SO SO Modesty: TSA agent shames 15yo

[nmoira]

With all the talk about modesty around here lately, this caught my attention.

 

LAX TSA officer shames my 15-year-old daughter for her outfit

 

Excerpt:

Here's what happened, as my daughter described it in text messages to us: she was at the station where the TSA checks IDs. She said the officer was "glaring" at her and mumbling. She said, "Excuse me?" and he said, "You're only 15, COVER YOURSELF!" in a hostile tone. She said she was shaken up by his abusive manner.

 

I'm including the above photo of the outfit my daughter was wearing when the TSA officer shamed her. It doesn't matter what she was wearing, though, because it's none of his business to tell girls what they should or should not wear. His creepy thoughts are his own problem, and he shouldn't use his position of authority as an excuse to humiliate a girl and blame her for his sick attitude.

 

Yay, Dad!

 

 

On what planet is his behavior appropriate? His problem. Not hers.

 

As Mary Elizabeth Williams on Salon points out:

 

An adult scolding a teenager for her clothing may not seem like a big deal. But when viewed in the context of that constant noise that girls are subjected to — the judging and the putdowns and the entirely inappropriate sexualization — yeah, it’s very much a big deal. It’s part of the culture of aggression against girls and it’s not OK. Frauenfelder tweeted Sunday, “It really shook her up to have that sicko in a TSA uniform get angry at her because he has a problem.†And as Babes in Toyland bass player and Project Noise executive director Maureen Herman wrote on the A Is For… blog, “Things like this need to matter, because they inject shame (or try to) in a young woman who is just living her life.â€

[La Condessa]

So a grown man objects to a young teenage girl showing off cleavage and midriff, and that makes him a "sicko"? While I would certainly agree that he was out of line to speak to her that way (this would have been her parents' job to correct, and hopefully more gently than that), it is ridiculous to call this man a sicko. Let's just be honest now--clothing styles that are designed to reveal cleavage and midriff do so specifically to attract men's attention. It's not like smaller, tighter fashions are actually more comfortable for the woman wearing them!

 

So when a young girl who is developing an adult woman's body wears clothing that is intentionally designed to attract men's attention and arouse their interest, the man who objects aloud (instead of just averting his eyes and trying to think about something else, like all the other good, non-"sicko" men present) is branded as a pedophile?

[*Lulu*]

Compared to a lot of clothing out there, that outfit seems pretty covering. I would not be surprised to hear that this man has said similiar things to other girls.

 

I would be interested to see if TSA takes this any farther than parental soothing.

[Laura Corin]

Let's just be honest now--clothing styles that are designed to reveal cleavage and midriff do so specifically to attract men's attention.

 

 

 

When I used to wear clothing that exposed my cleavage, I did so because I think the curve of my breasts is pretty, just as I like my small feet and long fingers. I felt good wearing clothes that showed off my best points. I've been happily married for over twenty years and have no interest in attracting other men.

 

You see the outfit as vampy; the girl may just think it's fun and fashionable.

 

L

[nmoira]

So a grown man objects to a young teenage girl showing off cleavage and midriff, and that makes him a "sicko"? While I would certainly agree that he was out of line to speak to her that way (this would have been her parents' job to correct, and hopefully more gently than that), it is ridiculous to call this man a sicko. Let's just be honest now--clothing styles that are designed to reveal cleavage and midriff do so specifically to attract men's attention. It's not like smaller, tighter fashions are actually more comfortable for the woman wearing them!

 

So when a young girl who is developing an adult woman's body wears clothing that is intentionally designed to attract men's attention and arouse their interest, the man who objects aloud (instead of just averting his eyes and trying to think about something else, like all the other good, non-"sicko" men present) is branded as a pedophile?

 

 

Sicko. Yes. Who said pedophile? It's his job to deal with the public, and he, in a professional capacity saw fit to comment on her appearance... and in Los Angeles of all places! It's the assumption that he (or anyone) has the right to comment that's most objectionable to me. If I object to culturally dictated head coverings as oppressive, do I have the right to comment? Ummm, no.

[chiguirre]

So when a young girl who is developing an adult woman's body wears clothing that is intentionally designed to attract men's attention and arouse their interest, the man who objects aloud (instead of just averting his eyes and trying to think about something else, like all the other good, non-"sicko" men present) is branded as a pedophile?

 

 

No, not a pedophile, but definitely as someone who's a fry short of a Happy Meal. Someone in a public service occupation has no business making anything but a general friendly comment to the people he's screening. If this guy pulled this crap as a McD's cashier he'd probably be let go. The TSA should not allow screeners, who do hold some power over the public because they can make you miss your plane or get you removed, to intimidate passengers. Period. For any reason except airline safety.

