slobs.  BTW, a lot of those wearing sweats, pjs, yoga wear, lounge wear, basically anything knit with spandex are fat or obese, which only adds to the sloth image.   Wearing “active wear” excluding jammies of course as they are sleep wear, will not make you fit.  Get off your ass, put on some jeans and walk to the Walmart instead of driving your minivan or SUV.

  5. Cowicide says:

    Thank gawd Caddo Parish doesn’t have any other pressing issues for its citizenry.   Just this horrible pajama issue.

  6. Jen Savage says:

    What about pajama jeans? Babies in onesies? Etc.
    I call foul on the first amendment. 

  7. ablestmage says:

    Is the foundation for the ban based on what pajamas were “designed for” ? Could a work-around be found in a pajama maker, perhaps a local seamstress, who designs pajamas for everyday wear? Where do you draw the line between pajama material and regular pants material? Is it the cut?

    • BrotherPower says:

      It’s the Yodas an’ shit.

    • bob d says:

      Actually, it’s sillier than what the clothing is “designed for” – the suggested ban is based on what’s “sold in the sleepwear section of department stores.”  Which is even better, as the legal definition would be determined by how department store managers organize their clothing sections.  All it would take is a simple relabeling/reorganization for this to go away: “We don’t have a ‘sleepwear section’ anymore – try our ‘comfortable clothing’ area.”

    • EH says:

      It’s Commissioner Williams’ secret homosexuality that is being protected.

  8. Commissioner Williams probably has a big “don’t tread on me” or “home of the free” sticker on the back of his pickup truck, too.

    Home of the people who are free to do whatever I say is ok. Yeah, sure.

  9. Mujokan says:

    I read in NY mag that this is becoming a thing. “There’s a whole generation of women that really dresses that way — pajamas tucked into Uggs with full makeup,” Moellering continues. “I was in the mall at 7 a.m. on Black Friday and everyone looked like that.” Due to reality TV apparently, I wouldn’t know.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Those lace ruffs and slashed sleeves that you see in Renaissance portraits, or Medieval hose, are underwear that’s been transformed to outerwear through the miracle of fashion.

      • Mujokan says:

        You shouldn’t believe everything Snooki tells you, you know.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Seriously, the history of fashion is the history of underwear becoming outerwear. Innovation has always been resisted, but we’ve been stuck in mid-twentieth century American fashion for an awfully long time now.

      • EH says:

        To be sure, they were transformed through the miracle of design. We have a record of it through the miracle of fashion.

      • Charlie B says:

        Mmmm… slashed and puffed is a bit more complicated than that; consider plunderhosen and doppelsoldners’ attire.  But yeah, the wealthy classes tend to flaunt their underwear, and the priestly classes tend to wear stuff 500 years or so out of style, at least in western cultures.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          When I saw Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, I realized that a nun’s habit was just what a late medieval babysitter would wear to a funeral.

  10. Kassie says:

    When I worked in a County government building there was a co-worker of mine who wore pajama pants to work regularly. Yes, they were obviously pajamas. And yes, she had regular contact with the public. Since then I’ve been very anti-pajamas in public. But, against the law? What about kids on the way home from the babysitter at night? What about people leaving hospitals? What about pajama pub crawls? There are just too many legit reasons to be wearing pajamas in public.

    • Jer_00 says:

      One “legit” reason is that people’s fashion sense is part of their own freedom of personal expression.  I wouldn’t advocate a law against pajamas anymore than I’d advocate a law against overusing make-up, or the wearing of Crocs, or dressing up like a clown in public.

      Now public mockery of people who do these things is a different story – you have the right to wear pajamas in public and I have a right to make fun of you for it.  But passing a law against it?  Waste of everyone’s time and a bad example to set for the children.

