SO SO Modesty: TSA agent shames 15yo

[Corraleno]

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?

 

 

In LA, where the incident took place, her outfit IS "socially normal and appropriate dress." It may not match your personal standards for modesty or fashion, but it's not an unusual or scandalous outfit where she lives, and clearly her parents don't have a problem with it.

 

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.

 

If someone here posted "I saw a family today where the girls were all dressed in long skirts and turtle necks and scarves and they looked so ridiculous! My DH had a few choice words for those parents — because he's a dad and he cares about all kids and he felt so sorry for them, not knowing how to dress appropriately..." would that poster not be dogpiled by WTMers saying it's none of her business and asking why she should care how other families dress their kids?

 

So what's the difference? If other parents have no problem letting their kids wear leggings, tank tops, baggy pants, short shorts, or pajama bottoms, why should anyone else care? :confused1:

 

Jackie

[Joker]

I don't care if the man is a father or not. My dh would never tell another girl she was dressed inappropriately (and we've had a few of dd's friends stay at our home that we feel should have chosen their attire differently). I don't tell other kids how they should look and dress just because I'm a mom because every family has different ideas about what is appropriate. I would be furious if someone decided to put forth their own expectations regarding modesty on my dds. It's just wrong and I'm surprised (although I wonder why I am anymore) that anyone would defend the TSA agent.

[Mrs Mungo]

I thought of this thread when I saw a young man smoking in public today. Would I love to share my anti-smoking gospel with every smoker I meet? Yes. Would I like them to know how I saw family members unable to care for themselves after a stroke (possibly caused by many years of smoking) or die from lung cancer? I would like to tell them. But, it is socially inappropriate to do so, even when I feel some sort of parental concern for them for some reason. People have to make their own decisions. There is no reason for smoking and every reason not to smoke.

 

How we dress and what is appropriate or inappropriate is actually subjective and even less socially accept me to comment upon. It is far more inappropriate for a middle aged man to comment to a young girl. If he doesn't understand that, then he should not be in a position of authority.

[Corraleno]

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'm honestly not trying to pick on you, but the idea that leggings and a flannel shirt are "NOT appropriate for public travel" is a very personal one, and not widely shared, judging from what many of my fellow airline passengers have been wearing for the past... oh, 30 years.

 

I used to travel a lot for business, including extensive international travel that sometimes involved 24-48 hours straight on planes and in airports. My "uniform" for traveling consisted of black leggings, soft-soled slip-on shoes, a cami (because there's nothing more uncomfortable than wearing an underwire bra for 48 hours straight), and a tunic-length sweater or shirt. And this was in the 80s, flying Business Class. Lots of women dressed like that, even then. Who wants to spend 18-20 hrs on a plane in a business suit & heels? Even in a "normal" outfit (like non-stretchy slacks with a fixed waistband, a tucked-in shirt, underwire bra), it's hard to be comfortable and get any sleep.

 

These days when I travel my go-to outift is yoga pants, a tunic-length tee shirt over a cami, Keen sandals, and a hoody. If other people think that my "gym wear" is inapropriate for public travel, that's their problem, not mine. Next time they take a 16 hr flight, I hope they're as comfortable in their chosen outfit as I am in mine. :)

 

Jackie

[momacacia]

I just have to say that if there is cleavage in that picture . . . come on over to my place and I'll show you cleavage! :lol:

:rolleyes:

_{Says the nursing Mama}

[annandatje]

When were leggings ever considered sleepware? Throughout my straitlaced mail order full figure clothing catalogs are photos of models wearing leggings with a tank or cami and a "big shirt" over the top. Granted the tanks and camis do not show midriff. I am gobsmacked to learn that what I thought was appropriate casual clothing is considered inappropriate by some people; I'm not offended at all. Rather I find it oddly intriguing. I can type "lol" for once and mean it literally.

 

To the poster who thought, prior to WTM, that "modesty" was used in regard to flashy displays of wealth, my experience mirrors yours. Same with term "courtship" which was nothing more than a synonym for dating in my culture.

 

The TSA agent is out of line to comment on any traveler's choice of clothing unless it is in violation of regulations.

[zoobie]

He's a TSA agent. Unless she's wearing a bomb or vials of fluids violating the 3oz/quart baggie rule, he should keep his mouth shut.

[albeto]

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?

