SO SO Modesty: TSA agent shames 15yo

[kitten18]

Most people try to be as ready as possible before beginning the security process, so they can get through it as fast as possible. Also, some airports tell folks to be ready before they reach the ID check, so as not to slow the line down. And sometimes they check ID again at some point in the security line.

Maybe at some airports but not LAX where this incident took place. I have never seen anyone at LAX start to get undressed (jackets, belts, shoes) until AFTER they go through I.D. check. After the I.D. check you then get into lines (many lines) for the scanners and still have to wait until you get up close enough before you can start putting your stuff into a tub.

The only thing you have ready at the I.D. check, is your I.D. and boarding pass.

[nmoira]

Besides, are we now trying to say it was wrong for the TSA dude to let his eyes travel beyond her chin?

 

That's a gross exaggeration. We're responding to an assertion *you* made, nothing more. I can't quote easily at the moment because I'm on mobile.

[kitten18]

Here's how the conversation should have gone:

 

TSA guy: (muttering)

 

Girl: Excuse me?

 

TSA guy: You're only 15, cover yourself!

 

Girl: I am only resolved to act in that manner, which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person so wholly unconnected with me.

 

And then it would have been over. :-)

 

Is that a joke?

[SKL]

Maybe at some airports but not LAX where this incident took place. I have never seen anyone at LAX start to get undressed (jackets, belts, shoes) until AFTER they go through I.D. check. After the I.D. check you then get into lines (many lines) for the scanners and still have to wait until you get up close enough before you can start putting your stuff into a tub.

The only thing you have ready at the I.D. check, is your I.D. and boarding pass.

 

This girl and her friends were traveling on a college tour. To me, that suggests more than one airport and to me, it seems likely that they had been told or experienced the drill enough times that they wanted to think ahead. Having one's jacket off is just one easy step and saves the trouble of having to do 20 things when you're supposed to be moving as fast as you can with irritated people behind you. I would do it for sure.

[Corraleno]

I have traveled a lot, so I'm used to thinking way ahead when it comes to the security line; anything I can do in advance, I do. As do many others. When I'm in a security line and see people just starting to get ready, I think, "these people must not have been on a plane in a long time."

 

 

I travel a lot, too, and in the last five years I have never been in a scanner line (after passing through the ID check) for less than 15 minutes. Does it really take people more than 15 minutes to take off a jacket and shoes? The last time I was in Houston, I spent almost an hour in that line. I have never seen anyone taking off jackets and shoes and emptying pockets before they even go through the ID check. Maybe there are some small rural airports where you go straight from the ID check to the scanner, with no line, but I can guarantee that's not what it's like at LAX.

 

Jackie

[SKL]

What I do is stuff things into my bag in advance to minimize the number of items I have to place on the belt bla bla bla. As it is, it's a minimum of shoes in one bin, laptop in another, and whatever bags you have. Once you're through the scanner then you're under pressure to grab your stuff and get out of the way so you don't slow up other people. Or so your party doesn't have to wait for you. Having fewer things to grab and put on helps. Then once you are comfortably near your gate, you can rearrange things as you please. And yes, I've been in plenty of situations where the line moved rather quickly the entire time. My home airport is a big-city international airport, so it's not a rural thing. It's just a matter of trying to be efficient.

[FaithManor]

 

I travel a lot, too, and in the last five years I have never been in a scanner line (after passing through the ID check) for less than 15 minutes. Does it really take people more than 15 minutes to take off a jacket and shoes? The last time I was in Houston, I spent almost an hour in that line. I have never seen anyone taking off jackets and shoes and emptying pockets before they even go through the ID check. Maybe there are some small rural airports where you go straight from the ID check to the scanner, with no line, but I can guarantee that's not what it's like at LAX.

 

Jackie

 

 

At Detroit, there is quite a space. At Flint Bishop, a smaller regional airport, there is about 10 steps between ID check and metal detectors (they aren't employing scanners yet due to the low traffic) and conveyor belts for ex ray. So, yah, some people are shedding their coats, sweaters, pocket materials, and shoes before or just after ID check. Also, since it's so compact, you hear everything the TSA agents say. But, the line doesn't take long because it is not a heavy traffic airport. It's actually quite nice because it takes less than 30 min. to check in and be at your gate, and 10 -15 min. to disembark with baggage claim being just down a set of escalators maybe 50 steps from security check-in and once your off the escalator, another 30-40 steps to the carousel. Everyone is friendly and pretty much nothing ever happens there so it's a nice place to fly through.

