Lisa, right on. If this is the greatest problem they have in that parish, we all should be moving there.

America has lost it's good manners, etiquette, and sense of pride; the me first attitude has reduced America to a nation of classless boob's.

"Wal-Mart" came to my mind before I even read the article. Except the girl in the photo is not morbidly obese. Thankfully, there are many alternatives to Wal-Mart here.

Banning fat people appearing in spandex in public places would have been more just and easier to enforce.

@Saxon: Are you referring to the politicians, or the people who simply wear pajamas in public? If you are talking about the politicians, I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm always offended when I walk through walmart. Maybe the government should just ban walmarts and all our problems will go away. Of course, I'm always offended when politicians speak, so maybe we should ban them from public speaking.

Sexiest night club I ever went to was in Mobile AL. Every Wednesday was pajama night, couldn't get in unless you were in PJ's. Getting to and from the bar was awkward though.

Look, I'm not going anywhere in pj bottoms except maybe out on the porch to get the paper. Still, this is absolutely asinine. I don't like suits. Ban them. Bow ties? Retarded. Ban them. Those long-ass pointy shoes guys wear. Hate 'em. Women wearing anything other than a bathing suit or mini-skirt shouldn't be allowed out in public.

It's easy to see why people in this state are among the poorest and least educated. Good grief!

I'm amused at how many Americans, especially those of a conservative bent, are so overtly against the Middle East's laws regarding freedom of dress and expression, yet still manage to think it is warranted to create laws banning just that. In other words, if we are so disgusted by the sharia laws in other countries that define how one can dress, then why are we trying to implement the same thing here??

Our laws are meant to create a safe, fair society for everyone to live in, not to dictate our senses of decency. Granted, I do not think wearing PJ's in public is very classy, but as an American I would protect their right to wear them as they see fit!

With the way some people dress in society today....PJs aren't the only thing that should be outlawed in public.

The incident described by Cado Parish Commissioner Williams is already covered by existing law which has already stood consitutional testing. It is called "public indecency". Never mind that the "Two utes" were wearing what are commonly reffered to as "pajamas". The pajamas failed to cover from view their private parts. Style, decorum and class aside, if you cover your junk, you can be in public.

The young men could have been cited for public indecency, if what he claims was true. The legal litmus test here is not if it is “a garment sold in the sleepwear section of department stores". The test is "Can I see your private parts?".

Indecency??? There is another law that needs to be removed. Reason would be that Indecency is a complaint from the Muslims about non-muslim dress, and used as another reason to attack us and our freedoms. No person or Group should be able to dictate what people wear in public, Freedom of Expression.

No person or Group should be able to dictate what people wear in public, Freedom of Expression.

Money Truth: Are you saying that it can't dictate clothes at all? If they were their at the store naked, should that be legal? And if we can all agree that full nudity is not allowed, then the question is where do you draw the line. I say, that as long as I dont see you butts, boobs or balls, then it is legal (couldn't think of a word for woman's crotch starting with "B").

Pretty sad that officials have nothing else to do!

However, the bad taste of the citizens is also astonishing. Ah well, low class prevails.

If they exposed "private parts" then existing laws were violated. Too many laws. You can't ban bad taste. Get off it.

My first thought, after reading this..."MORONIC politicians"...seriously, there are people starving, homeless, etc. and all this moron has time to worry about and actually waste the taxpayers money has to do with what clothes someone is wearing? Give me a break.

The fashion police . . . literally.

I love the esteemed councilman's example of pj's being inappropriate for "the boardwalk or the courthouse." . . . . I mean, did he just get here from prohibition-era Atlantic City? I daresay, he is more than a little behind the times relative to his electorate.

That law maker is a creeper!

People that wear PJ's outside of their home are just plain lazy!! I would not consider hiring an individual whom I had observed wearing their PJ's outside of their home. To me it shows they have no respect for themselves or anyone else. People that work for me wear appropriate clothing that fits them appropriately. Sagging pants and clothing can become a Safety issue and cause serious harm or injury. Try running across a busy street wearing your pants half-way down your backside, in some places you become pot hole filler.

I'll admit that I can't stand seeing people in public in their jammies. The other day I saw a teen walking down the street in Hello Kitty slippers. Irritates the hell out of me.