 

Irrelevant, and hugely inappropriate for a professional in a position of authority.

 

I think that's a good reason for why he might be focused on the outfit of a teenage girl.

 

He can focus all he wants, but he has no privilege to apply his fashion desires on a stranger, especially as a professional in a position of authority.

 

Dads get that way, even with other people's children.

 

Inappropriate.

 

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.

 

That's nosy, and rude.

 

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.

 

In what way was this teen's clothing a matter for a general father-figure's reprimand?

 

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?

 

What is "appropriate dress" for public? Where is this standard to be found? Whose fashion sense is to be followed? Your conservative dress is far too liberal for other, equally decent, equally caring parents. If this teen's behavior was appropriate for the occasion, what difference does it make what she wears? If it's a matter of making some people feel uncomfortable, that's simply a matter of living in a diverse society with certain freedoms (like dress). Can you imagine if I walked up to someone like you in an airport or shopping mall and asked you to put your bible away because I find that inappropriate and offensive?

 

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.

 

:001_huh:

 

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

 

Ditch it? More fathers need to stand up for their daughters like him. Any time someone stands up to a bully, their action should be celebrated. Maybe, just maybe, we can evolve into the kind of society that doesn't place the burden of safety on the women to be responsible for avoiding victimization, but places equal burden on bullies to stop taking advantage of vulnerable people.

 

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

 

If you think a teen in shorts is an embarrassment to GSA, I have some reservations about what you call "liberal."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not entirely unrelated:

 

 

[LucyStoner]

If this man IS a father he still has ZERO right to shame a 15 year old girl he encounters in his workplace.

 

By shaming her, he is sexualizing her in casual contact. Even if he is not attracted, he is telling her that others will see it as sexual and putting it on her to change her clothes for other people. A 15 year old should get to be a girl without people assigning value judgments to the tightness of her pants or the cut of her shirt.

 

I was out all evening at a committee meeting and while on the bus and at the foundation offices I have seen many women wearing shorts or shorter skirts and sleeveless tops. It would be supremely bizarre of me to attribute that to them wanting to attract men rather than to say, the rare sunshine we are enjoying in the rainy city we all share.

 

I myself had on a short sleeve, tighter top with my usual cardigan stuffed in my tote. It's a crew neck top from threadless and I found myself wishing it was lower cut because my chest was sweating from being all covered up in black. When I get home, I may be cutting it down myself punk style. Had anyone told me it was inappropriate, I don't know what I would have done first. Laugh or tell them that they need to stay out of my clothing choices. Seriously. None of this is sexual unless someone goes and MAKES it sexual.

[La Condessa]

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

There is nothing wrong with this, if you want the first impression of yourself that you present to others to be that you wish to be viewed as a sexual object.

 

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

. . . 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.

So, you see my assertion 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" as an assumption of some degree of ownership over the sexuality of those whose attention is attracted? It never would have occurred to me that the acknowledgement that how we choose to present ourselves has an affect on others could be interpreted as an ownership of those others' sexuality. I mean, for example, there are a myriad of factors in any person's day that can affect their mood, but of course it is only the person themself who has ownership for their own attitude, not the spilled milk or the crabby kid. If my child is throwing fits and misbehaving and I lose my temper and yell at them, of course it is all my own fault! But it doesn't follow that their behavior had no affect on me. Or are you really trying to make the opposing argument to what I stated, that the way we present ourselves in our interactions with others has no affect on them at all?

 

My son is much more than hormones and it's insulting to insinuate that somehow men can't help it.[/color][/font][/size]

_ 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.

I went back and reread the thread from the beginning up to your post, and nowhere did anyone even allude to this attitude before your post. Again, to say that certain styles of clothing are designed to attract attention to certain parts of the body, or to pique a man's interest, etc., hardly implies that men have no self control. If a car drives by you blasting it's horn with kids hanging out the windows yelling, it is going to attract your attention whether you wish it to or not-- but you then decide how you will respond, whether by staring, or yelling back, or trying to school your thoughts back to whatever you were doing before. Nobody implied that men have no control over their responses. But can they simply not notice at all when something is specifically trying to attract their attention? Probably not.

 

[KungFuPanda]

"What DOES the hive have against stomachs?" ::sigh::

 

[LucyStoner]

 

There is nothing wrong with this, if you want the first impression of yourself that you present to others to be that you wish to be viewed as a sexual object.

