Supreme Court Obscenity Definition
1) A thing must be prurient in nature
2) A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value
3) A thing must violate the local community standards
If it meets all three of these things, it is obscenity.
Yes, “yoga pants” are, by the definition of “obscenity” provided by the U.S. supreme court, “obscenity,” for “yoga paints” facilitate erotic arrousal,
do not contribute anything significant to substantive “scientific, political, educational, or social” (United States) discourse and, as indicated in the opinion of the politician mentioned by the OP, constitute a “violat[ion] [of] the local community standards” (United States) of the U.S. subunit of “Michigan.”
Nice work with the creative interpretation!
"completely devoid of..." = "
do not contribute anything significant"
Ignoring the obvious fact that it's a fashion trend, and widely available in shops that only sell mass-produced stuff from China, which therefore fits under both "social value" and meeting "community standards".
I wonder if this is supposed to somehow derail.... Is that politician an Arab by any chance?? He likes his wives all covered-up, does he? What is he doing in Montana?