 

Plus a camisole under an oversized shirt isn't immodest in my little world, it's sensible airline attire, especially on a long or overnight flight.

[La Condessa]

And I wanted to comment on the other argument that Mary Elizabeth Williams makes (sorry I can't quote, my computer is acting up)--when she argues that the 'cover up' incident fuels the attitude that justifies rape with "she was asking for it". There is a vast ocean of difference between a man objecting to a girl dressing in a manner to garner sexual attention and a predator abjuring responsibility for his evil actions. Nothing ever mitigates rape. Nothing. But that extreme argument does not alter the fact that certain styles of clothing are designed to draw attention to certain parts of the body. I do not believe it is honest to intentionally choose those styles and then express outrage when they attract exactly the attention they are designed to do.

[*Lulu*]

1st- This guy is at LAX. LAX. Show of hands, who thinks this outfit is skimpy by LA standards?

 

2nd- If that was my daughter, sicko would be one of the nicer public names I would be using.

 

3rd- No one is calling the TSA agent a pediphile; we cannot possibly know that from this interaction. What we can know is he is an ill mannered idiot who will most assuredly end up unemployed if he doesn't learn a little self control in the mouth department.

[La Condessa]

Sicko. Yes. Who said pedophile? It's his job to deal with the public, and he, in a professional capacity saw fit to comment on her appearance... and in Los Angeles of all places! It's the assumption that he (or anyone) has the right to comment that's most objectionable to me. If I object to culturally dictated head coverings as oppressive, do I have the right to comment? Ummm, no.

 

Yeah I was thinking sicko or dumb @$$. I've traveled quite a bit and gee when you look at all the other travelers they come in all shapes, sizes, colors, clothing, etc. How on earth would one even notice anything like that after awhile?

 

No, not a pedophile, but definitely as someone who's a fry short of a Happy Meal. Someone in a public service occupation has no business making anything but a general friendly comment to the people he's screening. If this guy pulled this crap as a McD's cashier he'd probably be let go. The TSA should not allow screeners, who do hold some power over the public because they can make you miss your plane or get you removed, to intimidate passengers. Period. For any reason except airline safety.

Plus a camisole under an oversized shirt isn't immodest in my little world, it's sensible airline attire, especially on a long or overnight flight.

 

 

Excuse me then, if I misunderstood. I took the meaning of the use of 'sicko' and calling him a creepy guy who was blaming the girl for his 'sick thoughts' in the original article as indirect accusations that the man had pedophiliac tendencies, and that this was the source of his response.

 

I certainly agree with you that he was out of line to speak to the girl as he did.

[albeto]

So a grown man objects to a young teenage girl showing off cleavage and midriff, and that makes him a "sicko"?

 

Kinda, yeah. He can object to it all he wants. We all object to things all day long. We also agree with things all day long. It's not socially appropriate for a man to accost a young woman he doesn't know and berate her for what she's wearing. If this had happened over what she ate instead, we would likely agree he has some screws loose to think it's okay to approach strangers and attempt to correct them according to his tastes.

 

While I would certainly agree that he was out of line to speak to her that way

 

It wasn't only out of line, it was unprofessional. As a representative of the TSA, his "out of line" behavior carries greater consequenoces than for one acting alone. As a representative, he should have heeded his training to suppress personal opinions and maintain a professional attitude.

 

(this would have been her parents' job to correct, and hopefully more gently than that),

 

What is "wrong" with her outfit that needs "correction"? In what way is it erroneous with regards to appropriate dress in the LAX airport?

 

it is ridiculous to call this man a sicko. Let's just be honest now--clothing styles that are designed to reveal cleavage and midriff do so specifically to attract men's attention. It's not like smaller, tighter fashions are actually more comfortable for the woman wearing them!

 

I thin think those are leggings, a simple cami, and a flannel shirt. I imagine they were designed to be comfortable secondarily to pajamas. Are you suggesting the young woman dressed like this to attract men's attention? What if she put those clothes on because the weather was warm, but not too warm, and these were comfortable clothes? I'm at a loss as to how these are "attractive" clothing. In the greater Los Angeles area, these clothes are perfectly ordinary.

 

So when a young girl who is developing an adult woman's body wears clothing that is intentionally designed to attract men's attention and arouse their interest, the man who objects aloud (instead of just averting his eyes and trying to think about something else, like all the other good, non-"sicko" men present) is branded as a pedophile?

 

 

I think you're inferring intent to those clothes and her choice to wear them without valid reason. These may be your reasons to wear something that reveals your chest lower than your collar bone, but in no way is this a universal intent when opting for clothes out of the dresser drawer and closet.

[unfrumpable.]

She looks pretty covered up to me already. Who does he think he is? He has no right to say anything like that.

