SO SO Modesty: TSA agent shames 15yo

[FaithManor]

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.

 

 

Yep, same ole same ole misogynist rhetoric. IF I were to get all worked up about it, I'd have to caution the teenage boys more than the teenage girls. The teen girls around here drool over the guys a LOT more openly than I've ever seen the boys do. Good gravy...you know those funny "I'd like to see X in a kilt" threads we have? Multiply that intensity by 100 and that's the local cheerleading squad. They tend to reduce the boys' basketball team down to nothing but raw meat and aren't the least bit embarassed about their public comments. Yet, I never hear anyone suggest that the boys should have longer shorts, less form fitting sports shirts, never wear a suit because the girls get hot for it, or don monks' habits in order to help preserve the mental purity of the females. Outside of one school that does say a boy's underwear should not show, I've never seen a dress code that did a solitary thing to prevent "temptation" for the girls.

 

Faith

[FaithManor]

 

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.

 

5 & 6???? Wow. I don't blame you for distancing yourself. Good night! What do they feel the need to talk about with girls that age that has the little darlings uncomfortable with a glance at a pair of shoulders? I mean, at 5 or 6, I really don't remember that being on the radar for dd's kindergarten class!

 

I'd run from her too! Then there is the issue that it isn't her place to approach you about her evaluation of your Christmas card. If she doesn't think your values are appropriate for her family, her job is to smile, thank you for the card, and then distance herself from you. It's not her place to voice an opinion.

 

Truly, we need to go back to some good ole fashioned manners in this country. Talk about the weather, great music, agricultural products, scientific discoveries, and more weather. Don't comment on things that aren't your business. Too much busybody, nosy behavior in this culture.

 

Faith

[TechWife]

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.

 

Speaking as someone who has a lot of flying miles under my belt, I think that if the shirt wasn't buttoned, she would have been asked to remove it and send it through the xray machine. But, if she buttoned it before she got up to that point, they would have considered it clothing and not asked her to remove it. If it had been a jacket, not a shirt, she would have definitely had to remove it.

[nmoira]

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?

 

You have have legitimate authority over the children that includes enforcing a (presumably) codified or at least generally understood dress code. And how it plays out in your family is between you and your kids. :)

[Kathryn]

The TSA guy shouldn't have said anything, but I find all of the "creepy" talk inflammatory and going way overboard. I have a suspicion that she wasn't wearing the flannel shirt at the time though. The story makes much more sense if she was just wearing the leggings and the bra-less white tank top, which honestly, I do find inappropriate although I wouldn't say anything.

[unfrumpable.]

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.

 

Really? Do you mean on magazine covers or IRL? Because I do not normally encounter young women in little more than a bra and panties in my day-to-day activities.

[unfrumpable.]

 

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.

 

Wow!!!!

[FaithManor]

Speaking as someone who has a lot of flying miles under my belt, I think that if the shirt wasn't buttoned, she would have been asked to remove it and send it through the xray machine. But, if she buttoned it before she got up to that point, they would have considered it clothing and not asked her to remove it. If it had been a jacket, not a shirt, she would have definitely had to remove it.

 

However, not removing it, if it was baggy, would have been a very strong potential of pat down. Baggy clothing is a real red flag. That's why the travel agencies warn people to wear form fitting clothing of light weight material and no bras with metal clasps which means cami/shelf bras, bikini tops, or sports bras. To have a good chance of avoiding the pat down, this kind of clothing IS the norm now.

 

Even our church, on the youth mission trip to Costa Rica last year, advised shorts that weren't baggy or very long...definitely not grazing the knee and preferably not longer than mid-thigh, t-shirts that fit quite tight - even for the boys, sports bras for the girls, slip on shoes with just footies, and no extra layers of any kind in the hopes of getting the bulk of the group through the line smoothly with the least number of pat downs possible. Jackets, shirts, or sweaters over the arm so they would be placed on the conveyor and NOT have to be removed. How many churches do you know that would recommend tight t-shirts and sports bras for the women???? The youth group leader's wife even suggested that though she didn't appreciate having to advise it, a dark sports bra under a white t-shirt a size too small, might help a girl avoid getting the hand between and under the breasts part of the pat down since well, if the bra is dark and the shirt is light and VERY form fitting, then there is less left to the imagination of the agent. That's how bad the TSA is at Detroit International Airport. Their reputation really, truly stinks.