But It's not my right nor anyone else's to infringe on their constitutional right to be a dork in public. Or maybe they have a reason to wear loose clothing. I wore a cast on my leg for months. It was skirts or sweat pants the entire time.

louisiana. im guessing republican? and furthermore, im guessing this imbecile loves to shout non-sense about small government every chance he gets.

Like anything else -- COMMON SENSE applies here. (That's the problem, politicians don't have any.)

Simple - If private parts are showing, it's illegal (same with low riding pants). If private parts are not showing, who cares? Even if you DO care, it's not your business what someone ELSE wears in public.

EXCEPTION: An employer and/or school has the right to determine how employees/students dress WHILE ON COMPANY TIME (or in school/at school events).

Personally, I think PJs are comfortable (the flannel or fleece pants) and I wear them on road trips a lot. I dare say someone in a convenience store has seen me during a pit stop. Do I wear them in public otherwise, no. Do they cover me up, yes. COMMON SENSE!

This guy is doing all this just cuz he saw a weener? If it bothers him that much then call the kid out, right in front of everyone. Embarass him enough and he'll probably remember to make sure his junk isn't visible. Maybe even stop dressing like a loser....talk about newsworthy....

and next we ban sweatpants... This would be funny IF it weren't Looseyana - they SERIOUS down theyah.

and SCRUBS - we need to ban scrubs, too

The incident described by Cado Parish Commissioner Williams is already covered by existing law which has already stood consitutional testing. It is called "public indecency". Never mind that the "Two utes" were wearing what are commonly reffered to as "pajamas". The pajamas failed to cover from view their private parts. Style, decorum and class aside, if you cover your junk, you can be in public.

The young men could have been cited for public indecency, if what he claims was true. The legal litmus test here is not if it is “a garment sold in the sleepwear section of department stores". The test is "Can I see your private parts?".

While you are correct, I would like to point out that he said "probably with their private parts" Not that he actually was able to see them. My husband wears boxers under his PJs. Nothing is falling out. PJ's that cover everything, should not be banned. If they dont cover everything they should, and you wear them in public, then you could be cited for indecency.

I'm guessing this guy also believes gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pets and inanimate objects... it's basically the same logic: "If we allow this, think of all the other awful things that will happen"!

Move on to addressing more important things please...

I'm guessing this guy also believes gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pets and inanimate objects... it's basically the same logic: "If we allow this, think of all the other awful things that will happen"!

Move on to addressing more important things please...

PJs in public might be tacky, but there's nothing inherently indecent about them (in the case the commissioner cited, the offender could have been wearing any type of pants while exposing his privates). In fact, they're more modest that miniskirts, short shorts or low-rider jeans. If anything, they're just a sign we're getting more casual as a culture -- I'm old enough to remember when no self-respecting person would venture out in sweats except to work out...

The flannel type PJ's shown in the picture cover up a heck-of-a-lot more than some garments I can think of. I wouldn't wear them and I don't like the flannel look, but I've seen weirder fashions. This guy needs to get a life and worry about something meaningful.

Better keep your children away from that official. Sounds like he was walking around checking children's crotches - looking for what exactly?

Sounds like a pervert to me.

He must be one of the few LA residents that's never been to Venice Beach or the Sunset Strip.

Dick-2100935

Sexiest night club I ever went to was in Mobile AL. Every Wednesday was pajama night, couldn't get in unless you were in PJ's. Getting to and from the bar was awkward though.

What's the name of that night club?

Apparently someone forgot to inform the official that he lives in the United States of American and not the Soviet Union.

This does remind me of the the old Archie comic where the gang goes to the beach Veronica and Betty are wearing their bikinis. In the next to the last frame Betty thanks Veronica for letting her borrow one of her swimsuits, that she absolutely loves. In the final frame Veronica says "that's not a swimsuit, that's my underwear."

Of course, we still live in the land of schizophrenics. There's nothing more natural than the human body and people clamor to see as much as they can, but if they actually see a breast or a penis that they are exited to see, they feel the need to turn around and feign disgust. Go figure.

Although I would never wear PJ's in public, I support the right of people to wear what they want, as long as it hides the bits people really don't want to see. Isn't this a case of big government (at the state level) telling us what we are morally obliged to do? I thought the right thinks that people are smart enough to make their own choices without government interference. Oh, wait, that's just the lie they tell the under educated members of their base to get their vote.