[Amber in SJ]

I know there will be tomatoes thrown, but as the mom of two teenage girls and one pre-teen girl I say all the time; "Leggings are not pants." I also tell my girls you may be dressing to attract that cute high school boy but you are also attracting the attention of every man, even the ones you think are gross or sick for noticing. People can cry "that is what is available..." all they want but that is not true. Everyone has the right to represent themselves how ever they want with their clothing choices. They should be aware that their clothes may be saying something about them that isn't true.

 

Amber in SJ

[WTMCassandra]

One get also get comments if one wears "too much". A friend of mine is a retired Orthodox Jew (black hat), and he was asked if he was hiding weapons to kill Palestinians under his coat by an airport security person in this country. Even though he just... went through a metal detector? "Political correctness" is not in the local dictionary yet :(.

 

 

Yes, this happened to us yesterday in San Diego. My daughter was wearing bloomers under a long skirt and was patted down because she appeared "too bulky." (She didn't.) This was, of course, in addition to the usual discrimination against Type 1 diabetics to have to handle their insulin pumps and then get their hands wiped to check for bomb residue. AND in addition to going through one of the new whole-body scanners that show the agents everything and feels way more invasive than the old-style scanners. Sick of the whole TSA mess.

[albeto]

And I wanted to comment on the other argument that Mary Elizabeth Williams makes (sorry I can't quote, my computer is acting up)--when she argues that the 'cover up' incident fuels the attitude that justifies rape with "she was asking for it". There is a vast ocean of difference between a man objecting to a girl dressing in a manner to garner sexual attention and a predator abjuring responsibility for his evil actions. Nothing ever mitigates rape. Nothing. But that extreme argument does not alter the fact that certain styles of clothing are designed to draw attention to certain parts of the body. I do not believe it is honest to intentionally choose those styles and then express outrage when they attract exactly the attention they are designed to do.

 

 

I know it looks like I'm picking on you, but I'm not trying, honest.

 

I am curious, though, if nothing ever mitigates rape, then what's the problem with wearing clothing that draws attention to one's body?

[swellmomma]

I would be ticked if he had spoekn to my dd like that. The girl already is covered up, she is wearing a shirt over top of the cami, it is a cover up. It's not like she is standing there in pasties and a mini skirt so short her arse is haning out in front of small children. She is dressed completely appropriately imo. The TSA agent behaved in a very poor manner given his position. If some little bitty made a comment we would blow it off as rude and a bit crazy and move on because it was just some stranger. THis is a person with a role of authority, over stepping bounds and being an arse. He may not be a sicko in the sense of perverted, but he certainly not right enough in the head to be working in that capacity imo Just another jack a$$ on a power trip to me

[FaithManor]

No, not a pedophile, but definitely as someone who's a fry short of a Happy Meal. Someone in a public service occupation has no business making anything but a general friendly comment to the people he's screening. If this guy pulled this crap as a McD's cashier he'd probably be let go. The TSA should not allow screeners, who do hold some power over the public because they can make you miss your plane or get you removed, to intimidate passengers. Period. For any reason except airline safety.

 

Plus a camisole under an oversized shirt isn't immodest in my little world, it's sensible airline attire, especially on a long or overnight flight.

 

 

And that's the whole deal here, it.is.not.his.place.to.say.a.darn.thing. Whether or not he is actually a creep, he comes across as creepy to the girl because he's a security officer in uniform. He has some power, he can keep her from flying. That's scary and especially for a teenage girl without a lot of experience dealing with this kind of thing and possibly unaware of her rights.

 

He needs to button his mouth. If I were the dad, knowing that young people can be SOOO easily intimidated, I'd push this as hard as I can. The TSA should be very aware of the fact that he's not professional and that's a problem.

 

As for sicko, pedophile, etc., I not only don't know the man, but wouldn't take a single incident of an inappropriate comment to assume he's a criminal waiting for a victim. But, I will say this, if the guy is supposed to be a first line of security for the nation against crime and terrorism, and he's supposed to be paying attention to the behavior of ALL of the passengers he is near, and he's supposed to be keenly aware of the activities around him, and watching for suspicious items as well as facial expressions, gestures, etc. THEN WHY IS HE EVEN FOCUSED ON THE OUTFIT OF A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL???? This does not infuse me with any great and abiding trust that when this dude is on shift, he's paying attention to the stuff he's supposed to pay attention to. I mean GOOD GRIEF. Do your job and stop harassing people who are clearly no threat. Do the job you get paid for, not the one NO ONE hired you to do, ie...raising teens!