 

Apart from passengers clearly going directly from their flight to a meeting, I rarely see anyone in professional clothes at the airport except those that are employed at the airport. Casual and form fitting is the usual. I'm at the airport A LOT so I am getting the impression that this is the regular and usual choice and I blame it on security protocols.

 

Faith

[WishboneDawn]

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.

 

My husband had to deal with boys as well at the restaurant.

 

I think for me the issue is less one of modesty and more one of thoughtlessness. The parents of the girl I had to take home to get changed hadn't given a thought to the fact that she would be out representing our organization and so might need to dress for that. At other GG meetings her outfit wouldn't have been an issue and the other leader and I wouldn't have said a word. But you don't sell cookies in short shorts.

 

One thing I didn't grow up with and that I'm trying to help the kids with is that before you go somewhere you give a thought for the occasion and the people you'll be around. Music lessons? Nice jeans and a newer shirt to show your teacher you respect her enough to care for your appearance. Wedding? Modest and nicely cut dress clothes that are comfortable so you can party at the reception but don't take attention off the bride. Chicken coop cleaning? Old clothes and rubber boots please. Job interview? Slacks, dress shirt, simple accessories to look clean cut and not distract the interviewer. A night out with a partner? Tasteful outfit but tight and cleavage-revealing are fine.

 

Airport? Simple and put-together. Natural fabrics that breath because you'll be in a small space and may have delays and be in those clothes for awhile. Nothing too revealing because you'll be sharing space with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of sensibilities. Comfort should be a prime concern but shouldn't it always? I can't be the only person that makes sure whatever she buys, for whatever occasion, is comfortable, can I? here's nothing about a work outfit or a party one that demands I not be comfortable.

 

And now that I've typed that maybe it IS about modesty for me but not a modesty defined by sexuality but a modesty of spirit where you make some space in how you carry yourself for others to approach you. Where what you dress isn't all about your own needs or concerns but some respect for the community around you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

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?

 

As a principal, you are responsible for enforcing the standards of your school. The TSA agent had no rational reason for believing he has a responsibility to police the attire of young ladies who come through his checkpoint. If you really can't see the difference between the two, I guess I can't help you.

[WishboneDawn]

 

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.

 

Good grief.

 

I think that since she made the whole incident all about her, she showed a complete lack of any modesty.

[WishboneDawn]

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

 

 

I love that picture in all kinds of ways. Thanks for posting it.

[unsinkable]

 

 

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.

 

I am picturing your "friend" as Tracy Flick putting your Christmas card through a shredder.

 

<<shudder>>

[mommymilkies]

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

 

Exactly!

I wear low cut shirts because I have issues with collars or things near my neck. I feel like I'm being choked otherwise. It seriously has nothing to do with cleavage.

 

Me, too. I have no boobage to show off, but I wear low shirts because I don't like feeling choked. Also, I have a right to, and it's nobody's business.

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.

I don't wear a bra. First of all, I don't really have anything to put in one. Second, the link between bras and breast cancer, as well as scientific studies showing they don't decrease sagging, etc. like popular myth. Bras are pretty recent, one must remember. And corsets did not usually do much to cover them. Just push them up and out. :p

[FaithManor]

Exactly!

 

 

And corsets did not usually do much to cover them. Just push them up and out. :p

 

And damage internal organs. It was determined that years of wearing them pushed the organs out of place, diminshed lung capacity, caused kidney malfunction, and a host of other maladies not to mention being implicated in miscarriage because women were culturally conditioned to keep their condition a secret to the general public as long as possible so they would wear their corsets, tightened as much as possible, for several months of the pregnancy.