Wake up and smell big brother's armpit around your neck! Who, historically, has grown government over the last 60 years? You get one guess, and if you guess democrats, you are absolutely wrong.

Santorum want's you to have that baby that you got when your brother raped you. Now if that's not government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, I don't know what is.

So rock on, young people with very questionable but constitutionally protected taste. Wear those PJ's in public. If people laugh at you, that's their right, but the government has no business telling you that you don't have the right to be laughed at.

It all boils down to "CLASS" you either have it or you don't......................

I'm not going to wear PJ's in public, but who really cares. As soon as they get the oil industry up and running again in LA., maybe their employers won't let them wear their PJ's on the drill rigs, refineries etc. <g>

IndianaPatriot, right on! Those are my thoughts exactly. I would never, ever be seen in public in pajamas. And I don't particularly care to see anyone else in public in pajamas -- no class and tacky, tacky, tacky. But I also don't want to see laws banning people from doing this. The freedom of other people does not offend me so long as my own freedom is not affected. Many other things do offend me, beginning with the growing poverty rate. Let's worry about that.

No my pajama fridays! Thanks LA Lawmaker.

Lawmakers love to propose crap like this so they can avoid dealing with the real issues.

I live in Shreveport, and there ARE many, many more important problems to deal with! That's the conservative religious mindset here. Legislate morality whenever possible, but don't do anything to help people or solve problems. Even the Democrats act this way. You'd be shocked by how many people wear PJs in public here, but they aren't hurting anyone. Being offended now and then is part of living in a free society.

ME (#1.14) uhhh, beaver?

If they ban PJs in stores, then I hope that there is an exception made for women in satin PJs.

Anyone been to the beach lately? Well, considering it's winter....maybe not........but.......I have seen some pretty skimpy bikinis that are supposed to pass for swimwear. And then those same ladies wear their bikinis to the store! Disgusting! You can imagine how much trouble I have keeping my mind on shopping when those ladies are shopping there too. Truly terrible. Thank God I have survived (tongue in cheek).

By the way, what was this guy in the article doing looking at the other guy's pajama crotch?

I don't care how they cover it, but as long as it is covered, it should be legal.

I was at brunch this past weekend with a large group of friends for a b-day. We were all dressed nicely. Next to us was a small group of people who were all wearing pj's. As the afternoon went on and one to many mimosa's at that table, one of them thought it was a good idea to rip off this guys tear away pants that have the buttons on it. Needless to say, I'm sure you can figure out the rest of the story. Completely ridiculous. Let's face it, we are all surrounded by slobs!

Jenny, you are so tolerant! Is it because you are more enlightened than others? Or is it because you don't stand up for any thing other than, " If it feels good, do it!" Maybe when more folks are having sex on aisle 5 of your favorite supermarket you'll be heard saying, "Oh, I had no idea things could get so out of hand."

America has a moral problem. All the other issues are symptomatic. How un-Godly does America become before more of us say," Enough, God help us, please!!"

Apparently PJ bottoms are slacker sheik. I see under 25 yo males in them at Walmart all the time.

Herald, you're the one who is judgmental. And Jenny is certainly more enlightened than you.

You speak of God. But what would be your remarks if you saw someone wearing a robe and sandals as Jesus did? You'd probably pound in the first nail.

I agree Jenny. Really, how many people are we talking about here? I live in a big city and occassionally I'll see someone with jammy pants on. Big deal. This official is making a huge deal out of a very small percent this actually applies to.

Jenny, you are so tolerant! Is it because you are more enlightened than others? Or is it because you don't stand up for any thing other than, " If it feels good, do it!" Maybe when more folks are having sex on aisle 5 of your favorite supermarket you'll be heard saying, "Oh, I had no idea things could get so out of hand."

Let me guess, you're one of those types that believes in UFO's and Aliens abducting people and implanting devices in their heads too huh?

The fact that individuals can relate wearing pajamas in public to having sex in public is just ridiculous. How about worrying about yourself instead of others? Sad day when American's think their world is the only one that exists and that we should all abide by their rules. Learn some tolerance.

Herald9, I doubt god cares about PJs. Not when there are so many bigger problems in the world, i.e. ridiculous intolerance. You sound as bad as the extremist Muslims who insist women be covered from head to toe.