 

Faith

[nmoira]

And I wanted to comment on the other argument that Mary Elizabeth Williams makes (sorry I can't quote, my computer is acting up)--when she argues that the 'cover up' incident fuels the attitude that justifies rape with "she was asking for it". There is a vast ocean of difference between a man objecting to a girl dressing in a manner to garner sexual attention and a predator abjuring responsibility for his evil actions. Nothing ever mitigates rape. Nothing. But that extreme argument does not alter the fact that certain styles of clothing are designed to draw attention to certain parts of the body. I do not believe it is honest to intentionally choose those styles and then express outrage when they attract exactly the attention they are designed to do.

 

 

She's talking in the larger context of rape culture, something that IMHO you go on to legitimize.

 

As to the bolded, we're on completely different pages here... I just don't see what you're seeing. But even if I did, the assumption of any degree of ownership over another's sexuality (especially a teen who is just coming into their own in that respect) is disturbing. He was not giving her "attention," he was chastising her, and from a position of relative power. He had no right either as a TSA agent or a private citizen to attempt to shame her or exert control in any way. None.

[nmoira]

I would be interested to see if TSA takes this any farther than parental soothing.

 

Perhaps in this case, but only because of who her dad is. :(

[FaithManor]

Yes, this happened to us yesterday in San Diego. My daughter was wearing bloomers under a long skirt and was patted down because she appeared "too bulky." (She didn't.) This was, of course, in addition to the usual discrimination against Type 1 diabetics to have to handle their insulin pumps and then get their hands wiped to check for bomb residue. AND in addition to going through one of the new whole-body scanners that show the agents everything and feels way more invasive than the old-style scanners. Sick of the whole TSA mess.

 

 

I've already decided that the next time I fly, I'm wearing my rash guard over my bikini top and swim trunks. If you wear a skirt and it's even slightly full, you get flagged. If you wear baggy pants (many of mine are because I'm losing weight), you get flagged. If you wear a sweater or sweatshirt that isn't form fitting, you get flagged. Since I'd like to limit the amount of time that I get groped by strangers, I may as well make it easy on them and then put my complaints on you tube.

 

I don't feel any safer for the increased radiation from the backscatter scanners, nor the "random" grope downs from the TSA. Especially, when numbskulls spend time harassing teenage girls instead of keeping their eyes and ears open for real threats.

 

Dh says he's wearing a scuba suit! (I think he'll be too hot, LOL.)

 

Faith

[SarahW]

"Leggings are not pants."

 

LOL, yes.

 

That's what I noticed in the picture, her pants. Not sure if that's what the TSA agent was referring to, though. But those pants that are sooo tight on the butt are annoying. I mean, it's nice that the butt is covered in cloth and all, but I really don't care to see people's cracks articulated so clearly.

 

My DH doesn't like them either. When he saw them at first he would ask me "Is that girl over there wearing her pajamas?" "Um, no honey, those are pants." "Oh. Aren't they supposed to be worn under a skirt or something?" "Uh (trying to just ignore the sight of butt-age), dunno *shrug*"

 

When my DH was younger he was the type to go over and make wise-crack remarks to people, but he has fortunately figured out that being middle-aged means he really can't do that any more.

 

 

ETA: I'm also not sure if she's wearing a bra. Granted, at 15 it's a great conundrum between bra-less, the shelf-bra that comes in tanks, and a full bra. But making the wrong choice that morning doesn't give a random guy the right to make a rude remark about it.

[nmoira]

LOL, yes.

 

That's what I noticed in the picture, her pants. Not sure if that's what the TSA agent was referring to, though. But those pants that are sooo tight on the butt are annoying. I mean, it's nice that the butt is covered in cloth and all, but I really don't care to see people's cracks articulated so clearly.

 

My DH doesn't like them either. When he saw them at first he would ask me "Is that girl over there wearing her pajamas?" "Um, no honey, those are pants." "Oh. Aren't they supposed to be worn under a skirt or something?" "Uh (trying to just ignore the sight of butt-age), dunno *shrug*"

 

When my DH was younger he was the type to go over and make wise-crack remarks to people, but he has fortunately figured out that being middle-aged means he really can't do that any more.

 

 

I dunno, there's only about five years most people can wear those leggings before they have to shift to exercise pants with a "lift and separate" function. :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

1) he's working is not an outfit I would want my daughter to wear, but we do not know the girl's financial or living circumstances. We also know with the way that the TSA chooses whom to frisk, many are being advised to wear clothing that makes it obvious one is not carrying or hiding anything...aka, no loose clothing, sandals or flipflops, no layers, etc....this girl did this. Let's see, a tank and leggings with a shirt that can be put on and removed easily or being frisked in a manner that could be more shaming and even triggering to some people?ith with the public and should keep his comments to himself.

 

2) Granted that I

[La Condessa]

I marked my responses with ***, sorry, having trouble and couldn't bold or do color.

 

 

 

Kinda, yeah. He can object to it all he wants. We all object to things all day long. We also agree with things all day long. It's not socially appropriate for a man to accost a young woman he doesn't know and berate her for what she's wearing. If this had happened over what she ate instead, we would likely agree he has some screws loose to think it's okay to approach strangers and attempt to correct them according to his tastes.

