Dee, I agree with you as I did earlier, but I do not think it would be all that difficult to enforce ordinances that would require people to dress in a descent manner. Limiting it to showing areas of ones self that are better left to the imagination without having to get to technical and going to the extent of the shirts tucked in. Also covering the underwear thing so that we do not all have to be subject to someone elses choice of thong, which I think, is worse than the boxer thing.
What bothers me is that we take this and other things as infringing on others rights when we try to regulate it, but what and whos rights do they infringe on when we don't regulate it - except the majorities. And if you do not regulate it, then how far does it go and when do we quit looking at everything as freedom of expression? Where do the indecent exposure laws come in and how much does the rest of society have to put up with to allow a few supposed rights?
When we allow the rights of a few to overrule the rights of the majority, that is when we are taking the constitution out of it's context. Things like this, just as Lawler said, were not things the Founding Fathers anticipated having to govern. Their concerns were much more heavy than the trivial concerns of today, that we are creating to be something bigger than they are. There are so many things in this world that deserve our attention than things like this - it should be a no brainer that someones individual rights do not trump those of the majority.