 

I just don't even want to think about LAX. I mean, I hate and despise Detroit Metro and Chicago O'Hare, I can't imagine the nightmare that security is in LA!!!

 

Faith

[albeto]

This is crazy talk. It is not misogyny to not want to see high school girls running around half naked in public places. And nobody here has come anywhere close to rape victim blaming.

 

It's not crazy to follow a logical line of argument. The idea that this teen was "half naked in public" is not only highly subjective, it's awkwardly paranoid. My comments are in response to comments such as this:

 

Just like you lock the doors on your car/your house to protect your stuff. It sucks that there are people out there who make it necessary, and it's completely their fault if they decide to steal your stuff, but you still do what you can to protect yourself.

Implication: If a woman wearing "inappropriate" clothing is attacked, she didn't protect herself. She asked for it in the same way a home owner asks for burglary by leaving the door open and the home empty.

 

A 15 year old girl busting out of a sheer white tank top is just dangerous IMO.

Implication: Danger refers to sexual attacks. She's asking for it.

 

I guess I am going to fall into the minority here. I would be thankful someone told my DD to cover up if she was parading in a form fitting outfit like that. It leaves nothing to the imagination. I suspect the man did her a favor in the long run.

Implication: The teen will hopefully learn to not "advertise" herself in such a way that invites attack. In other words, she'll learn to stop asking for it.

 

people are irresponsible if they send their teen daughters out into the world showing off their boobs

Implication: Showing off boobs invites sexual attacks. She's asking for it.

 

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.

Implication: The teen dresses provocatively to trap men. She's asking for it.

 

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.

Implication: "Come and get me" means "Use me sexually." She's asking for it.

 

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.

Implication: Dressing as a sexual object invites sexual behavior. She's asking for it.

 

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...They should be aware that their clothes may be saying something about them that isn't true.

Implication: These clothes advertise sexual availability. She's asking for it.

 

 

The fact is, a man or woman ought to be able to walk through an airport in an outfit that would make Katy Perry blush, and not be assumed to be asking for rape.

[FaithManor]

Oh, and let me tell ya, Detroit gives you the impression that everyone is trigger happy and just waiting for "the bomb to drop". It feels very paranoid around there which is another reason it is not a very nice place to fly from. Maybe others in Michigan do not think so, but I've been through Dulles, Ronald Reagon, BWI, Kennedy (which I have no love of by the way), La Guardia (which I do not mind), Miami, Tampa/St. Pete, Houston, Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Phoenix and none of those have made me feel the way Detroit does. I can't explain it, but I kind of cringe when I have to book a ticket through Detroit Metro.

 

These are just my impressions. Others may think Detroit Metro is just fine.

 

Faith

[Hoot]

 

Anyone who thinks they can see "through" that shirt has a very vivid imagination!

 

Jackie

 

I think part of the issue here is the lighting. There are a few spots on the shirt that COULD be showing her skin tone underneath or it could just be the light. Again, it just reiterates that none of us was there and none of us can accurately say exactly what this girl looked like at the time of the incident. Pictures don't always tell the whole story.

[nmoira]

Oh, and let me tell ya, Detroit gives you the impression that everyone is trigger happy and just waiting for "the bomb to drop". It feels very paranoid around there which is another reason it is not a very nice place to fly from. Maybe others in Michigan do not think so, but I've been through Dulles, Ronald Reagon, BWI, Kennedy (which I have no love of by the way), La Guardia (which I do not mind), Miami, Tampa/St. Pete, Houston, Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Phoenix and none of those have made me feel the way Detroit does. I can't explain it, but I kind of cringe when I have to book a ticket through Detroit Metro.

 

These are just my impressions. Others may think Detroit Metro is just fine.

 

Faith

 

It even makes me paranoid, and it is the only airport at which I hire a car to meet me. I've spent a fair amount of time in the city; I grew up near Detroit and lived in Windsor for three years in the 90s. While I exercise reasonable caution, it's not Detroit itself that causes these extreme feelings.

[SKL]

It's not crazy to follow a logical line of argument. The idea that this teen was "half naked in public" is not only highly subjective, it's awkwardly paranoid. My comments are in response to comments such as this:

 

 

Implication: If a woman wearing "inappropriate" clothing is attacked, she didn't protect herself. She asked for it in the same way a home owner asks for burglary by leaving the door open and the home empty.