 

 

 

It wasn't only out of line, it was unprofessional. As a representative of the TSA, his "out of line" behavior carries greater consequenoces than for one acting alone. As a representative, he should have heeded his training to suppress personal opinions and maintain a professional attitude.

 

 

***

Again, I can agree with you that his response was also unprofessional. He should not be allowed to speak that way to airline passengers in his position. It is the accusations of being a "sicko", "creepy", and of "sick thoughts" for his comments that I object to.

***

 

 

What is "wrong" with her outfit that needs "correction"? In what way is it erroneous with regards to appropriate dress in the LAX airport?

 

***

Excuse me for being unspecific-- I meant that it is the job of any minor girl's parents, and not some man working in an airport, to correct her on her dress if warranted. While I would not personally be comfortable with my daughter wearing a camisole in public that revealed midriff and some cleavage, I know that people's standards vary on this and I was not trying to comment on this specific outfit with that comment, but on whose responsibility it would be to correct a girl on her clothing.

***

 

 

I thin think those are leggings, a simple cami, and a flannel shirt. I imagine they were designed to be comfortable secondarily to pajamas. Are you suggesting the young woman dressed like this to attract men's attention? What if she put those clothes on because the weather was warm, but not too warm, and these were comfortable clothes? I'm at a loss as to how these are "attractive" clothing. In the greater Los Angeles area, these clothes are perfectly ordinary.

 

***

I am suggesting that the clothing designer who designed that camisole to just let tummy and cleavage peak out like that fully recognized that it was suggestive to do so. I think that many young girls do not fully realize how many of the cute styles they see on the rack at the clothing store are intended to pique men's interest in a sexual way. That girl most likely did not select her outfit that morning thinking to attract men's interest to those regions of her body, but nonetheless that is what it is designed to do.

Regardless, I think it is entirely inappropriate and out of proportion to accuse a man of "creepy" "sick thoughts" and to equate his attitude to that of rape-excusers because he objects to a young girl dressing in a suggestive way (unprofessional or no).

***

 

I think you're inferring intent to those clothes and her choice to wear them without valid reason. These may be your reasons to wear something that reveals your chest lower than your collar bone, but in no way is this a universal intent when opting for clothes out of the dresser drawer and closet.

 

[mommaduck]

2) Granted I would not want my dd wearing that, but we do not know her financial situation. Also, with the way that TSA chooses people to frisk, people are advised to wear clothing that shows they aren't possibly hiding anything...leggings, tanks, sandals. This girl accomplished that. That or being frisked in a humiliating manner or even triggering for some people.

[elegantlion]

I don't see jack crap wrong with the outfit. She's 15, hell I showed off my midriff more than that at 15. The flannel is long enough to cover her bum. Has that TSA guy ever been to Walmart? You see worse there. Flannel certainly does not give off the "come hither" vibe, unless you're a big fan of the grunge era. He needs to be reprimanded. It actually looks like a very comfortable outfit for flying.

[mommaduck]

My tablet goofed my posts

[elegantlion]

OMG are we going here again. Not every man who sees a belly button or cleavage is aroused by it. It's not designed solely to frustrate the young men of the community. Please, I'm raising a young man who can gaze upon the wonder of a young woman and not think lustful thoughts, yes we talk about a lot. As someone stated on this board some time ago in regards to raising boys, "I am not raising a groin". My son is much more than hormones and it's insulting to insinuate that somehow men can't help it.

 

_ I changed my font to Comic Sans, because much like the font, this argument that men are solely hormonal nitwits who can't function at the site of a midriff is getting very worn and old.

[LucyStoner]

 

So when a young girl who is developing an adult woman's body wears clothing that is intentionally designed to attract men's attention and arouse their interest, the man who objects aloud...

 

 

Leggings and tank tops are designed for many things. I, for one have never worn either with intent to attract men. My gym clothes are not my first thought when seeking to vamp it up.

 

Girl dresses for comfy travel and is told by a perfect stranger her body or clothes are something of which she should be ashamed. Not ok. Dude needs a filter and an attitude adjustment.

[FaithManor]

Thank you Elegantlion! I am not raising groins either.

 

Sheesh.

 

Anyway, the ding dong opened his mouth and what came out indicated that he does not have the brains and discernment that one should have for being in charge of the nation's security at an airport. Pay attention to the environment nitwit. A terrorist may walking right past you while you are berating a teen you have no business even addressing in such manner.

 

That's the bottom line.