Ah! Louisiana - these are the same people who voted David Vitter back in office - I guess diapers are O.K

vitter the kinky congressman

C'mon, Tea Partiers and Libertarians! If you're looking for an example of government meddling in people's lives, here you go...

I'm not comfortable walking in public with a dose of "Mycoxafloppin". I am however comfortable with some fit young gal wearing them! They should only ban them for (insert stereotype here).

To all the "god" comments - bite my shiny metal ass. God has never been, nor should ever be, an argument for any laws or rules. I don't care, I never will, and I certainly will treat you with disdain should you attempt to use it.

As far as I'm concerned, much of the whole "indecency" thing is overplayed. It seems like he couldn't actually see the guy's crotch, just the outline of it (those flannel pants do tend to mold to the junk, if going commando). The way I see it, we have a good argument for covering the crotch/butt area. Mucus membranes are always hosts to different varieties of bacteria, and could easily be spread on the seats that are supposed to be for the public. That, to me, regards a public health benefit. Other than that, there is no leg to stand on, and it should be personal preference. Particularly over bible-beating moronitude.

Stop making stupid rules. If you don't like to see pajama pants, look away. No need to be judgemental and certainly no need to take a bite out of freedom.

Or are running out at 11:00 to pick up milk, or drop off a movie, etc.

I'm a professional, dress appropriately in professional settings, but if I need to pick up a set of screws to hang a wall-shelf on Saturday morning so my wife will stop nagging, then I damn well will run down to Home Depot in my t-shirt and sweat pants.

And those, as you call them, redneck losers have Constitutional Rights just like the rest of us and if you don't like those rights LEAVE!

Yeah, JayR, why so ignorantly judgemental?? If you don't want to wear pyjamas in public, don't. You don't have to make unwarranted assumptions about those that do.

I'm off work today.

My wife has to go into Boston to a training session and I will be wearing my PJ bottoms and a coat when I take her to the subway.

And there NOTHING you can do about it.

You don't like it don't look at me(you'll make us both happy that way)

Eng, there is a world of difference between sweatpants and pajama pants!

I'm with Louisiana on this one. I don't know if I would state my thoughts quite as vividly as JayR but it's been my observation that only certain groups wear pajama pants in public : women too fat to fit into normal street clothes; wannabes; people of both genders who appear to have given up on themselves and do not engage in even basic hygiene and grooming.

Yes, civilized society has rules. The better people govern themselves and their behavior the fewer the rules. Not exposing one's body in public is a rule. If one's clothing does not provide adequate cover, I call it public indecency.

Whenever the entertainment industry has a bash, there appears to be a contest among some of the women as to who can expose the most amount of skin. Those who have the courage to dance to their own music and dress for elegance not exposure are the most well, elegant and classy.

... it's been my observation that only certain groups wear pajama pants in public : women too fat to fit into normal street clothes...

jkatze - I hate to have to tell you this, but there are street clothes available to fit men and women of all sizes. If someone can't find street clothes that fit, then he or she is not going to be able to find pajamas that fit.

I live in a college town, and it is quite popular among the coeds to wear flannel pajama bottoms in place of jeans or pants. The difference is that everything else they wear, such as underwear, is exactly what they would wear if dressed a little more appropriately. In other words, they are not revealing anything that is not acceptable in public. The issue here is that the person in question did not have the good sense and courtesy to wear underwear and make certain that the public didn''t have to see his dirty, puny privates. He probably thinks he is a real stud. Even so, I've seen a lot worse in Walmart photos that circulate the Internet among e-mail buddies.

Eng, there is a world of difference between sweatpants and pajama pants!

What are those differences exactly (beyond the print, and maybe a button in front)? The image at the top of this screen would be indistinguishable from sweat pants if they were a solid color.

his dirty, puny privates

Hey, he could have a huge, clean dingus! He should still keep it covered, but no need to insult his manhood! :-)

You are as judgemental as the cited official.

Eng, there is a world of difference between sweatpants and pajama pants!