      And won’t someone please think of the children here?  If we raise our kids to think that every thing we find offensive needs a law put in place to ban it, pretty soon we’ll have a generation of overprivileged nincompoops in power who want to pass stupid laws banning trivial bullshit every time they run into some stupid thing they don’t like.  And can you just imagine what an America led by a generation like THAT would look like…

      • MetalPorkchop says:

        Can you imagine an America led by someone wearing jammies at the next congress meeting?  Seriously, what’s so hard about putting clothes on to go out?  There are plenty of comfortable clothes.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Can you imagine an America led by someone wearing jammies at the next congress meeting?

          Would Hugh Hefner really be worse than what we’ve got? At least he’s not spray-painted orange.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Yeah, I have a co-worker who wears stuff like pink sweats to the office all the time.  It’s not good.  I don’t want it legislated, but have some pride ffs.

      • Definitely against a law. But as far as work places go, I believe that could be covered by a company dress code. Likewise businesses have had a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy, extend that if it’s ‘really’ a problem.

  11. Benjamin Slade says:

    Of course, on the historical side, that’s simply false. In India, pajamas are worn as outside wear, and this is the source of the English word (from Hindi/Urdu पाजामा; ultimately from Persian).

    • OldBrownSquirrel says:

      I’ve seen Indians in America dress like that as well.  I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to wear traditional clothing in Louisiana.

    • allybeag says:

      Yes, I was about to say the same thing. We borrowed the idea of pyjamas from India, started wearing them to bed, and forgot what they were originally designed for: everyday, outdoor wear.

      • Shashwath T.R. says:

        Though there’s a world of difference between http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQn7JQpO6HsmxqMtrC_1vHEhsJCcZtCYfshPmlNy-2xKjM1Tys1Q and http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcP3swICYj2FESu6_2Oh3HyVlQVQm06PFcYQPJQjWGWzkF-SGwnQ

    • MetalPorkchop says:

      Except that pajamas in India don’t make people look like slobs.

  12. Wreckrob8 says:

    I first heard about this some years ago. It was reported in the tabloid British press to be a ‘problem’ in Liverpool, I believe.
    Supermarkets have dress codes here – men have to wear shirts. I have seen security guards refuse entry to a four/five year old boy without a shirt.

  13. Daniel Smith says:

    There are soooo many more offensive things to be found at Wally world, how did he decide this was the bright line? Personally, I think a load limit for spandex is a much higher priority….

  14. Heyref says:

    Wearing pajamas in public is just Wrong, but so is going to Walmart. 

  15. rbdewell says:

    The folks in Shreveport are just trying to keep up. Calcasieu parish made it illegal a couple years ago to have underwear visible above your pants. It may be impossible to be taken seriously walking around in pajamas, but no more so than being a parish commissioner wasting tax dollars on absurd laws, and apparently that’s legal.

  16. Antinous / Moderator says:

    I just finished slogging through 87 episodes of Lost In Space, and there is nothing that I don’t know about Guy Williams’ and Mark Goddard’s junk despite them being fully dressed in every episode.  When did we become terrified of the outline of a dick?

    • MetalPorkchop says:

      It’s not about dick outlines.  70′s jeans on the right man are damn sexy; by “right” man, I mean someone who’s not 300 pounds with fat hanging over the waistband of their sweats at the check out in front of me, buying a cart full of frozen pizzas and pop.

  17. Bull Moose says:

    No more Dave Matthews at Jazz Fest I guess…

  18. He’s okay with government dictating what people are allow to wear, but I bet he’s against the government “intruding” in people’s lives and providing them healthcare.

  19. Andy says:

    Come on, we all get the point right? American culture sucks. Wearing sweatpants out doors is really just the sartorial symptom of the same urge that drives Americans to eat McDonald’s and see movies like Transformers III or whatever.

    In Europe you wouldn’t be caught dead in sweat pants and Uggs, in metropolitan areas like NYC, San Francisco (which true, is more laid back), etc. you see people looking good a lot.

    A lot of this comes down to socioeconomic class and education level. But again, it’s options. American culture sucks.