 

Faith

[HRAAB]

When I was a teen, I wore those hip hugger, bell bottom type pants with big wide legs and tank tops with narrow straps, or shorts and halter tops. I had some really cute halter dresses. There was midriff showing, yeah. Didn't have much cleavage at that age. I attended Catholic schools and most of the parents were conservative, and their daughters dressed like I did. No one seemed to have a problem with us. I don't even remember the word modest except in regards to people who would show off their wealth in an ostentatious manner.

 

When did the meaning of the word modest change to mean women covering most of their skin?

 

eta: can't spell anymore

[albeto]

I marked my responses with ***, sorry, having trouble and couldn't bold or do color.

 

Ah, thanks for the clarifications. :)

 

In response to your comment,

 

I am suggesting that the clothing designer who designed that camisole to just let tummy and cleavage peak out like that fully recognized that it was suggestive to do so. I think that many young girls do not fully realize how many of the cute styles they see on the rack at the clothing store are intended to pique men's interest in a sexual way. That girl most likely did not select her outfit that morning thinking to attract men's interest to those regions of her body, but nonetheless that is what it is designed to do.

 

Would you make that same argument with regards to women wearing pants, or a dress that shows ankles, or knees, or bare shoulders? These are all fashion choices that at one time were considered scandalous for the very same reasons, but are not considered so today. Would you consider the clothes you chose to wear today to have been designed to pique a man, any man's interest?

[Xuzi]

Geez-louise, when I read the guys comments and scrolled down to see the picture I was expecting to see a girl wearing daisy-duke shorts (the kind that barely cover the "daisy"), and a string bikini top, or some such similar "barely covering" outfit. I'd have no problem letting my DD wear such an outfit assuming the shirt covered the butt in the back (I'm another one of those "leggings aren't pants" people who thinks they should only be worn under dresses, or at the very least a bum-covering tunic)

[Excelsior! Academy]

We are pretty modest by today's standards. It is not likely one of my daughters would ever choose that as an outfit or anything anywhere close to it, but none of us would even look twice if we saw someone wearing something like that. In an airport. In LA.

[Wheres Toto]

Kinda, yeah. He can object to it all he wants. We all object to things all day long. We also agree with things all day long. It's not socially appropriate for a man to accost a young woman he doesn't know and berate her for what she's wearing. If this had happened over what she ate instead, we would likely agree he has some screws loose to think it's okay to approach strangers and attempt to correct them according to his tastes.

 

It wasn't only out of line, it was unprofessional. As a representative of the TSA, his "out of line" behavior carries greater consequenoces than for one acting alone. As a representative, he should have heeded his training to suppress personal opinions and maintain a professional attitude.

 

 

 

What is "wrong" with her outfit that needs "correction"? In what way is it erroneous with regards to appropriate dress in the LAX airport?

 

I thin think those are leggings, a simple cami, and a flannel shirt. I imagine they were designed to be comfortable secondarily to pajamas. Are you suggesting the young woman dressed like this to attract men's attention? What if she put those clothes on because the weather was warm, but not too warm, and these were comfortable clothes? I'm at a loss as to how these are "attractive" clothing. In the greater Los Angeles area, these clothes are perfectly ordinary.

 

I think you're inferring intent to those clothes and her choice to wear them without valid reason. These may be your reasons to wear something that reveals your chest lower than your collar bone, but in no way is this a universal intent when opting for clothes out of the dresser drawer and closet.

 

:iagree:

 

I actually scrolled back up to take another look at the picture after reading the comments. Really? THAT outfit chosen to tantalize? Cleavage? The girl barely has BooKs at all. It looks like an outfit chosen for no reasons other than convenience and comfort to me.

[WishboneDawn]

I agree with everything being said about how he should not have made the comment but frankly, could we all not spare a moment to think that the man might be a father himself? I think that's a good reason for why he might be focused on the outfit of a teenage girl. Dads get that way, even with other people's children. I know my husband has a few choice words for parents that don't hand their sons a belt or tell their daughters that pajama pants and tank tops are sleepwear, not out-and-about clothes. And it's because he's a dad and when men turn into dads they are like women who turn into mothers - to a certain degree all kids are our kids and the concern we feel for our kids is something we often feel for other kids.

 

And yes, I do think her clothes were inappropriate. Throwing a plaid shirt over leggings and a tight tank top don't make them appropriate for an airport. I'm old fashioned I suppose but I tend to think that if you're going to be out in public for any amount of time you need to do a little more then toss a plaid shirt over your sleepwear. So what if you're 15? What about being 15 makes it unnecessary to start learning about social norms and appropriate dress?

 

This is a sore spot because I had an awful moment a couple of years ago as a Girl Guide leader when a parent dropped off his young teen daughter for a night of cookie selling a) without a uniform and B) in short shorts. It was horribly embarrassing for her when the other leader and I had to kindly explain that she was representing an organization, could not do that in her outfit and that we would have to drive her back to her house to change.