 

 

Implication: Danger refers to sexual attacks. She's asking for it.

 

 

Implication: The teen will hopefully learn to not "advertise" herself in such a way that invites attack. In other words, she'll learn to stop asking for it.

 

 

Implication: Showing off boobs invites sexual attacks. She's asking for it.

 

 

Implication: The teen dresses provocatively to trap men. She's asking for it.

 

 

Implication: "Come and get me" means "Use me sexually." She's asking for it.

 

 

Implication: Dressing as a sexual object invites sexual behavior. She's asking for it.

 

 

Implication: These clothes advertise sexual availability. She's asking for it.

Did it ever occur to you that we might be talking about unhealthy sexual advances, not necessarily rape? If you dress suggestively, some people are going to take that as a sign that you are interested in that kind of attention. Some of them might turn away, others might view it as an invitation to come over and get friendly. A young girl may be vulnerable in this case because she may not realize the full implications of this kind of social behavior. She may be lured or humiliated in some way before the other person realizes she isn't interested. Nobody will thinks she's "asking for" rape, but it is much more likely that some will think she's "asking for" sexual attention. Because girls DO ask for that at times, and dressing suggestively is one way to do it.

[Hoot]

While glaring at her.

 

Remember this. is. a. teenager. we're talking about here. I'm not saying he couldn't have been "glaring" at her, but consider the source. A teenager's version of glaring is often very different than an adult's, this situation or otherwise.

[nmoira]

 

 

Remember this. is. a. teenager. we're talking about here. I'm not saying he couldn't have been "glaring" at her, but consider the source. A teenager's version of glaring is often very different than an adult's, this situation or otherwise.

 

Then what are the odds he would have said what he did if he hadn't been glaring or similar? Did she just hit the jackpot?

[albeto]

Did it ever occur to you that we might be talking about unhealthy sexual advances, not necessarily rape?

 

Can you define for me, "unhealthy sexual advances," and under what conditions they are justified by clothing?

 

If you dress suggestively, some people are going to take that as a sign that you are interested in that kind of attention.

 

Can you define for me what a cami and leggings suggests?

[SKL]

Can you define for me, "unhealthy sexual advances," and under what conditions they are justified by clothing?

 

In the same way the burglar is "getting friendly" with the jewelry in the empty house?

 

You are being argumentative for the sake of it again, and I have broken my vow to myself to not engage you. If you truly, truly cannot imagine what I am talking about, maybe you should go find a good friend to explain it to you.

[albeto]

You are being argumentative for the sake of it again, and I have broken my vow to myself to not engage you. If you truly, truly cannot imagine what I am talking about, maybe you should go find a good friend to explain it to you.

 

 

Actually, I'm trying to understand what you mean when you talk about "unhealthy sexual advances" and what wearing a cami and leggings suggest. I can assume what you mean, but if I'm assuming something you're not, then we're not really talking about the same thing. Identifying details is an important part of a rational, logical discussion; it's not a trick.

[flyingiguana]

Well if you guys think she was dressed so conservatively and nothing was showing through the shirt, WHY would this guy pick on her of all people? Surely in a long day he has seen a lot more skin than that. Or did he say "cover up" to everyone not in a burqa? Something must have been different about this girl, or he didn't actually say that, or he needs a psych eval.

 

 

Because she looked like an easy target?

 

Maybe everyone else ignored his digs? But she stood up to him and that's why we're hearing about it?

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

Yeah — mumbling and glaring at her while inspecting documents that needed his approval in order for her to board her plane.

 

That's not intimidating?

 

Jackie

 

 

Apparently it wasn't since she confronted him about it. ;) Good for her.

[Hoot]

This is absolutely right on! My dad was just telling me 2 days ago about a young woman he had just interviewed. She was dressed in a micro mini skirt and sleeveless shirt with a neckline that makes this airport kid look like a nun. At the end of the day, her reasons for dressing that way could have been myriad. Who knows what she was thinking. But, how can an employer not make assumptions based on that type of first impression? It's not about oppression. It's not always about avoiding rape or assault. Sometimes, it's just about learning to be socially appropriate for a given situation. Sometimes, it's about having enough self-esteem to know that you don't need to put your goods out there for everyone to see in order to be noticed in the world.

 

 

I do think there would be value in a conversation about "first impressions that count".