 

It is amazing what women have done to themselves!

 

As a matter of health, bras actually shouldn't exist. Well, neither should underwear. Frankly, better air flow means less moisture trapped, which means fewer years infections. But, I digress..... :D

 

And now, back to the topic at hand......

 

 

Faith

[Rivka]

As a matter of health, bras actually shouldn't exist.

 

I wear a 38H. You can have my maximally-supportive underwire bra when you pry my cold, dead hands from it. And no, I can't wear a sports bra to the airport, either. Even my bathing suit has underwire.

[WishboneDawn]

Speak for yourself Faith. Bras are an important health consideration for me.

 

If I didn't wear a bra I'd suffer frequent concussions from falling after tripping over the bOOks.

[FaithManor]

Speak for yourself Faith. Bras are an important health consideration for me.

 

If I didn't wear a bra I'd suffer frequent concussions from falling after tripping over the bOOks.

 

Sorry!

 

I wasn't speaking to the practicalities of life, but just to the science presented to me by a breast doctor.

 

Faith

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

Sorry!

 

I wasn't speaking to the practicalities of life, but just to the science presented to me by a breast doctor.

 

Faith

 

And I apologize for making you think you had to apologize. My comment should have had a big smiley limit this - :D

 

I would not actually trip. They're not that far gone. I might, however, kick one and have it fly up and slap me in the face. :D

[FaithManor]

And I apologize for making you think you had to apologize. My comment should have had a big smiley limit this - :D

 

I would not actually trip. They're not that far gone. I might, however, kick one and have it fly up and slap me in the face. :D

 

:smilielol5: I'm sorry again! I shouldn't laugh, but that made me snort coffee all over my computer keyboard!

 

For what it's worth, I have pamphlets, not even pamphlets, mere tracts. My bra is very, very lonely because virtually nothing occupies it. I wear mega padded in order to look more balanced with my hips.

 

I long to be like a guy and just throw on my jeans and t-shirt and NOT worry about my bits and parts. Wouldn't that be lovely??????

 

Dh has NO idea how easy he has it!

 

Faith

[Heather in Neverland]

 

 

As a principal, you are responsible for enforcing the standards of your school. The TSA agent had no rational reason for believing he has a responsibility to police the attire of young ladies who come through his checkpoint.

 

If you really can't see the difference between the two, I guess I can't help you.

 

Nice attitude.

 

I am merely pointing out that there are other reasons that a person might say the things he said other than him being some kind of pervert. If YOU can't see that, I guess I can't help you either.

[mommymilkies]

Bras can serve a purpose, for sure. I like pretty ones, myself. But for most people, they are unnecessary, if not harmful. And I have to say, I didn't look close enough at the teen's boobs to see if she was wearing a bra. Just did not cross my mind, so she might even be wearing one. Just going off of what people were talking about! ;)

[Murphy101]

Nice attitude.

I am merely pointing out that there are other reasons that a person might say the things he said other than him being some kind of pervert. If YOU can't see that, I guess I can't help you either.

 

No. We get it there's another reason. It's because he's an egotistical a$$.

 

Alas, you certainly right - there's no help for that.

[Murphy101]

Bras can serve a purpose, for sure. I like pretty ones, myself. But for most people, they are unnecessary, if not harmful. And I have to say, I didn't look close enough at the teen's boobs to see if she was wearing a bra. Just did not cross my mind, so she might even be wearing one. Just going off of what people were talking about! ;)

 

Oh for ..

 

Now it isn't a question of how covered she is but whether she is layered enough?!

 

I couldn't care less if she has a bra or not. Maybe men should have to wear sports cups all the time so their junk is properly placed and under the incorrect theory that it means their stuff will defy gravity and not sag as they age. Oh wait. That would be silly. *eyeroll*

[albeto]

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.