 

 

So, you see my assertion 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" as an assumption of some degree of ownership over the sexuality of those whose attention is attracted? It never would have occurred to me that the acknowledgement that how we choose to present ourselves has an affect on others could be interpreted as an ownership of those others' sexuality. I mean, for example, there are a myriad of factors in any person's day that can affect their mood, but of course it is only the person themself who has ownership for their own attitude, not the spilled milk or the crabby kid. If my child is throwing fits and misbehaving and I lose my temper and yell at them, of course it is all my own fault! But it doesn't follow that their behavior had no affect on me. Or are you really trying to make the opposing argument to what I stated, that the way we present ourselves in our interactions with others has no affect on them at all?

 

 

I went back and reread the thread from the beginning up to your post, and nowhere did anyone even allude to this attitude before your post. Again, to say that certain styles of clothing are designed to attract attention to certain parts of the body, or to pique a man's interest, etc., hardly implies that men have no self control. If a car drives by you blasting it's horn with kids hanging out the windows yelling, it is going to attract your attention whether you wish it to or not-- but you then decide how you will respond, whether by staring, or yelling back, or trying to school your thoughts back to whatever you were doing before. Nobody implied that men have no control over their responses. But can they simply not notice at all when something is specifically trying to attract their attention? Probably not.

 

I think you are ignoring that clothes you consider to have no purpose but to attract sexual attention do have many different, non sexual purposes to many other people.

 

Wearing shorts or a cropped top is not a solicitation for sexual attention nor were the clothes necessarily designed or selected by the wearer for that purpose. Skin is not sexual unless one chooses to sexualize it. You are clearly choosing to see it as sexual but you can't rationally assume that everyone else makes that same choice.

 

I do find sexualizing a 15 year old girl or justifying her being objectified to be personally objectionable, be it by a TSA agent or any of us armchair mom commenters. You see belly and choose to think sex, others here just see a belly.

[Mrs Mungo]

KungFu, I wonder what portion of the hive is *actually* anti-tummy. I'm not, at least not in every situation.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think my yoga pants are particularly sexy, even if they do hug my curves. I don't think any man needs to comment on that. Now, if I am wearing a push-up bra, very low-cut shirt and glitter on my boobs, then maybe I can't blame a guy for looking. But, there is a gulf of variation between those things.

[Joker]

 

So, you see my assertion 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" as an assumption of some degree of ownership over the sexuality of those whose attention is attracted?

 

 

 

 

This is different for everyone, though. Some find arms attractive. Some find feet attractive. Some find cleavage attractive. Some find the midriff attractive. Some find eyes attractive (this is my dh). If we all dressed based on what others might find attractive or enticing we would never leave our homes.

 

You have based your opinion on what you find appropriate, but there are many who don't find the same things enticing. What then?

 

Also, how do you know that others dress the way they do to solely draw attention? That's quite an assumption and I think it's yet again based on what you know and your own experiences.

[KungFuPanda]

I don't think my yoga pants are particularly sexy, even if they do hug my curves. I don't think any man needs to comment on that. Now, if I am wearing a push-up bra, very low-cut shirt and glitter on my boobs, then maybe I can't blame a guy for looking. But, there is a gulf of variation between those things.

 

What DOES The Hive have against glitter? 🙈

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

What DOES The Hive have against glitter? 🙈

 

It gets *everywhere*! They don't call it the herpes of the craft world for nothing.

[Truscifi]

It gets *everywhere*! They don't call it the herpes of the craft world for nothing.

 

 

:lol:

 

I just spit my drink on the keyboard!

[swellmomma]

KungFu, I wonder what portion of the hive is *actually* anti-tummy. I'm not, at least not in every situation.

 

 

I think if I posted a picture of my tummy everyone would be antitummy. I dare anyone to look at and think "oh sexy" lol

[Murphy101]

It gets *everywhere*! They don't call it the herpes of the craft world for nothing.

 

Amen. Glitter is the fru-it of the deebil.

 

I don't think anything the girl in the photo was wearing is sexy or intended to be sexy. Neither do any of the males in my house ages 13 to 40. I would tell my daughter to wear a shirt that covers her belly bc I associate too short clothes with being too poor to have clothes that fit. (my own childhood baggage. Shrug.)