 

The man needed to keep his opinion to himself but I get his frustration. The father needs to ditch the righteous indignation though.

 

ETA: Does this post mean I have to turn in my Offical Liberal card?

[WishboneDawn]

Ugh. That smiley face was supposed to be a "b" and a bracket.

[LaCEmom]

Wouldn't she have had to remove the flannel shirt to go through security?

 

I mean I still think the guy should have kept his mouth shut, but I'm just wondering if the picture is giving a totally accurate idea of the situation.

[swellmomma]

See I don't see legging and a tank top as sleepwear at all. My dd13 wears leggings as pants all teh time. She has ones with fun prints, ones deisgned to look like jeans etc and yet they are leggings. They are only slightly less tight than the black ones she wears with her knee length sleeveless sweater thing that is worn over the shirt. What that girl in the picture was wearing made me think of comfy weekends around the house, or camping, or heading to the gym, not sleep wear. I agree that white leggings are best worn under something, and if you have them yanked up or tight enough to have a camel toe it is time for something else, but leggings with a tank top and flannel shirt screams comfort to me. Nothing tantalizing etc. Now if she showed up in flannel pants with little green frogs on them then I would agree it was sleep wear and not suitable. But she was wearing an actual outfit, and one in which all her bits and bobs were fully covered. There was nothing inappropriate about her attire. And compared to most moms in my town I do have fairly strict modesty requirements, and that would have passed for something like airtravel where other clothes can be uncomfortable and restrictive. The only inappropriate thing in the story was the reaction of the TSA agent, and even if he is a dad, A) most dads know not to make comments to the kid unless the kid is doing something grade A stupid, being willing to say something to a parent for not giving their son a belt for his pants is not the same as berating the kid and B ) even if the person was a dad and felt the need to say something, for example as she checked in he realized her cami was see through and didn't want her embarassed they would either be gentler about it or tell the chaperones, they would not snap at the teen to cover up. This situation did not scream fellow parent just worried about this girl to me, it screamed power tripper, getting his kicks out of pushing his beliefs on someone else.

[LaCEmom]

I was thinking the same thing about the guy probably being a father. I know everytime I've heard someone say something like that IRL, it's been from a fatherly perspective. The perverts are the ones who stare and keep their mouths shut.

 

Regardless he wasn't HER father, so he should have kept his mouth shut.

[LibraryLover]

That doesn't seem right.

 

I finally figured out that I got a pat down each and every time I wore a dress/skirt that had extra fabric (meaning not skin tight). One would think tight leggings etc would exempt one.

 

Why are loons ever employed? Maybe we need more questions on physician forms ... to try and weed out the folks with obvious issues. ;)

 

This young woman has a boatload of folks caring for her, so this is one I will worry less about, although she is not totally off my worrydar.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree with everything being said about how he should not have made the comment but frankly, could we all not spare a moment to think that the man might be a father himself? I think that's a good reason for why he might be focused on the outfit of a teenage girl. Dads get that way, even with other people's children. I know my husband has a few choice words for parents that don't hand their sons a belt or tell their daughters that pajama pants and tank tops are sleepwear, not out-and-about clothes. And it's because he's a dad and when men turn into dads they are like women who turn into mothers - to a certain degree all kids are our kids and the concern we feel for our kids is something we often feel for other kids.

 

And yes, I do think her clothes were inappropriate. Throwing a plaid shirt over leggings and a tight tank top don't make them appropriate for an airport. I'm old fashioned I suppose but I tend to think that if you're going to be out in public for any amount of time you need to do a little more then toss a plaid shirt over your sleepwear. So what if you're 15? What about being 15 makes it unnecessary to start learning about social norms and appropriate dress?

 

This is a sore spot because I had an awful moment a couple of years ago as a Girl Guide leader when a parent dropped off his young teen daughter for a night of cookie selling a) without a uniform and B) in short shorts. It was horribly embarrassing for her when the other leader and I had to kindly explain that she was representing an organization, could not do that in her outfit and that we would have to drive her back to her house to change.

 

The man needed to keep his opinion to himself but I get his frustration. The father needs to ditch the righteous indignation though.

 

ETA: Does this post mean I have to turn in my Offical Liberal card?

 

The thing is, normal fathers (and mothers) understand that simply being a dad (or mom) doesn't give them the right to correct/admonish others children simply because they disagree with a choice that child has made. So no, I do not understand his "frustration", and while YOU may think the outfit was inappropriate, it really isn't your business.