 

While I am no fan of modesty police dictating wardrobe choices, we do have to teach our kids how to function within the confines of the quirks of the society in which they live. There are some cultural expectations whether we like them or not.

 

Case - a 20 something individual came for an interview at my dad's place of business a few years back. He looked like he'd just rolled out of bed. Hair oily and gobbed up, t-shirt stained badly, jeans with rips in the knees and rear end, and he may not have even brushed his teeth, slouched in the chair, grunted often, one word answers, his whole demeanor was pretty sad. He did not get the job though he was the more qualified candidate out of all that applied. Dad mentioned that he had a dress code for customer service positions, and the guy went balistic. He had a basic "F-you" kind of attitude about a code that said jeans without rips, tears, stains, or fraying cuffs with a belt, and shirt with a collar or khakis with said shirt - polos work well. Same for women. It's a functional uniform for the business since one might have to get up and down off a ladder fetching chimney pieces from a high shelf and what not. But, it still looks good.

 

Meeting the professor in his office to discuss grades, going before a judge or a magistrate, whether we like it or not, due to the failings of human nature, we do get judged to a certain degree by our appearance. We shouldn't abide by people being bossed around on their private time, but by the same token many young people need a lesson in "playing the game" and "the employer paying the wages has a vested interest in the fact that you represent his business" because more and more youth do not seem to understand this.

 

Totally off topic, so another thread might make for a good discussion.

 

Even more totally off topic, flying is just becoming a circus of difficulties and mini-insanities. We can't do anything about the need internationally, but maybe we should be building more trains. I've never had the slightest angst of any kind while traveling on Amtrak from Durand MI, to Chicago, or NYC to D.C and think the conductors are great! Bullet trains, we need a bunch of them!!!!

 

Faith

 

[SKL]

 

Actually, I'm trying to understand what you mean when you talk about "unhealthy sexual advances" and what wearing a cami and leggings suggest. I can assume what you mean, but if I'm assuming something you're not, then we're not really talking about the same thing. Identifying details is an important part of a rational, logical discussion; it's not a trick.

 

I'm pretty sure you understood what I was communicating and you are looking for me to type more words that you can pull out of context and twist into something I did not say nor believe. I have seen the pattern. The end.

[Kathryn]

I often carry a lightweight cardigan with me. It's not hard. It doesn't make my life difficult to carry it. Even at the airport. Sometimes, I roll it up and stick it in my bag. And then I put it on later.

[Cricket]

 

Is that a joke?

 

 

One of my favorite quotes from Elizabeth Bennet. Just trying to lighten the mood here. Obviously it didn't work. Carry on, people. Carry on.

 

 

 

 

[Hoot]

Then what are the odds he would have said what he did if he hadn't been glaring or similar? Did she just hit the jackpot?

 

 

Are you saying that in order to have taken note of what she was wearing he had to have been glaring at her? That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps he glanced up and the first thing he noted was her leaning over with an eye full of boob in his face?

[FaithManor]

This is absolutely right on! My dad was just telling me 2 days ago about a young woman he had just interviewed. She was dressed in a micro mini skirt and sleeveless shirt with a neckline that makes this airport kid look like a nun. At the end of the day, her reasons for dressing that way could have been myriad. Who knows what she was thinking. But, how can an employer not make assumptions based on that type of first impression? It's not about oppression. It's not always about avoiding rape or assault. Sometimes, it's just about learning to be socially appropriate for a given situation. Sometimes, it's about having enough self-esteem to know that you don't need to put your goods out there for everyone to see in order to be noticed in the world.

 

I don't really think of it as a "what is on display thing" so much as that kids need to be educated about employer perspectives. Frankly, many employers would not personally care about the above get up on the employee's own time. There is a variety of opinions about clothing as we've seen in this thread. But, the employer has to take into account that the customer or client also has a wide variety of opinions and that some of them, have very narrow opinions as well. So, they want their employees to put forth an effort where their clothing choices pretty much blend and are moderate enough in taste - whatever that means, so you pretty much have to spell it out in an employee handbook - in order to make customers/clients happy and keep making money. That's the goal, the least offensive route to providing customer service to a culture that has as much breadth and variety as ours.

 

It's not easy living in a non-homogenous culture. The above young lady needed to understand that an employer that would not want her to dress like that on the job was not necessarily "zooming her" nor making a statement about her personal choices. That employer however is aware that there is a whole generation of patrons that might be very taken aback by that and might consider taking their business somewhere else.