 

Not that it matters. I don't care if she was walking down the street buck naked, men are responsible for using their brains to make their decisions.

 

This is generally true in life regardless of the supposed temptation.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I dress like that girl (except that I have an actual t-shirt instead of a cami) almost every day. I hope that anyone who actually becomes my friend interacts with me because of who I am, not because of how I dress. As far as the TSA agent goes, it doesn't matter what his opinion was, he was there to do a job that has nothing to do with evaluating people's clothing choices.

[LucyStoner]

It gets *everywhere*! They don't call it the herpes of the craft world for nothing.

 

So darn true. In 2000 I threw my brother an 18th birthday party. Someone gave him a gift that when he opened it exploded purple glitter everywhere. I swept the floor. I vacuumed the rug. I took up the rug and beat it outside. I swear that bits of that glitter subsequently followed us on at least 3 moves over 6 years. I never saw that girl who gave him the gift again without thinking in my head "you're that glitter b!tch." (In silent jest)

[nmoira]

So, you see my assertion 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" as an assumption of some degree of ownership over the sexuality of those whose attention is attracted? It never would have occurred to me that the acknowledgement that how we choose to present ourselves has an affect on others could be interpreted as an ownership of those others' sexuality. I mean, for example, there are a myriad of factors in any person's day that can affect their mood, but of course it is only the person themself who has ownership for their own attitude, not the spilled milk or the crabby kid. If my child is throwing fits and misbehaving and I lose my temper and yell at them, of course it is all my own fault! But it doesn't follow that their behavior had no affect on me. Or are you really trying to make the opposing argument to what I stated, that the way we present ourselves in our interactions with others has no affect on them at all?

 

"Presentation" is incredibly subjective, as others have pointed out. My point is that how someone perceives us does not confer to them any rights to *act* on those perceptions, especially in a verbally or physically agressive or abusive manner. It's the difference between asking someone out on a date (let's assume age and situational appropriateness, etc.) and calling them a lesbian or a bitch within earshot if they refuse. It happens. I don't care if the the agent in question was a dad or protective older brother, or whether the girl had her flannel shirt on or off: he had no right to comment on her appearance. He had no right to *act* in such a manner upon her person.

[Corraleno]

There is nothing wrong with this, if you want the first impression of yourself that you present to others to be that you wish to be viewed as a sexual object.

<snip>

Nobody implied that men have no control over their responses. But can they simply not notice at all when something is specifically trying to attract their attention? Probably not.

 

You are totally missing the point of virtually all of the other posters in this thread — the fact that a woman wears clothing that YOU consider "immodest" in NO WAY proves that she is trying to attract the attention of random men and wishes to be viewed as a sexual object. You are assuming that everyone shares (or should share) your personal views on "modesty" and therefore anyone who dresses "immodestly" according to your standards is sending a specific and conscious message to all men, who can't help but pick up on it.

 

That is just. not. true.

 

So, you see my assertion 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" as an assumption of some degree of ownership over the sexuality of those whose attention is attracted? It never would have occurred to me that the acknowledgement that how we choose to present ourselves has an affect on others could be interpreted as an ownership of those others' sexuality. I mean, for example, there are a myriad of factors in any person's day that can affect their mood, but of course it is only the person themself who has ownership for their own attitude, not the spilled milk or the crabby kid. If my child is throwing fits and misbehaving and I lose my temper and yell at them, of course it is all my own fault! But it doesn't follow that their behavior had no affect on me. Or are you really trying to make the opposing argument to what I stated, that the way we present ourselves in our interactions with others has no affect on them at all?

 

The point is that the affect that a woman's clothing has on a man is entirely HIS responsibility. It is not HER responsibility to try to dress in such a way that no man will ever look at her and feel things that he doesn't want to feel. If he's uncomfortable with his response, then he needs to look away or think about baseball statistics or something. HE is the one who has a problem, not her. And frankly I think that any man who would look at a 15 year old girl in leggings and a flannel shirt and think she was purposely trying to attract the sexual attention of strange men in an airport has "issues." I know for a fact that neither my DH, nor my 15 yo son, nor any other man I know would look at that girl and think "whoa, she's asking for it."