    • RHK says:

      Actually, in SF clothing is optional as any adventurous visitor to the Castro, the Folsom Street Fair or the Bay to Breakers race can attest to.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      How does it come down to socioeconomic status and eductaion levels?  I see wealthy college girls wearing the leggings/uggs more than any other group.  

    • C W says:

      “American culture sucks. 
      …In Europe you wouldn’t be caught dead in sweat pants”Chavs in track pants are soooooooooo much better, obviously. You have unrealistic expectations of the underclass in Europe.

    • wysinwyg says:

      If you think “Transformers III” and McDonalds are representative of American culture then you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.  99% of the interesting stuff on the BB front page is also American culture.

    • MetalPorkchop says:

      People in lower socio-economic classes can’t afford Uggs and “Juicy” spandex pants, though they can buy the cheap knock offs at Wallmart.  I agree about certain urban centres and particularly Europe.

  20. Stefan Jones says:

    Just spread the word that Commissioner Williams is an advocate of Sharia Law . . .

  21. gtrjnky says:

    You cannot legislate morality, or class.

  22. Where will it stop? 

    Well it will and already has stopped at Pajamas, when it progresses past there it will likely have sod all to do with Pajamas and will be a totally separate and unrelated issue,  these people aren’t pushing the boundaries with an obvious and  natural progression to less clothes,  the boundaries that they aren’t really pushing at all is the natural progression to putting on some clothes, but they aren’t really fussed about this boundary hence they haven’t put them on yet.

    People who go out in public in pajamas aren’t real boundary pushers, they are really custard in a carton, milk and cereal, late night snack purchasers there is not a lot on their mind outside of this scope.

    They are basically flannelette zombies and if you just give them the food they want and gently angle them back in the direction they came they will likely just wander back home.

  23. m1kesa1m0ns says:

    I’m so glad they are spending their time and resources on such VITALLY IMPORTANT MATTERS.

  24. i_prefer_yeti says:

    You can have my Forever Lazy (TM) when you peel it off my cold dead body

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      I love those commercials.  That *name*.  Wow.

      How about “Perpetually Slobby”, “Done Carin’ “, “Sloth Pride”..

  25. erics373 says:

    It’s amazing that these issues are brought to the forefront at all. With plenty of legitimate crisis at hand, how does a “pajama hater” get floor time on this frivolous concern. Evidently all of the education, unemployment, homelessness, healthcare concerns have all been solved in Cado, and this is the only item left on the agenda? 

  26. Shinkuhadoken says:

    If Walmart allows their customers to shop in pajamas, who am I, or anyone else, to say different? Unless there’s some sort of public health issue at stake, I don’t think there’s anything left to talk about.

  27. bcsizemo says:

    Personally as a guy I’m having mixed feeling about the new trend I see of teenage to early 20 year old girls wearing boots with fur (uggs or what not) and those super short tight athletic shorts (sometimes with leggings sometimes nothing).  I mean on one hand…I’m not minding the view kind of thing, but as somone who is over 30 and could have kids I just keep having that thought, “My god I wouldn’t let my daughter go out in public like that.”

    Come on dads you need to start having that all boys are pervs talk a lot early.

    • Donald Petersen says:

      the new trend I see

      Come now, are “teenage girls showing a tad too much skin” really a new trend?  In 1994, a young Katherine Heigl wore this in a movie, much to her movie-dad Gerard Depardieu’s chagrin.  In 1980 we started calling super-short cutoff jeans “Daisy Dukes,” though they’d already been popular for years.  In 1970 plenty of girls bounced around town without their bras.  In 1960, plenty of clergymen decried the popularity of two-piece bikinis at the beach.

      “All boys are pervs”?  Could it be that pervs are pervs, and a sizable number of boys enjoy looking at girls, a large subset of whom enjoy being looked at to the point where they often dress specifically to attract that kind of attention?  Should the girls whom you subconsciously equate with your daughter wear one of these to the beach, leaving the revealing clothing to be worn only by those whose view you don’t mind enjoying?