 

The idea that one would argue this teen puts herself out there to be viewed as a sexual object speaks of the misogyny of the viewer, not the teen. If that doesn't make sense, turn the tables and put yourself in the position of "wishing to be viewed as a sexual object" for not covering yourself up in a modest burqa. Do you still see this as an objective "fact," or a subjective, learned, belief?

[Heather in Neverland]

 

 

No. We get it there's another reason. It's because he's an egotistical a$$.

 

Alas, you certainly right - there's no help for that.

 

 

Sigh... Never mind. It's not worth the effort of explaining.

[albeto]

My husband had to deal with boys as well at the restaurant.

 

I think for me the issue is less one of modesty and more one of thoughtlessness. The parents of the girl I had to take home to get changed hadn't given a thought to the fact that she would be out representing our organization and so might need to dress for that. At other GG meetings her outfit wouldn't have been an issue and the other leader and I wouldn't have said a word. But you don't sell cookies in short shorts.

 

One thing I didn't grow up with and that I'm trying to help the kids with is that before you go somewhere you give a thought for the occasion and the people you'll be around. Music lessons? Nice jeans and a newer shirt to show your teacher you respect her enough to care for your appearance. Wedding? Modest and nicely cut dress clothes that are comfortable so you can party at the reception but don't take attention off the bride. Chicken coop cleaning? Old clothes and rubber boots please. Job interview? Slacks, dress shirt, simple accessories to look clean cut and not distract the interviewer. A night out with a partner? Tasteful outfit but tight and cleavage-revealing are fine.

 

Airport? Simple and put-together. Natural fabrics that breath because you'll be in a small space and may have delays and be in those clothes for awhile. Nothing too revealing because you'll be sharing space with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of sensibilities. Comfort should be a prime concern but shouldn't it always? I can't be the only person that makes sure whatever she buys, for whatever occasion, is comfortable, can I? here's nothing about a work outfit or a party one that demands I not be comfortable.

 

And now that I've typed that maybe it IS about modesty for me but not a modesty defined by sexuality but a modesty of spirit where you make some space in how you carry yourself for others to approach you. Where what you dress isn't all about your own needs or concerns but some respect for the community around you.

 

 

When my mother was a girl, her family traveled from one home in the midwest to another. The drive was approximately 20 hours at the time (before interstates). The four of them sat in the car in their Sunday Best. My grandfather drove with a suit and fedora. Anything less than that was considered inappropriate for travel.

 

Styles change. What is considered appropriate changes. In Los Angeles, the teen's outfit was socially appropriate in every way. It was even modest in many respects.

 

Unless you live in a very conservative place, I can't imagine why cookies can't be sold in short shorts. What do shorts have to do with Thin Mints?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nice attitude.

 

I am merely pointing out that there are other reasons that a person might say the things he said other than him being some kind of pervert. If YOU can't see that, I guess I can't help you either.

 

 

You didn't provide another legitimate reason. This man had no position of authority over the young lady, and he should know he is not in a like you you described in your other post. He was out of line both professionally and socially, and no amount of made up excuses will change that for him.

[beaners]

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.

 

 

My husband is a restaurant manager, and I don't think he's ever needed to address clothing outside of telling someone they need to dress according the the uniform code. That really takes care of any issues that would come up. He doesn't have to judge whether or not different outfits are appropriate. It either meets the code, or it doesn't. No shaming required. I have a feeling someone at HR would croak if he confronted an employee with a few of the comments on this thread.

[Kathryn]

I wonder if there'd be all this outrage if he had told a guy with his pants around his thighs to "cover up." Now that I think about it, I've never personally heard anyone "shaming" a female dressed "immodestly," but I've seen plenty of people feel the need to tell guys who are "lowriding" their pants that they need to pull their pants up. There have even been laws made about it, and that's just underwear, not skin.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I wonder if there'd be all this outrage if he had told a guy with his pants around his thighs to "cover up." Now that I think about it, I've never personally heard anyone "shaming" a female dressed "immodestly," but I've seen plenty of people feel the need to tell guys who are "lowriding" their pants that they need to pull their pants up. There have even been laws made about it, and that's just underwear, not skin.