 

Blaming women for men's responses, and putting the burden on women to "protect" men from their own urges, absolutely IS about power, control, and ownership. It's about men trying to control what women wear (through shaming, harassment, etc.) in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own urges and actions. It's really only a small percentage of men (and women) who seem to feel this way, and yet those who do try to convince others that it's universal — that ALL men feel this way and ALL women know this and therefore any woman who does not dress like it's 1938 is obviously doing it because she wants to be treated like a sex object. Ridiculous.

 

Jackie

[Murphy101]

I pretty much live in jeans, denim capris or denim shorts and a tank top or tshirt. *shrug*

[KungFuPanda]

 

 

So darn true. In 2000 I threw my brother an 18th birthday party. Someone gave him a gift that when it open exploded purple glitter everywhere. I swept the floor. I vacuumed the rug. I took up the rug and beat it outside. I swear that bits of that glitter subsequently followed us on at least 3 moves over 6 years. I never saw that girl who gave him the gift again without thinking in my head "you're that glitter b!tch." (In silent jest)

 

 

LOL at Glitter B!tch!

 

My vet once informed me that my dog had glitter on his stomach. I never did take responsibility for that. I just let her believe I had some glitter wielding girl child at home.

[Mrs Mungo]

FWIW, my 14 and 17 year old dds felt the outfit in question was a totally appropriate, normal outfit. They have been homeschooled their entire lives and most of their friends are homeschooled.

[Mrs Mungo]

My vet once informed me that my dog had glitter on his stomach. I never did take responsibility for that. I just let her believe I had some glitter wielding girl child at home.

 

 

There used to be a Lush bath bomb that was particularly glittery. If I took a bath with it before bed, then soldiers would inform dh he was sparkly the next day. I had to switch. LOL

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

s sending a specific and conscious message to all men, who can't help but pick up on it.

that ALL men feel this way and ALL women know this and therefore any woman who does not dress like it's 1938 is obviously doing it because they want to be treated like a sex object. Ridiculous.

 

 

1938? I have a photo of my dad's mom fishing while wearing something similar to what Betty Grable is wearing to play baseball in a photo here:

http://stylecramp.blogspot.com/2010/05/screen-icons-betty-grable-blitz-party.html?m=1

[Corraleno]

1938? I have a photo of my dad's mom fishing while wearing something similar to what Betty Grable is wearing to play baseball in a photo here:

http://stylecramp.bl...-party.html?m=1

 

 

The hussy! Totally inappropriate attire — I bet all the other fishermen had two fishing poles that day. :svengo:

 

 

:lol:

Jackie

[Murphy101]

 

 

1938? I have a photo of my dad's mom fishing while wearing something similar to what Betty Grable is wearing to play baseball in a photo here:

http://stylecramp.blogspot.com/2010/05/screen-icons-betty-grable-blitz-party.html?m=1

 

 

I'm sorta scared of the answer, but I'm curious to know what "crackling pins" are and how the poor lass was supposed to wear them. Sounds painful.

[Jean in Newcastle]

"Pins" referred to her legs. "Cracking" means 'best' or 'really good'. If you have them, you are not supposed to wear them but to display them!

[Laura Corin]

 

 

These days when I travel my go-to outift is yoga pants, a tunic-length tee shirt over a cami, Keen sandals, and a hoody. If other people think that my "gym wear" is inapropriate for public travel, that's their problem, not mine. Next time they take a 16 hr flight, I hope they're as comfortable in their chosen outfit as I am in mine. :)

 

Jackie

 

 

After many years of flying between continents, often on my own with two children, I dressed just as Jackie does (apart from the sandals - I get cold toes on planes). I was surrounded by people wearing similar clothes. I stepped off the plane (having slept in my clothes) looking a lot better than those who had started off more dressed up.

 

L

[EthiopianFood]

"What DOES the hive have against stomachs?" ::sigh::

 

 

In Indian culture, it's considered inappropriate to show your shoulders. ;)

[Violet Crown]

Would this be one of those TSA agents who forced my body-conscious 14-year-old girl to stand in a glass scanner, with her arms and legs spread, so they could take a photo of her with her clothes off? I'm so glad to learn they have the modesty interests of the nation's young women at heart.

[trulycrabby]

I won't comment on the girl's outfit as we all have different definitions of proper public attire, but the TSA agent's job is to screen for possible terrorists; chastising her for her wardrobe choices is clearly outside the parameters of his job description and therefore inappropriate.As long as she is adequately covered enough not to get arrested and not presenting a threat to others, then he needs to keep his mouth shut.