 

We wouldn't consider a woman who wore a "modest" suit to work to be inappropriate unless we put it in the context that she's a med-surg nurse! Yikes....scrubs and labcoats please. We would expect a fairly limited amount of cloth on someone working as a life guard, or waterpark attendant and it would be quite striking if he/she showed up for such a position wearing jeans and tennis shoes. The bikini wouldn't get a second look unless it was two bandaids and a string or in the case of a guy, a banana hammock, but jeans, that would get a raised eyebrow. A bank will have a different dress code than an auto body shop. But, when this generation interviews for jobs at any of those places, they need to understand that like it or not, they are being evaluated on a first impression of "will this person make good choices as a representative of my business" and a mini-skirt in that context doesn't make a good impression, but neither would the "modest" attire of sloven jeans and flannel shirt buttoned up! Maybe for the stable hand position for a farm, sure...but not the local bank! Equally, a burka, while modest and non-offensive in style by any standard, sad to say would make people in my area quite nervous. An employer would never allow it...a colored head scarf, yes. A burka or robe, no. They would expect something that would draw less attention and that much covering would really draw attention in my micro-culture locally.

 

That's the thing. Young people are not learning context. When my son is doing physical labor for grandpa at his place of business and even if some of that labor is going to mean getting dirty, he starts out in nicer jeans and a good shirt unless grandpa says specifically, "Son, you'll be carrying bricks all day and not waiting on customers so please wear something that you don't mind being ruined."

 

Context is everything and young people aren't learning that. Off topic for this thread, but definitely something to ponder as we raise this generation and particularly in a competitive employment/college admission's time in history.

 

Faith

[WishboneDawn]

I do think there would be value in a conversation about "first impressions that count".

 

While I am no fan of modesty police dictating wardrobe choices, we do have to teach our kids how to function within the confines of the quirks of the society in which they live. There are some cultural expectations whether we like them or not.

 

Case - a 20 something individual came for an interview at my dad's place of business a few years back. He looked like he'd just rolled out of bed. Hair oily and gobbed up, t-shirt stained badly, jeans with rips in the knees and rear end, and he may not have even brushed his teeth, slouched in the chair, grunted often, one word answers, his whole demeanor was pretty sad. He did not get the job though he was the more qualified candidate out of all that applied. Dad mentioned that he had a dress code for customer service positions, and the guy went balistic. He had a basic "F-you" kind of attitude about a code that said jeans without rips, tears, stains, or fraying cuffs with a belt, and shirt with a collar or khakis with said shirt - polos work well. Same for women. It's a functional uniform for the business since one might have to get up and down off a ladder fetching chimney pieces from a high shelf and what not. But, it still looks good.

 

Meeting the professor in his office to discuss grades, going before a judge or a magistrate, whether we like it or not, due to the failings of human nature, we do get judged to a certain degree by our appearance. We shouldn't abide by people being bossed around on their private time, but by the same token many young people need a lesson in "playing the game" and "the employer paying the wages has a vested interest in the fact that you represent his business" because more and more youth do not seem to understand this.

 

Totally off topic, so another thread might make for a good discussion.

 

Even more totally off topic, flying is just becoming a circus of difficulties and mini-insanities. We can't do anything about the need internationally, but maybe we should be building more trains. I've never had the slightest angst of any kind while traveling on Amtrak from Durand MI, to Chicago, or NYC to D.C and think the conductors are great! Bullet trains, we need a bunch of them!!!!

 

Faith

Agreed except the it's not, "playing the game." Clothes communicate. What we choose to wear often communicates very important things or else there wouldn't be threads like this.

 

How that young man dressed was a very accurate reflection of his attitude right? His clothes didn't lie.

 

I was at a garden party yesterday. It was hosted by our province's Lieutenant Governor (the Queen's rep.) And was "business dress". It was an interesting study in clothes. Men were in suits and uniforms and women in dresses and hats and fascinators. Generally. Some women went overboard with the hats. These were the women who were open and warm and having a great time. The local media were quite a bit more casual, a clear message they were not guests and were there in another capacity. Quite a few people were way too casual and generally they were aloof and not very interested in the proceedings. Some were dressed well but a little "off" like me. We were also a little aloof but generally because we didn't know a lot of folks. We'd dressed up but weren't quite sure what was right. And there was more.

