Did you hear the latest. A commissioner in Louisiana is fed up with people wearing PJ bottoms out in public. He is drafting legislation to make it illegal to wear PJs in public. He was quoted that the young men's private parts were about to hang out since they were not wearing underwear. Big controversy. Wonder how us nude sleepers would be treated is we wore our "bed clothes" out in public.
The shame of this news, providing it is true, is that there are a host of lawmakers, and citizens, that will support such nonsense since we live in a decidedly marshmallow society (what? Sue because coffee is hot? Duh.). This site is a forum for freeballers. There's probably a much larger population of politicians and lawmakers who are ball-less.
that is quite sad, although, the young men did not do anything wrong or illegal. I do find it humorous though that the man filing the incident said "I saw a group of young men wearing pajama pants and house shoes. At the part where there should have been underwear, his private parts were showing through the fabric".
in my opinion he was showing just as much and yet as little as us fbers here on the board would show (and prob do on a regular basis). and even though he was male he seemed to have forgotten that males DO INDEED have a penis and balls. what an interesting notion................... (I hope u can sense my scarcasm there haha)
it could also be the preposterous idea that 99% of the world(or more so the prudish over censored USA) thinks that people must wear some type of underwear, most likely briefs, 24/7. and if you dont and make it obvious you dont are looked down upon by modern society..............
(or even the idea to go without undies is an option) its good to know that some of us, like the people on this forum (and the young guys in the article), truly do know how insanely comfortable and healthy it is to FREEBALL...........
From Freeballing Nate Who insanely
loves the freedom and comfort of freeballing in LOOSE track pants!!!!!!!!!!
This message has been edited by relover89 from IP address 18.104.22.168 on Jan 19, 2012 8:43 PM This message has been edited by relover89 from IP address 22.214.171.124 on Jan 19, 2012 2:00 AM
That law would have problems surviving a constitutional challenge. Many courts, including the SCOTUS, have held that clothing choice is a freedom of expression issue, and without some substantial, legitimate public safety concern, getting a law through that bans a specific kind of clothing (esp one that is only vaguely described) will be tough to do (but, then, politicans have never been accused of being the brightest bunch of people on the planet). If a penis is visible, I'm not sure why an existing law against public indecency couldn't be used.
I've seen guys in public wearing a class of clothing called "loungewear", which, basically, are pajamas. If you look in the loungewear section of the department store, you find all types of underwear and sleepwear. Loungewear was meant to be worn in a lounge, in public, mind you, though, perhaps, in a living room or dormitory, in mixed company. The types of clothing consist of both long and short types of clothing, some very sheer and transparent and most quite baggy. Form-fitting and tight clothing in this section are considered underwear, not loungewear. Underwear, by definition, is meant to be worn under another piece of clothing, whereas loungewear is not. So, more to the point, I have worn loungewear outside of the house, though never in a mall or at Home Depot or at Wal-Mart. I have worn the sheer, nearly transparent, but patterned, lounge shorts at Home Depot. The "problem" was that I didn't know they were see-through because I couldn't see through them when I looked at myself in the mirror (and no one told me they could see my dick). I later found out, quite by accident that the lounge shorts were a bit showy when I happened to see my reflection in just the right type of backlit situation. I determined not to wear these in public places but have no hesitation to wear this type of clothing outside around my house... see-through or not. This type of clothing is extremely comfortable. The young men in the article must have been wearing shorts, which are extremely baggy, many times very short, often with no button on the fly, can be semi-transparent in backlight, and, depending on your male attributes, may hide only a little. They are worn by men and, I've noted, by women. I would say that they're (this type of loungewear) not publicly appropriate. But, if you're young and adventurous and a bit brave, I can see where a group of guys can dare and double-dare each other to wear these in public. I'm an older guy... I'm not offended when guys have fun like this. But... legislation? I hope other lawmakers, should they get a change to vote, severely chastise the drafter of such legislation and both laugh him to scorn and suggest appropriate measures to censure his own maleness. I might also mention that gals wear this type of clothing without equal scrutiny and, I will note, without underwear. I've seen both with and without a fly which means they were wearing the guy's version. Gals don't generally have stuff flopping around down there and can get away with a lot more clothing risks. Again, I'm on the other half of the century in age and I say, it's all OK and all about fun and enjoyment of life. No person can please everyone and, just because one of the offendees is a politician (or some prudy old geezer), I say, "Get a life man, and do your job of helping society, not punching your own puny likes and dislikes. Don't waste my taxpayer dollars on parading your prejudices." Hey, just my opinion, and you are welcome to yours, so have at it.