Really ... please educate us on the "world of difference". Frankly I don't see a whole lot of difference between fleece sweatpants and flannel or fleece pjs/

I frequently wear PJ pants out. Although my reason is a cross between comfort (abd surgery, weight gain from it and bloating can make regular pants very uncomfortable at itmes) and convenience. It's easy to jump out and take the nieces or nephews to school quickly if they miss the bus rather than have to take the extra time to find something "more respectable" and risk them being late for school, or a quick hop to the store. Other than the print, you would never know they were PJs. I am covered, and clean. Who are you to say I can't do this, or that I'm apparently a redneck for doing so? I hurt no one else when I do this, so quit being such a judgmental jerk.

howieCA - I'm basing "dirty, puny privates" comment on the images of Walmart customers that have circulated the Internet. Some of those are more disgusting than the guy in the pajamas could possibly have been. As for insulting his manhood, that was intentional as anyone who is inconsiderate enough to expose himself in public deserves. The poster who said that they should have called the cops and had him arrested for indecent exposure has the right idea.

Wasn't there a movie or song about "Bananas in Pajamas"? Dick Van Dyke maybe? Cause if I wore pajamas, I would be unjustly arrested for smuggling bananas.

I agree that people have the right to wear PJ's in public all they want. But Jay and myself also have the right to not respect those people and consider them tacky. I can't take anyone seriously who wears PJ''s past their driveway.

I wore pajamas when I was trying to assist with the flooding in Pakistan. But I found that my garden hose only reached to the end of my driveway. Strange coincidence S.-191173?

I dont care if its tacky, or you think I dont have class. I dont want to have class, and I dont give a @!$%# what others think about what I am wearing. I wear pjs because they are comfortable. In my house I wear a nightgown all day. The fabric from pants makes my stomach feel like its on fire. Pjs are the most comfortable for me. If you want to think Im tacky, because Im trying to not make my pain worse, then go ahead and do so. Why would I care?

USA isle four

I see this slacker sheik wear at Walmart and the grocery store.

John, it's spelled "Chic". "Sheik" is an "arab nobleman".

Its not the PJ's so much, but the fact that they have not been washed, ever, that really turns me off.

So true. . . So true Hanover Phist

I went to a business convention in Birmingham, AL. The hotel had a policy of free breakfast buffet. So before I went to breakfast, mind you this is Sunday, I took a shower and put on fresh jeans and a shirt and jacket blazer. When I entered the buffet dining area, there were women and men whom were unshowered, hair greasy dressed in dusty lint fluffed ridden pajamas. I quickly turned around and left the hotel for breakfast. During my entire stay there, I did not dare to enter the dining area again!

I think that the issue was that it was causing public nudity/obscenity.

"At the part where there should have been underwear," his private parts were showing through the fabric.

I'm sick of seeing this in public - it is violating to accidentally view inside that open panel of men's pajamas, and it has happened to me more than once. For heaven's sake! If people used their common sense we would not have "government intrusion." Freedom is for adults.

Amused, indecency is not "caused" by PJs. It's caused by not wearing underwear in public when your clothing does not fully conceal that region. Simple fix is to a) wear underwear, b) wear PJ's that cover your junk, or c) get arrested for indecency.

The incorrect option is to outlaw a type of clothing.

So this guy is worried about this yet, when one goes down the street people have to look at the underwear of young boys who do no know how to pull up their pants. If I had pictures of young boys in their underwear on my PC I would be labeled a pedifile. How about a law that makes people pull up their damn pants first. At least with this, they are covered up.

Amused, why was this local official even looking at the man's pajama open front?

brundo -

I call them "old people." Sound familiar? "Turn off that music. You call that music? In my day, music was all about making people happy and dancing. Now stop wriggling around like a couple of worms and get off my lawn, you whippersnappers!"

Or, "Leather jackets? In my day, we were lucky to have ANY jackets. Or clothes, for that matter. But we would cover ourselves head-to-toe in raw wool if need be."

Or, "Makeup? What are you, a street walker? No daughter of mine will be a trumped-up whore, no siree."

All these things, in the name of fashion. People complaining about seeing kids with pants around their knees. People complaining about getting a peek at somebody's underwear. People complaining about the type of music others listen to, or some other crap that is new. Know what? It only makes the kids want to do it more. They want to distinguish themselves. Or, some that are practical, do it for comfort and ease. And, human nature being human nature, it's only going to keep bouncing down the road. Sometimes the ball bounces left, sometimes right, but it keeps on rolling.