 

I talk a lot with my kids about what messages certain clothes communicate. It's important and a physical representation of the manners and ettiquette we hope our children will display.

 

A little off the topic but if that girl had been my daughter we would have had a talk about looking a little more put together while still being comfortable. Put pair of rubber boots on that girl and she'd look like she could have been mucking out a chicken coop. I expect my kids to treat other people kindly and politely and to reflect their attitude in their dress.

 

In the interest of disclosure I wore a stained t-shirt and rubber boots out in public today. We were picking up turkey chicks at the farm store though. :)

[nmoira]

Are you saying that in order to have taken note of what she was wearing he had to have been glaring at her? That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps he glanced up and the first thing he noted was her leaning over with an eye full of boob in his face?

 

No, I'm saying what are the odds he would have spoken the way he did when she addressed him if he had been just looking about normally without noticing a thing in the world and his looking at her was all in her head? If she'd said to her dad, "A TSA agent was glaring at me," end of story, your supposition might be a more likely scenario than it is.

 

Remember this. is. a. teenager. we're talking about here. I'm not saying he couldn't have been "glaring" at her, but consider the source. A teenager's version of glaring is often very different than an adult's, this situation or otherwise.

[Danielle1746]

First, everything Kathryn, SKL, WishboneDawn, and others have said sum up my thoughts pretty well.

 

Second to albeto, thank you for the dialogue. And I never meant to imply that a woman should dress modestly to protect herself from rape or actual physical attacks. Rape is about power, not attraction, I know. But I do think a woman dressing modestly can protect herself from unwanted advances or more likely just being ogled. And I don't mean that ogling has to mean prolonged staring while drooling. Just that someone would notice her and "enjoy" the view she provided. I would not want someone looking at my daughter the way some people look at the Victoria Secret posters mentioned earlier. And whether they should be looking at those posters in that way or not, they DO, so it's only logical to assume that at least some of them would look at an actual person that way as well.

 

And as far as whether she was wearing the flannel shirt at the time or not, we do not know. But I'm with Kathryn on this. It all makes much more sense if she was not wearing it, and I could easily see her having it tied around her waist or folded over her arm or tucked in her carry-on. In the picture, she doesn't appear to be carrying much around, so it's not like she would be juggling armloads of stuff.

[Corraleno]

n/m (post I was responding to was edited while I was typing)

 

Jackie

[Mrs Mungo]

This is absolutely right on! My dad was just telling me 2 days ago about a young woman he had just interviewed. She was dressed in a micro mini skirt and sleeveless shirt with a neckline that makes this airport kid look like a nun. At the end of the day, her reasons for dressing that way could have been myriad. Who knows what she was thinking. But, how can an employer not make assumptions based on that type of first impression? It's not about oppression. It's not always about avoiding rape or assault. Sometimes, it's just about learning to be socially appropriate for a given situation. Sometimes, it's about having enough self-esteem to know that you don't need to put your goods out there for everyone to see in order to be noticed in the world.

 

She doesn't have any "goods" that are "out there!" She is *covered*! And it is NOT socially inappropriate to dress in comfortable leggings and a tank top on a plane. My eldest dd is 17. Because she is a military brat, she has friends who live in Germany, Japan, all across the US from Virginia to Montana to Texas to Seattle. A lot of her friends are on my Facebook so they can comment on photos and such. Photos of girls dressed very similar to this come across dd's Facebook feed *every day*. Just yesterday some friends of dd's playing miniature golf took pictures of each other wearing outfits almost identical to what the girl was wearing in the airport. SHE was not the one being socially inappropriate in this case, HE was.

 

She did not "confront" him to find out what he was mumbling, she just said, "excuse me?" Saying "excuse me" when you cannot hear what someone inspecting your documents has said is totally normal and not an example of confrontation.

 

Not only did *this* TSA agent overstep, but we have examples in the TSA thread of TSA agents treating Muslim women badly because they have on too many clothes. Women just cannot win. Would you tell them that they should wear fewer clothes so as to better protect themselves and not make themselves a target? I should hope not. This is about HIS behavior. The very fact that so much time has been spent on this thread talking about what the girl is wearing is the best evidence for what the dad was talking about in his blog.