      Come now.  It’s not all about what makes you comfortable.

      • bcsizemo says:

        I’ll agree with all that, but there is context to it as well.

        I wouldn’t have a problem with my theoretical daughter wearing a bikini to the beach, or running shorts if she was out exercising.  But being out on a random week night and seeing it in January (even if it’s 40 outside) just seems like they are doing it to attract that type of attention.  However I also tend to believe that most girls don’t really understand how the male mind works, or sees them when they wear things like that (especially males in a similar age range <25).  Perhaps I just never had a desire to cat call a girl because of how she dressed, but I've seen it happen plenty of times – and that as a male doesn't make me proud.

        Sometimes it's not about what make me comfortable, it's about teaching our kids some self respect and appropriate behavior.  Not to just emulate their friends/TV/media.

        • Donald Petersen says:

          it’s about teaching our kids some self respect and appropriate behavior.

          Yes indeedy.  And that’s where we need to instill some respect and a sense of appropriate behavior into our sons.  The girls, by and large, aren’t the ones doing the catcalling, the leering, the whistling, the “accidental” groping, the pressuring-to-have-sex, and the raping.  Y’know, for the most part.  And the guys who do engage in these behaviors are not doing so simply because they’re “boys being boys.”    As strong as my own heterosexual male libido has always been, I have never found it particularly difficult to rein in my baser urges, and to refrain from giving any girl or woman the slightest cause to regret wearing her skimpiest, sexiest, most alluring outfit.  And yet though there’s plenty of societal pressure on girls, both to sex it up to attract the guys and to be completely demure and sexless or else run the risk of being raped everytime she walks past an alley, at the same time there appears to be precious little societal pressure on boys to be decent human beings in their interactions with the opposite sex.

          Keeping our girls locked down in a demure state of modesty and chastity does nothing to protect them from violence (or even the transgressions of “the male gaze”) if nothing is done to tame and civilize the raw hormonal id that is a typical teenage boy.  It also does them the profound disservice of stigmatizing their (the girls’) own sexuality, which deserves no less free expression than the boys’ does.

          In the perfect world for which I’ve always yearned, my daughter would be able to dress however she wants, and I hope she’d be able to take the advice of the Marquise de Merteuil: “…provided you take a few elementary precautions you can do it or not, as often as you like, with as many men as you like, in as many different ways as you like. Our sex has few enough advantages, you may as well make the most of those you have.”

          Then she could live with the freedoms that men alone have historically enjoyed.  How revolutionary.

  28. mccrum says:

    I’m thrilled they solved all the other problems, allowing them to finally deal with dress codes like this!

  29. Matthew says:

    I really hope they pass this law, because it would lead to people protesting in their PJs!  Then they’d all get taken to jail, and you’d have an entire jail filled with people in pajamas!

  30. bcsizemo says:

    After hitting up http://www.peopleofwalmart.com for like 3 minutes I realize he hasn’t actually been to a Wal-Mart lately or seen that site.

    It’s gonna take a long time to unsee all that.

  31. marilove says:

    And it appears that he is a Republican.  Shocker.
    Small government values, my ass.

  32. i was born and raised in shreveport and believe me i’ve seen people wearing much worse in public.

    it may not be vulgar or offensive but i used to walk around wearing combat boots and gas masks! costuming in public wasn’t out of the ordinary for that time. not that that’s what these guys in the story is about.

  33. paulj says:

    If he’s going have government dictate fashion, he might as well go full Edwardian and require proper attire for each meal and social activity: http://www.pbs.org/manorhouse/edwardianlife/clothes.html

    But there should also be a provision that bans gratuitous brass gears.

  34. crimpers says:

    How about this idea, Michael Williams – don’t look at dudes’ crotches if you fear that what you might see could potentially cause you to become queer.