A bit over-the-top for me... not attractive, nor interesting, in the least (to me). I don't imagine that even a non-str8t guy would be attracted, nor interested. My first reaction is, "Kinda dumb." But, not trying to be judgmental, he should have stayed home or looked in a mirror before venturing out. I'm concluding some mental challenges for this guy... which btw, he does not look like either gender (botched up grammar... o well). On the positive side, women's clothing sure feels comfortable, though I haven't worn any (yet). I've looked at the fabric of their (women's) underwear and thought to myself, "I'd consider wearing some of these transparent dainties if they would make them with a nice pouch for my guy parts.". But they don't. No matter, freeballing is mo' betta'.
Nate the Great, I'm with NakedBudd... I would much prefer to be naked than wear clothes. However, if I have to be clothed, I want to look good. Shirts are designed to be tucked or untucked. Know the cut of your clothes and wear them appropriately. I think that's all NakedBudd is saying.
In the men's section at a store, I found a pair of long-legged mesh Nike pants. They seemed to be my size so I tried them on. I was FB'ng at the time and the pants fit nicely... no baggy thighs, nice hugging butt, right length, etc. The only thing was that the crotch seam was a smidgin' high so my package didn't quite hang loosely but instead had to find its head space on the left of the seam. I liked the pants and bought it. Later, upon closer examination, it was a woman's pant. It's still one of my favs, but now I know that some styles of women's clothes work well for a man (without frilly patterns and designs). Lately, I've found that Walmart has long legged active pants for men that are nearly perfect for me... though I have to wear two sizes smaller to get the butt area to be tighter - no loose and baggy excess material. The crotch is a bit tighter and my shaft and dickhead still must find freedom a bit to the left of the seam. In general, this is nearly perfect... enough show, super comfortable, pockets for the wallet and keys, hangin' proud and smart enough for any public place. Gteat for mild cool climates and perfect for relaxing lounge or an "over thing" when wearing shorts and the temp dives. Best for me that they wash and dry super well so I can keep clean clothes for FB'ng pleasure. For outside work, I like the same but prefer non-knicking, dust-resistant material but that provides similar FB'ng freedom and pleasure. As you can tell, clothing is important to me too, like others who have posted. But no, I don't hold to the value that T's need to be tucked, nor polos, nor overshirts....
I was one of the persons that they were talking about - I had long hair thru college and for many years after. It was in the middle 70's that I cut my hair short, and hasbeen that way ever since. It's getting a little thin on top, and grey, but haven't shaved to head yet.
My son, who never wore pajamas after, oh, probably starting school, had a typical little boy sugar bowl haircut into high school, then went to a buzz cut, as they were called then (I think). He wore it that way all the way through the army of course but after he got out, he let it grow and it hasn't been cut since then. Then, the last time he was home, he was sporting a goatee. Now I'm wondering what he'll look like next time. It occurs to me that at the moment, I'm almost the only one in the family, at least of the menfolk, without a beard.
Also, no one at home wears pajamas. My daughter, who will be leaving home next August when she marries (to someone with a buzzcut--Air Force), never wore proper pajamas also since probably starting school but instead wears sweatpants and some sort of top. Not one for running around half-naked. My wife wears some form of nightgown and on weekends, wears nothing else often until after noon.
For some of the pants I wear, my dick and dickhead shows, not "through the fabric" but on the fabric. You only see the shape. It probably is not appropriate for my male parts to show through the fabric as that would be akin to a woman who wears a transparent top... enjoyable, but not acceptable yet. But, women can wear almost anything that enhances her sexuality... just can't overtly show nipples and the like. For men, the traditional notion is to squish the dick and balls into one small package that's held tightly between one's thighs where not even a bulge is detected. Indeed, even the board shorts of today have a rather heavy piece of fabric down the center where a zipper normally would be, presumably to keep the dick shape hidden behind and out of sight. But times may be changing for men, though slowly. Society is still trying to hide the dick shape, but some guys are wearing fashions that, though not overtly showing their dicks, at least allow a bulge or a dick shape to appear in the fabric. We wear thinner fabric clothes to make that happen and usually without the padded front, save for zippered pants. More to point though, if the guys were wearing pants that were see-through, it would not be appropriate (thus, white colors are modestly taboo, mostly). But, motive must be considered if it was a prank or a dare, in which case, it was more done in fun than as a casual fashion amendment, and it should be duly forgiven. It's what youth brings to the table sometimes... no harm, no foul. But, legislation? No way anyone should vote for it, nor should any legislator be re-elected that held that thought for more than a nano.