You should all be ashamed of your body, after all that is why god created clothing.

Well, God didn't create clothing. Humans created it so as to not freeze their a$$es off.

Just a little judgmental aren't you. It seems that you are the lowlife on this site.

Yes, I am judgemental, LOL!! Don't wear pajamas in public - you will be judged by the majority who feel that wearing pajamas in public is in such poor taste. It's obvious that anyone wearing pajamas in public is probably NOT on their way to work! -- unless - oh, nevermind!

And exactly what majority do you constitute? Honestly, when it comes to people like you, who are judgmental like you, and concern themselves with others business like you, that make people like me not care what you think. So go ahead, throw a temper tantrum, I'm gonna enjoy the way I lead my life whether you judge me or not.

Come on! You know what majority - those who DON'T wear pajamas in public! LOL. Of course you don't care!

So Im a lowlife because regular pants cause me more pain the pjs? I dont care if you judge me. Ill judge you right back, and you're really not the cream of the crop...

@howie, I just pray you're female...

Agreed, that is why our current laws against indecent exposure are sufficient without the need for MORE laws.

Wearing PJ's is not the same as leaving your junk out in the open. You can do that with slacks too after all.

I wouldn't be seen in Walmart whether there was a unit to view or not. I think Walmart is the bigger obscenity.

I live in north Louisana and the majority of people you see wearing pjs are young black women. I have never seen a young black man or white man wearing pjs. It causes no harm if that is the way they want to dress, I would'nt tho. If the man's junk was exposed then that is indecent exposure and against the law, but to pass yet one more law in Louisana that controls a persons individual rights is getting out of hand.

Which is why God invented www.peopleofwalmart.com

he is a closet peeper trying to curb his own temptations

my problem is how to conceal carry my gun in PJ's?

Simple. Button the fly, or wear underwear. Oh, what? Not THAT gun?

Fannypack

I was wondering the same thing... Does he have a problem with women going braless, wearing short skirts, or wearing tops that show cleavage or bare their midriffs? Either way, he's got issues...

Michael Williams is a Democrat.

That will be an individual company, hotel policy. For example in hotels people are not allowed to wear flip flops aka bathroom slippers in the dining areas. But we do not want Government intervention. If Walmart says no PJs, they can put a sign up because it is a private establishment.

Attitudes about acceptable dress change with the times. I'm old enough to remember when jeans were not considered "proper attire," when many restaurants required men to wear dress jackets, when ladies wore white gloves, and when you wouldn't think of going to church in anything but your best clothes. Do I long for those days to return? Hell, no! Private establishments have the right to require or prohibit any type of dress they choose... just as customers have the right not to patronize them. But government is on shaky ground whenever it tries to regulate clothes for reasons other than safety or sanitation. Even "decency" can be subjective, as some people consider commonplace bikinis to be objectionable even at the beach.

How is wearing PJs immoral? If a store said no PJs I would NEVER go to their establishment again. There is nothing inherently wrong with PJs. You cant see through the ones I wear. Considering I wear them because of medical issues, Im not going to cause myself more unneeded pain just to keep you happy. If you dont like seeing PJs, then dont look. If you cant handle not looking, then dont leave your house. Granted, most people wearing PJs in public dont have the same issues as me, BUT you dont know who those people are. You dont know which person is doing it for what reason. So, once again, you dont like it, dont look

You and me both, Becca. I have a paralyzed stomach, which in itself can cause pain after eating anything. But I had a stimulator placed in my and to help with the pain and nausea. The site is right above the waistband for regular pants. I can be MUCH more comfortable in PJs than in regular pants. Maybe if more people were subjected to something like that, they would be far less judgmental.

100% agree man. Showers in gym glass must have been a crippling fear in that guy's life.

Probably why Rush was so damn fat too, no sweat no shower ehh Rush?

Why do you continue harping on this single point? It's starting to sound like YOU are the one having a problem here...

And he shouldn't?

I mean the guy saw a bulge in a man's pants and now wants to take away every single person's freedom to wear a style of pants because he was able to see a bulge in the said pants.

TBH, yes, I have a problem with extreme irrational levels of homophobia.

Sounds like the guy who was like "naw i'm not gonna take a shower in gym glass, that's sooooo gay omygosh."