    Seriously, I know that a large percentage of American men seem to be unable not to look at the tops and bottoms of women within eyeshot and seem to have lost any sense of shame, decorum or the ability to be discrete, but dang!

    • petertrepan says:

      a large percentage of American men seem to be unable not to look at the tops and bottoms of women within eyeshot and seem to have lost any sense of shame, decorum or the ability to be discrete

      It’s not that we’ve lost those things. It’s just that mirrored sunglasses have gone out of style.

  35. I’d put this in line with George Costanza wearing velvet. I’m sure it’s comfortable and all that and feel free to wear it but just don’t get surprised if you get looks. What if you are walking down the street and you see an idol of yours that you’ve always wanted to meet. Are you really going to go up to them in pajamas? Wouldn’t you feel a goof? If not.. have at it. I prefer to be prepared for the apocalypse and inevitable zombie attack. Pajamas just say “eat me”. (wait.. that sounded wrong)

  36. Eddie Perkins says:

    I am so sick of lazy people who can’t be bothered to put on an actual pair of pants wearing their PJ’s in public. However, I would never ever support a law against it. 

  37. Manny says:

    When I read things like this, I can’t figure out how they intend to define “pajama” (or “underpants”, or “bra”, or “saggy” or whatever) in a way that will both hold up in court and exclude things that they don’t really want to ban.

  38. orwell says:

    i see much more offense displays on the beach…  i’d love it if the over 50 years old, over 300 pound types would wear pajamas!  anythings better than being forced to witness their lifetime of bad decisions, but oh well…  one man’s trash…

  39. petertrepan says:

    Everyone who pushes back the frontiers of normalcy in a harmless way makes me feel a little freer to be unselfconsciously odd. So I guess I’m pro-pajamas.

  40. I in no way favor a law banning PJs in public, but I would like to see more places refuse to serve people in PJs.

    As adults who dress ourselves, going out in pajamas is beneath us.  Frankly, it makes me sad for humanity that there is any sort of debate over this.  It has nothing to do with Michael Williams’ crotch issue, either. I just think we owe to ourselves and to the people around us to not be in a perpetual state of “just got out of bed”.

  41. Donald Petersen says:

    I’ve never been one to believe in a dress code.  Whatever keeps the germiest bits off the upholstery is enough for me.  Otherwise, the wearer’s comfort and sense of style (if any) trumps the offended sensibilities of passers-by, AFAIC.  This may surprise those who saw me look down my nose at someone who pees out a bus window, but the distinction is clear enough to me.  I don’t care how ugly or scrawny or misshapen or fat or graceless or underdressed or inappropriate you might look to everyone else.  Your actions count much more than your sartorial sense, and I’m aware that I’ll never win any beauty contests myself.  Go ahead and wear your jammies or your sweats, show off those muffin-tops and tramp stamps and mullets!  If you’re in line in front of me at the Wal-mart and you pay for your purchases promptly without making too much fuss and slowing everyone down, then you’re royalty as far as I’m concerned.

  42. artbyjcm says:

    I’m waiting for the underwear in public stage honestly. I’m not going to do it, and I know some terrifying people will do it. But it’ll be worth it to see all the pretty people. =D

    I feel so shallow right now. ._.

    • MetalPorkchop says:

      Been there, done that.  I used to wear underwear as hot pants about a decade and a half ago.  I’d get cat calls and stares, but I didn’t care, because I was young and lived by “Every Day Is Halloween”.  I still could, but won’t, because I’m older now, and some things are inappropriate, unless you’re an artist for a living.  Same goes for pjs, it’s ok for babies to wear them in public, but once you can walk, you should have enough self awareness to put on clothes.

  43. z7q2 says:

    You can’t wear pajamas to a courthouse? Why the hell not?

  44. Kelsey K says:

    I’m afraid I’m with Williams in his opinion here. While the behavior of wearing PJs in public should not be legislated, perhaps simply ridicule, public shaming is appropriate. Let’s have some decorum, some civility.