 

 

The TSA agent in question should not be commenting to any passenger regarding their clothing unless the choice of clothing is a security risk or in some way becomes the business of TSA.

[beaners]

I wonder if there'd be all this outrage if he had told a guy with his pants around his thighs to "cover up." Now that I think about it, I've never personally heard anyone "shaming" a female dressed "immodestly," but I've seen plenty of people feel the need to tell guys who are "lowriding" their pants that they need to pull their pants up. There have even been laws made about it, and that's just underwear, not skin.

 

 

But when they tell a guy to pull up his pants, it isn't because he looks "way too sexy" to be in public. They tell him to do it because he looks like a goofball.

[LucyStoner]

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.

 

 

 

In some cultures women don't wear shirts at all and breasts are not seen as sexual.

 

This happened in LAX. What is the norm in other cultures is not really pertinent.

[FaithManor]

 

The TSA agent in question should not be commenting to any passenger regarding their clothing unless the choice of clothing is a security risk or in some way becomes the business of TSA.

 

 

This should be the whole point of the discussion. Not what she was wearing, but the fact that the TSA agent acted completely outside the scope of his paid duties and couldn't keep his eyes where they belonged which is watching for suspicious objects, people, and behavior.

 

Probably, what would be a germain topic for another thread would be the subject of "first impressions" and how a narrower range of cultural norms affects what people think of us on first meeting. How should someone dress for an interview, a college visit, a meeting of professionals, etc. an the fact that whether we like it or not appropriate or not, people do form first impressions of our inner character based on very superficial, "face value" observations - good conversation material. Many young persons are not aware of this and do not know when to be less casual or more dressed up in order to make a favorable impression even though it is sad that humans judge one another so harshly so quickly. They aren't taught how to "play the game". That would be an interesting discussion.

 

That is not this discussion however. This is ALL on the TSA agent. Just because he wears a uniform, he doesn't get the right to espouse his values all over everyone else. That's intimidation. He carries the authority to keep her OFF that plane, to stick her in a room and have her questioned, delayed for hours...to speak in this manner to her about this subject is flagrantly wrong. It is an abuse of his power in this culture. Yes, in other cultures this might be normal, but then teen in question would be conditioned to this and would not be upset or potentially scared by it. She would be prepared for it. This is America. A diverse culture with a HUGE variety of family worldviews and practices. So it's not only inappropriate and unprofessional, it's disconcerting. Someone doing airport security ought to be able to maintain professionalism and a focus on the real issues at hand better than that. Good golly...if my local police force acted like this, I'd be pretty concerned about their discernment. NOT a problem one likes to see in a community's first responder unit.

 

The correct term, if memory serves, is compartmentalizing. It's something people do all the time. It's why doctors don't all become perverts for looking at and touching the other genders' privates. It's why your EMT or Paramedic can run a code on you when you collapse butt naked in the bathroom and not even think twice about your bits and parts. Men and women aren't fruit flies. We've got a lot more brain function than that. The ones that don't, the ones that can't compartmentalize shouldn't be employed in public safety positions for certain. The ones without brain filters shouldn't work in these kinds of jobs.

 

He should at least be very heavily reprimanded and sent for some job training. If he were fired, it would be his fault, not hers.

 

Faith

[LucyStoner]

I wonder if there'd be all this outrage if he had told a guy with his pants around his thighs to "cover up." Now that I think about it, I've never personally heard anyone "shaming" a female dressed "immodestly," but I've seen plenty of people feel the need to tell guys who are "lowriding" their pants that they need to pull their pants up. There have even been laws made about it, and that's just underwear, not skin.

 

 

1. To pretend that there isn't a subtext to teling a girl to "cover herself" and that telling a boy to pull up his low pants carries the same meaning is to be culturally clueless.

 

2. I don't condone or support laws against low riders anymore than I would condone or support old laws about how long women could wear their skirts or have a police officer feel them up to ensure they are wearing the legally required corset.