[Melissa in Australia]

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.

I disagree. Leggings are tights with the feet cut out.

[Joules]

Well, this hits home for me. We are flying this weekend. I always dress in what I consider appropriate for flying...yoga pants and a tank top. I'm forty something so it does cover my belly and I do wear a bra. It never occurred to me that it was a problem.

 

I do it for two reasons. First, you can't forget anything in the pockets and there are no buttons, snaps or zippers to set off alarms. There really isn't anywhere to hide anything, so you don't get pulled out for frisking. Second, long flights are rough on circulation and I have particular issues. Most nicer clothes bind somewhere or another. Long waits on runways can be very hot and I don't want more clothes than I need. If it's cold I wear a sweater or top layered on, but I always throw it in the bucket for security. (Maybe it's just me but I'd rather be stared at than felt up.)

 

Seriously, until this thread, it never occurred to me that people would have an issue. Maybe partly because I live in a very hot climate, so less clothing is more common.

[Heather in Neverland]

 

 

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.

 

Actually, this is very much a cultural thing. I have found that it is quite common to admonish children that are not your own in many cultures I have spent time with. Examples: my family is from the south and in their small town, the adults frequently scold children that are not their own for all kinds of things (immodest clothing is definitely one of them). I also found this to be very true among the Latin-Americans I spent a lot of time with, the Mexicans I lived and worked with in Mexico, and here in Malaysia, the Malays, Indians and Chinese will all tell your kids exactly what they think of their clothing, behavior, language, etc., regardless if they are complete strangers.

 

So honestly, this man's outspoken opinion of the girl's attire wouldn't shock me at all. I don't necessarily agree with his opinion...but him giving his opinion is a common thing in many cultures. Americans hold very tightly to "it's none of your business" because we are so fiercely individual. But this man is not a "sicko" just for expressing an opinion even if you disagree with it. It was not appropriate timing in that situation since he was on duty, but "sicko"? Yeah, that's a bit much.

 

As a principal, I have had to send girls home from school to put some more clothes on lots of times. Does my speaking to a teenage girl that is not my own daughter and telling her that she is dressed too scantily and needs to change her clothes make me a "sicko" too?

 

I just think we need to be careful about throwing terms like "sicko" around when we all know that it carries the connotation of "pervert."

 

 

[SKL]

While I think the TSA guy needed to keep his mouth shut, I don't agree with the quote in the OP suggesting that it's anti-girl to recommend dressing in a way that doesn't say "come and get me, I'm hot to trot." A girl who thinks advertising her stuff is a good idea has problems that need to be addressed. A girl who does this because she doesn't know better needs an education.

[WishboneDawn]

I should maoe clear that while my husband might have choice words for some parents he would be ranting to ME, he would not be telling off parents or young folks bcause that would be inappropriate. I've stared that before And made a distinction between having certain feelings and expressing those feelings inappropriately.

 

 

[SKL]

I would add that my friend from a conservative culture has commented on my 6-year-olds wearing leggings when their t-shirt only covers part of their butt. (They wear leggings because they are too skinny to hold pants up.) Kinda funny when you can look just about anywhere and find young women in little more than panties and a bra.

[Heather in Neverland]

 

I'm kinda shocked about the guy saying anything though. Mostly because I see nothing wrong with what the girl is wearing. And in his capacity it is absolutely not his business. It's like going to a restaurant and having the server comment on my clothing. Not his place at all. He should just do his job. And his job is not to critique clothing.

 

In many cultures, however, age determines your "place" in the world. If your waiter was older than you, he could comment on your clothing as he is your elder and elders have the right to give younger people their "advice" on things. You are to show your respect for them and accept their advice humbly.

 

Here is a recent example: our amah (housekeeper/nanny) has a teenage daughter. This daughter has a boyfriend. We have never met the boyfriend. My dh was out one day and saw the two driving by. The boyfriend was driving like a maniac. When my dh got home, he told our amah about it. She then gave my dh the boy's phone number and my dh called the boy and scolded him for his terrible, dangerous driving. In American culture the boy's reaction would be "F--k Y-u old man! You're not my dad. It's none of your business!" But here the boy said, "I am so sorry uncle. Please forgive me uncle. I will be more careful I promise." The young people here refer to anyone older than them as uncle or auntie even if they don't know them.