  45. Snig says:

    This strikes me as deeply anti-Jedi. 

  46. Godfree says:

    I don’t care if I see someone in their pajamas going shopping. I WOULD mind if they were “sagging” at the same time. *Shudders*

  47. Charlie B says:

    I live in a college town and the kids have been wearing PJs into stores and restaurants for at least a decade now.  I’ve never noticed any local politicos freaking out about it though.

  48. Barak Townsley says:

    are these ppl freaking nuts?   this is exactly why the country in in the s***hole it is today.  Don’t these freaking “legislators” have anything better to do than tell us what we can or cannot wear?  what’s next?  soon they’ll be telling us what color t-shirts to wear or what kind of jeans.  You would think that the louisiana government would have more important things to deal with, like, say, new orleans where there are still thousands of people living in sub-standard housing because of hurricane katrina.  Who voted for these a**holes?  this is exactly what is wrong with this country!!!!!!!!

    • Daniel Smith says:

      Who voted for these a**holes?  this is exactly what is wrong with this country!!!!!!!!

      I think there may be one or two larger problems than prudish, intolerant parish councilmen getting elected in this country. The deliberately evil f**kers that have all the money and buy politicians wholesale come to mind…..

  49. Daemonworks says:

    “If you can’t [wear them to the] courthouse, why are you going to do it in a restaurant or in public?”

    I’m pretty sure you actually can. Might be a bad idea if you’re the person on trial though.

    That said, I’ve seen some pajamas that would be entirely acceptable in public. Not just track suits (really, they’re pretty much just fleece pajamas…), but higher-end silk or satin ones that most people would think were just loose-fitting comfortable clothing.

  50. anharmyenone says:

    “He said, ‘good manners are just a way of showing other people we have respect for them.’ See, I didn’t know that, I thought it was just a way of acting all superior.”  -Troy in “Blast From the Past”

  51. benher says:

    Why not just ban Wal Mart?

  52. scav says:

    Well he can’t ban short-sleeved pyjamas, because under the 2nd amendment you guys have the right to bare arms.

  53. Mitch_M says:

    If someone who doesn’t want to see my wiener can see my wiener wouldn’t that be indecent exposure? Where is the need for a government mandated dress code when we already have don’t-let-anyone-see-your-wiener laws?

    I’ve never heard much uproar about being able to see the outline of women’s breasts through their clothing.

    I don’t like the look of fellers wearing britches with the belt around mid-thigh but it’s not my place as a member of a free society to dictate other people’s fashion choices.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I don’t like the look of fellers wearing britches with the belt around mid-thigh…

      It’s only the universe trying to balance out the men who wear their pants belted just below their nipples.

  54. Gordon JC Pearce says:

    I think the real wtf there is, who lets their five-year-old wander around without a shirt on?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      It’s hot in the US in summer. It’s quite normal for males to wander around shirtless.

    • Donald Petersen says:

      Hell, it’s pushing 80 degrees F today, the dead of winter in Burbank, CA.  When I was growing up in San Diego in the 70s and 80s, you’d probably be appalled at how many people wore shorts and flip flops to the Old Globe Theatre to see Measure for Measure. Cultural norms vary, y’know.

  55. OtherMichael says:

    Pajamas? Poseurs.

    I wear my nightshirt 24-7.

    Haven’t yet gotten a sleeping-cap though. Guess I’m just not hard-core enough.

  56. Warren says:

    You know what? I’m actually for this. I don’t think it’s inappropriate for a society to ask that its adult population dress and behave as adults.

    At the very least, stores could institute a ‘proper outdoor dress’ code akin to the ‘no shoes, no shirt, no service’ code. The ‘if you want us to treat you like a grown-up, start acting like one’ code.

    While we’re at it, I’d like to see a ban on plumber’s crack too.

Leave a Reply