 

3. People telling others (who aren't their kids or students) to pull up their low riders are being rude and invasive. Not in the same way as this TSA dude but still rude.

 

4. Where does someone need to live to still see the super low low riders ("around the thighs"). That is so passe. :lol:

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

My husband is a restaurant manager, and I don't think he's ever needed to address clothing outside of telling someone they need to dress according the the uniform code. That really takes care of any issues that would come up. He doesn't have to judge whether or not different outfits are appropriate. It either meets the code, or it doesn't. No shaming required. I have a feeling someone at HR would croak if he confronted an employee with a few of the comments on this thread.

 

 

I don't think I mentioned shaming.

[SKL]

Why is this usually a girl issue? Because I don't see guys wearing outfits designed to expose their privates and arouse sexual attention. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, I dunno. ... When I look at that photo, which isn't the clearest photo ever, it looks to me like the girl's breasts show in some detail through the shirt. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt that she did not realize this. However, I will not agree that that's a fine way for our teens to dress. You want to compare that to a guy issue, picture a 15yo boy walking around in translucent underwear. Now we're comparing apples to apples.

[Snickerdoodle]

4. Where does someone need to live to still see the super low low riders ("around the thighs"). That is so passe. :lol:

Alive and well in certain segments of the urban landscape.

[LucyStoner]

Alive and well in certain segments of the urban landscape.

 

They are OUT in my urban landscape and I actively try to see as many hip hop shows as I can. I see low riders. Nothing as low as the late 1990s/early 2000s though. Not even close. I haven't seen sagging with the belt below the butt in many years. Not that I miss it. What a stupid fad. But I see a lot of people, especially those who came of age in the 1990s still sagging their pants a little. My brothers included. Even the PTA president SAHD one.

[LucyStoner]

You want to compare that to a guy issue, picture a 15yo boy walking around in translucent underwear. Now we're comparing apples to apples.

 

I see boys in nearly translucent white tanks (wife beaters) fairly often. That would be the male equivalent of a thin camisole.

[WishboneDawn]

When my mother was a girl, her family traveled from one home in the midwest to another. The drive was approximately 20 hours at the time (before interstates). The four of them sat in the car in their Sunday Best. My grandfather drove with a suit and fedora. Anything less than that was considered inappropriate for travel.

 

Styles change. What is considered appropriate changes. In Los Angeles, the teen's outfit was socially appropriate in every way. It was even modest in many respects.

 

Unless you live in a very conservative place, I can't imagine why cookies can't be sold in short shorts. What do shorts have to do with Thin Mints?

 

GGs is a uniformed organization. There are clear expectations around dress and what members (leaders included) are supposed to wear at different events. Partly because when a member is in public they're represnting the group and certain ideals but also because when we're out selling mint thins (we call them chocolate mint cookies up here) we want to give a clear signal that we're really GGs and not some teenagers that managed to scam a box off their kid sister to make themselves some money.

 

The shorts would have been fine at an informal meeting. We weren't at a casual meeting.

[nmoira]

I see boys in nearly translucent white tanks (wife beaters) fairly often. That would be the male equivalent of a thin camisole.

 

Or mesh. *shudder*

[SKL]

I see boys in nearly translucent white tanks (wife beaters) fairly often. That would be the male equivalent of a thin camisole.

No. Like it or not, in the USA a woman's breasts are private parts and a man's aren't. This is not an intellectual issue, it's a social one. You may want it to be different, but people are irresponsible if they send their teen daughters out into the world showing off their boobs, in the name of equality or whatever.

[nmoira]

 

No. Like it or not, in the USA a woman's breasts are private parts and a man's aren't. This is not an intellectual issue, it's a social one. You may want it to be different, but people are irresponsible if they send their teen daughters out into the world showing off their boobs, in the name of equality or whatever.

 

But her breasts were covered.

 

FWIW I'm a card carrying member of the no-amount-of-layering-will-hide-the-fact-that-I'm-cold club.