 

Was it my dh's "place" to scold this boy for his driving? In America? No. In many other parts of the world? Not only is it his place, it is expected of him as a contributing member of society.

[SKL]

Completely off topic, but re the driving, apparently younger people think it is their place to scold me for mine, LOL. Apparently if I slow them down so *I* won't run over a human being, I need to be cussed out. ;) Dude, I'm in a hurry too, but human life comes first. :) Back to the original topic!

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

I can't imagine my husband even saying anything to me. For one it wouldn't have been on his radar. But I'll say that if he went on and on about it, I'd ask him why he was staring at her and if he was I don't want to hear about it. LOL

 

I listen. I agree with him.

 

It's on our radar because we've both been in situations where I appropriate dress has led us to have to dish out consequences to clueless kids. He was a restaurant manager and had a lot of students working for him, I led Girl Guide troop. We've both had to have talks about clothes with kids who weren't ours. It's a sore spot with us I suspect.

 

[FaithManor]

Amen. Glitter is the fru-it of the deebil.

 

I don't think anything the girl in the photo was wearing is sexy or intended to be sexy. Neither do any of the males in my house ages 13 to 40. I would tell my daughter to wear a shirt that covers her belly bc I associate too short clothes with being too poor to have clothes that fit. (my own childhood baggage. Shrug.)

 

Not that it matters. I don't care if she was walking down the street buck naked, men are responsible for using their brains to make their decisions.

 

This is generally true in life regardless of the supposed temptation.

 

 

Agreed!

 

And I'd like to point out that it is pretty much what women have been told to wear to the airport. This is along the lines of what the local travel agency tells us to wear because it lessens the chance of a pat down, oops I mean, federally sanctioned groping. Yoga pants or tight pants, tight top without much fabric, and then in order to stay warm a shirt or sweater that you don't wear in the security line and can put on the conveyor belt. No bra with any metal on it whatsoever so either a sports bra or a cami with a shelf bra. The last time I flew, I saw a lot of women putting a sweater or shirt down, and wearing a tank top with a sports bra under it and yoga pants or leggings. LOTS of women. The gals with the "modest" clothing were the ones getting the pat downs. No thanks!

 

Faith

[SKL]

To the point about these being "travel clothes," maybe, but it went too far. I would never wear a thin white shirt without something substantial underneath, and I wouldn't let my developing daughter do so either. At least wear a darker color if you're going braless. (FTR, I am nearly always braless but nobody sees my goods.) The belly roll and low, tight fit of the pants are just plain yuck.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

1) she is 15, she could have "heard" the snarly remark but in reality it could have been said in not the way she interpreted it.. I have had teens 'hear' yelling in a simple request of take out the trash...

2) it is her word she was wearing the clothes as seen in the photo, who is to say she was not more exposed during the event. Not all teen girls are modest and sweet. I am sure she would not have text this ..."I just gave TSA proof I was not hiding anything and he tells me to cover up", nope I am sure she will portray herself as innocent doing no wrong.

 

Sorry, I tend to think this is not as described.

[Firefly]

My main problem with these modesty threads is that it's all about girls and women. Where are all the boys/men being publicly shamed or sent home from Boy Scouts or school for dressing immodestly? And before someone trots out the ole' males are more visual that females excuse, I don't buy it. It's misogyny, plain and simple.

[8circles]

My main problem with these modesty threads is that it's all about girls and women. Where are all the boys/men being publicly shamed or sent home from Boy Scouts or school for dressing immodestly? And before someone trots out the ole' males are more visual that females excuse, I don't buy it. It's misogyny, plain and simple.

 

 

Kinda OT, but your post reminded me. (I don't disagree with you BTW)

 

Our Xmas card last year was a photo of my 4 boys, close-up faces, b/w photo. They happened to all be shirtless, but only faces were showing with the exception of my oldest in front, you could see his shoulders (not nipples) & my youngest in back you could see 1/2 his torso. I got a call from a friend of mine saying that she thought it was inappropriate that they were shirtless in a xmas card - especially since her 2 daughters saw it & they were uncomfortable. Her girls were 5 & 6 at the time. I'd already been distancing myself from her for other reasons, which she then validated with that phone call.