[FaithManor]

 

In the interest of disclosure I wore a stained t-shirt and rubber boots out in public today. We were picking up turkey chicks at the farm store though. :)

 

Now, the farm store...that's it's own animal all together. I think TSC would be offended if I ran into there in my Sunday best. They'd be afraid I might spoil myself! :D

 

Faith

[FaithManor]

She doesn't have any "goods" that are "out there!" She is *covered*! And it is NOT socially inappropriate to dress in comfortable leggings and a tank top on a plane. My eldest dd is 17. Because she is a military brat, she has friends who live in Germany, Japan, all across the US from Virginia to Montana to Texas to Seattle. A lot of her friends are on my Facebook so they can comment on photos and such. Photos of girls dressed very similar to this come across dd's Facebook feed *every day*. Just yesterday some friends of dd's playing miniature golf took pictures of each other wearing outfits almost identical to what the girl was wearing in the airport. SHE was not the one being socially inappropriate in this case, HE was.

 

She did not "confront" him to find out what he was mumbling, she just said, "excuse me?" Saying "excuse me" when you cannot hear what someone inspecting your documents has said is totally normal and not an example of confrontation.

 

Not only did *this* TSA agent overstep, but we have examples in the TSA thread of TSA agents treating Muslim women badly because they have on too many clothes. Women just cannot win. Would you tell them that they should wear fewer clothes so as to better protect themselves and not make themselves a target? I should hope not. This is about HIS behavior. The very fact that so much time has been spent on this thread talking about what the girl is wearing is the best evidence for what the dad was talking about in his blog.

 

Thank.you.very.much. I am in full agreement with you.

 

Faith

[Corraleno]

Honestly, I find many of the comments in this thread even MORE disturbing than what the TSA agent said. He was just commenting on her clothing. I'm shocked by the number of people in this thread who are making all kinds of assumptions about her intentions, her behavior, and her character based on nothing more than what she's wearing — which is a perfectly normal and appropriate outfit among American teens in 2013.

 

Describing her as "parading around," "half naked," "showing her private parts," "busting out of a sheer top," "advertising her stuff," "showing off her boobs," wearing the kind of clothes that "say I'm hot to trot, come and get me," wishing to "be viewed as a sexual object," "intentionally trying to attract men's attention and arouse their interest."

 

Characterizing a 15 yo girl, who asks for clarification from the man who is mumbling and glaring at her while inspecting her documents, as "confrontational" and "demanding."

 

Speculating that she was "flirting," or "leaning over with an eyeful of boob in his face," or "making it all up for 15 minutes of fame."

 

:cursing:

 

Jackie

[Hoot]

Absolutely agreed!

 

Just a thought. By vilifying those who may dare to question one's clothing choices, are we sending the message to our children that no one has the right to judge us for what we wear and therefore, anything is acceptable anywhere as long as it makes us feel good? It seems like we are sending some very mixed signals when, as much as some people don't want context to matter, in the real world it really is important.

 

 

I don't really think of it as a "what is on display thing" so much as that kids need to be educated about employer perspectives. Frankly, many employers would not personally care about the above get up on the employee's own time. There is a variety of opinions about clothing as we've seen in this thread. But, the employer has to take into account that the customer or client also has a wide variety of opinions and that some of them, have very narrow opinions as well. So, they want their employees to put forth an effort where their clothing choices pretty much blend and are moderate enough in taste - whatever that means, so you pretty much have to spell it out in an employee handbook - in order to make customers/clients happy and keep making money. That's the goal, the least offensive route to providing customer service to a culture that has as much breadth and variety as ours.

 

It's not easy living in a non-homogenous culture. The above young lady needed to understand that an employer that would not want her to dress like that on the job was not necessarily "zooming her" nor making a statement about her personal choices. That employer however is aware that there is a whole generation of patrons that might be very taken aback by that and might consider taking their business somewhere else.

 

We wouldn't consider a woman who wore a "modest" suit to work to be inappropriate unless we put it in the context that she's a med-surg nurse! Yikes....scrubs and labcoats please. We would expect a fairly limited amount of cloth on someone working as a life guard, or waterpark attendant and it would be quite striking if he/she showed up for such a position wearing jeans and tennis shoes. The bikini wouldn't get a second look unless it was two bandaids and a string or in the case of a guy, a banana hammock, but jeans, that would get a raised eyebrow. A bank will have a different dress code than an auto body shop. But, when this generation interviews for jobs at any of those places, they need to understand that like it or not, they are being evaluated on a first impression of "will this person make good choices as a representative of my business" and a mini-skirt in that context doesn't make a good impression, but neither would the "modest" attire of sloven jeans and flannel shirt buttoned up! Maybe for the stable hand position for a farm, sure...but not the local bank! Equally, a burka, while modest and non-offensive in style by any standard, sad to say would make people in my area quite nervous. An employer would never allow it...a colored head scarf, yes. A burka or robe, no. They would expect something that would draw less attention and that much covering would really draw attention in my micro-culture locally.