[albeto]

The shorts would have been fine at an informal meeting. We weren't at a casual meeting.

 

Perhaps there's a cultural issue here. In my area, girls selling cookies in their regular clothes is normal. They usually have those big, green bands on, write in official looking papers on clip boards, and are surrounded by other girls wearing green bands, and busy mothers. They're not mistaken for anything other than girl scouts selling cookies. Then again, in my area short shorts are no more risque than tank tops - it's just clothing.

[Kathryn]

The TSA agent in question should not be commenting to any passenger regarding their clothing unless the choice of clothing is a security risk or in some way becomes the business of TSA.

 

I agree and already stated that in another post. I was merely wondering what the reaction would be if this was about a male "inappropriately" dressed.

 

But when they tell a guy to pull up his pants, it isn't because he looks "way too sexy" to be in public. They tell him to do it because he looks like a goofball.

 

Did the TSA agent say she looked "way too sexy?" Where did you get that quote from? I think you're making some big assumptions about what is in someone's mind who objects to what the girl in question was wearing and what is in the mind of those who object to the low riding trend.

 

1. To pretend that there isn't a subtext to teling a girl to "cover herself" and that telling a boy to pull up his low pants carries the same meaning is to be culturally clueless.

2. I don't condone or support laws against low riders anymore than I would condone or support old laws about how long women could wear their skirts or have a police officer feel them up to ensure they are wearing the legally required corset.

3. People telling others (who aren't their kids or students) to pull up their low riders are being rude and invasive. Not in the same way as this TSA dude but still rude.

4. Where does someone need to live to still see the super low low riders ("around the thighs"). That is so passe. :lol:

 

1. I disagree. To me, and to many of the people that I've heard complain about such trends, they're the same: underwear and "private" body parts should be kept private.

2. I agree. I don't believe in enforced morality.

3. Again, I agree. Though I may not like a lot of the fashions I see, I don't feel it is my right or my business to discuss my opinions with those who aren't up to snuff in my own personal view. And I agree, once again, that it was certainly not appropriate for someone working in official TSA capacity to comment on anyone's clothing choices.

4. I'm sorry the local boys didn't get your memo.

[albeto]

No. Like it or not, in the USA a woman's breasts are private parts and a man's aren't. This is not an intellectual issue, it's a social one. You may want it to be different, but people are irresponsible if they send their teen daughters out into the world showing off their boobs, in the name of equality or whatever.

 

What responsibility is being neglected here?

 

Fashion is constantly evolving. That a cami is uncomfortable to one person is no more indicative of irresponsibility than pants on a women is indicative of irresponsibility.

[nmoira]

Did the TSA agent say she looked "way too sexy?" Where did you get that quote from? I think you're making some big assumptions about what is in someone's mind who objects to what the girl in question was wearing and what is in the mind of those who object to the low riding trend.

 

I think that can be fairly inferred from his comment that she was "only 15."

[VeritasMama]

This is a TSA agent on a power trip.

 

My husband flies for work several times a month all over the country. He has some real horror stories about TSA agents on power trips, not just what he has experienced, but what he sees them doing to harrass other people. And yes, I think something like this is harrassment. It is not within the scope of his duties, but people are afraid to speak up because they don't want to be taken to the back room for a pat down.

[Jean in Newcastle]

They are OUT in my urban landscape and I actively try to see as many hip hop shows as I can. I see low riders. Nothing as low as the late 1990s/early 2000s though. Not even close. I haven't seen sagging with the belt below the butt in many years. Not that I miss it. What a stupid fad. But I see a lot of people, especially those who came of age in the 1990s still sagging their pants a little. My brothers included. Even the PTA president SAHD one.

 

You haven't gone quite far enough south in this area. They are alive and well just south of me BUT I would not approach any one of those "boys" without fear of being shot. Not that I really think it's any of my business what they are wearing. But here it is definitely gang-banger wear only. In the news recently were two different shootings involving individuals from these gangs - but not because someone told them to pull up their pants.