[WishboneDawn]

See I don't see legging and a tank top as sleepwear at all. My dd13 wears leggings as pants all teh time. She has ones with fun prints, ones deisgned to look like jeans etc and yet they are leggings. They are only slightly less tight than the black ones she wears with her knee length sleeveless sweater thing that is worn over the shirt. What that girl in the picture was wearing made me think of comfy weekends around the house, or camping, or heading to the gym, not sleep wear. I agree that white leggings are best worn under something, and if you have them yanked up or tight enough to have a camel toe it is time for something else, but leggings with a tank top and flannel shirt screams comfort to me. Nothing tantalizing etc. Now if she showed up in flannel pants with little green frogs on them then I would agree it was sleep wear and not suitable. But she was wearing an actual outfit, and one in which all her bits and bobs were fully covered. There was nothing inappropriate about her attire. And compared to most moms in my town I do have fairly strict modesty requirements, and that would have passed for something like airtravel where other clothes can be uncomfortable and restrictive. The only inappropriate thing in the story was the reaction of the TSA agent, and even if he is a dad, A) most dads know not to make comments to the kid unless the kid is doing something grade A stupid, being willing to say something to a parent for not giving their son a belt for his pants is not the same as berating the kid and B ) even if the person was a dad and felt the need to say something, for example as she checked in he realized her cami was see through and didn't want her embarassed they would either be gentler about it or tell the chaperones, they would not snap at the teen to cover up. This situation did not scream fellow parent just worried about this girl to me, it screamed power tripper, getting his kicks out of pushing his beliefs on someone else.

 

 

Okay, gym, camping, cozy weekends...All casual situations where you-either not in public or in public in a very specific context. I would make sure my kids knew that the clothes they might wear in those situations would NOT be appropriate for public travel. ; )

 

I also don't know how.much we conclude about the situation. We have a very one-sided account by an outraged father. That's it.

[elegantlion]

Even if he was the fatherly type, he was acting as a representative of the TSA, not as the parent patrol. As an employee, he has no business pointing out her attire or commenting on any of it unless it violates the protocol currently in place.

 

Anytime I have worked as an employee, my personal opinions of clients/customers were pretty much required to be kept to myself unless they violated something pertinent to my job.

[*Lulu*]

 

 

Okay, gym, camping, cozy weekends...All casual situations where you-either not in public or in public in a very specific context. I would make sure my kids knew that the clothes they might wear in those situations would NOT be appropriate for public travel. ; )

 

I also don't know how.much we conclude about the situation. We have a very one-sided account by an outraged father. That's it.

 

 

IME what is appropriate for public travel has changed a lot over the past 30 years. I was a frequent flier in the late 90's and saw many a traveler, (old and young), dressed in extremely casual attire.

 

While I might not love it, I can understand wanting to be comfortable in a travel situation that can easily turn into a long ordeal. (Says the woman who sat in a plane, on a runway for almost 3 hours just to have them pull back in the gate, deboard the plane, and make us wait another 3 hours. *sigh*)

 

 

[unfrumpable.]

 

The thing is, normal fathers (and mothers) understand that simply being a dad (or mom) doesn't give them the right to correct/admonish others children simply because they disagree with a choice that child has made. So no, I do not understand his "frustration", and while YOU may think the outfit was inappropriate, it really isn't your business.

 

 

I have to agree. I definitely do not view other kids as my own. Being a mother to one is more than enough to worry about!

[WishboneDawn]

Even if he was the fatherly type, he was acting as a representative of the TSA, not as the parent patrol. As an employee, he has no business pointing out her attire or commenting on any of it unless it violates the protocol currently in place.

 

Anytime I have worked as an employee, my personal opinions of clients/customers were pretty much required to be kept to myself unless they violated something pertinent to my job.

 

 

I agree. I just found some of the comments and the 'sicko" label by the father disturbing.

 

The man was unproffessional.

[kitten18]

Wouldn't she have had to remove the flannel shirt to go through security?

 

I mean I still think the guy should have kept his mouth shut, but I'm just wondering if the picture is giving a totally accurate idea of the situation.

 

If he was checking her i.d., then she was not yet at the point of getting ready to go through the scanner. They check i.d.s then you split off into lines for the scanner.

[TracyP]

I suppose I shouldn't admit that my oldest wears leggings and a tank all the time. in public. even to VBS last week. :leaving:

[kitten18]

Leggings are not pants??? I've never heard that before.

Tights are not pants, leggings are not tights.

Leggings are pants.

Just because some people choose to wear them in place of tights does not mean they're not pants.

[Corraleno]

... clothing that is intentionally designed to attract men's attention and arouse their interest...

 

 

I don't believe that any of the men I know would look at that girl and find that outfit arousing. If a grown man can't keep himself from staring at her and getting aroused, then he has a serious problem, IMHO. The idea that that sort of response is not only "normal" and to be expected, but that men can't prevent it, and therefore women and girls have a responsibility to cover every inch of skin to protect men from their own urges is, quite frankly, creepy and controlling and misogynistic.

 

Jackie