 

That's the thing. Young people are not learning context. When my son is doing physical labor for grandpa at his place of business and even if some of that labor is going to mean getting dirty, he starts out in nicer jeans and a good shirt unless grandpa says specifically, "Son, you'll be carrying bricks all day and not waiting on customers so please wear something that you don't mind being ruined."

 

Context is everything and young people aren't learning that. Off topic for this thread, but definitely something to ponder as we raise this generation and particularly in a competitive employment/college admission's time in history.

 

Faith

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Absolutely agreed!

 

Just a thought. By vilifying those who may dare to question one's clothing choices, are we sending the message to our children that no one has the right to judge us for what we wear and therefore, anything is acceptable anywhere as long as it makes us feel good? It seems like we are sending some very mixed signals when, as much as some people don't want context to matter, in the real world it really is important.

 

 

Do you mean our specific children or general society? Because these are very different things.

 

My children attend lots of different types of events that require dressing up in nicer clothes. They seem capable of understanding that we wear one thing to the beach, something else to work functions and an entirely different mode of dress for balls and other formal events.

 

I don't see how not expecting a TSA agent to comment on normal attire is the same as telling a child that nobody should ever judge what they are wearing. Those are not equal statements.

[Kathryn]

I'm shocked by the number of people in this thread who are making all kinds of assumptions about her intentions, her behavior, and her character based on nothing more than what she's wearing — which is a perfectly normal and appropriate outfit among American teens in 2013.

 

 

People make assumptions based on clothing choices all the time. That's the whole point of having different styles of clothing. What you pick says something about you. You send a message with your choice.

 

NOT on topic of the TSA guy, but about clothing choices, because the thread has a couple of different topics going and one of them is clothing choices: I just googled her name out of curiosity and this girl seems to me to have made a certain choice with her clothing in how she presents herself: https://m.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=4740514790913&id=1236226055&set=a.3484044819949.2130168.1236226055&__user=513591996

[SKL]

Honestly, I find many of the comments in this thread even MORE disturbing than what the TSA agent said. He was just commenting on her clothing. I'm shocked by the number of people in this thread who are making all kinds of assumptions about her intentions, her behavior, and her character based on nothing more than what she's wearing — which is a perfectly normal and appropriate outfit among American teens in 2013.

 

Describing her as "parading around," "half naked," "showing her private parts," "busting out of a sheer top," "advertising her stuff," "showing off her boobs," wearing the kind of clothes that "say I'm hot to trot, come and get me," wishing to "be viewed as a sexual object," "intentionally trying to attract men's attention and arouse their interest."

 

Characterizing a 15 yo girl, who asks for clarification from the man who is mumbling and glaring at her while inspecting her documents, as "confrontational" and "demanding."

 

Speculating that she was "flirting," or "leaning over with an eyeful of boob in his face," or "making it all up for 15 minutes of fame."

 

:cursing:

 

Jackie

 

I saw nobody commenting on this girl's character. What we are commenting on is that clothes make statements, intended or otherwise. My first comment was to "want to give the girl the benefit of the doubt" that she did not intend anything, maybe she didn't realize her boobs were showing. It happens. She's young. Most people would not say anything to let her know, and she didn't have her parents there to advise her. I don't think she meant to draw attention to herself. Though it is always a possibility. The above quote goes way overboard in assigning beliefs and intentions to people who are only talking about the clothes and perhaps saying "maybe" about a couple of things that are in fact quite common among girls that age. Some of the words quoted above were not in reference to this girl at all, but to the belief that parents need to teach girls about what clothes can communicate. This was in response to the journalist who stated that when we tell our girls to "cover up," that equals all kinds of horrible misogynistic things.

[Hoot]

My post that you quoted was not in regards to the 15 yr. old airport girl so I'm not sure why the hostility. The part in red below was a generalization, not specifically meant for this particular girl. I actually do not disagree with you. Based on the single photo we're given, she IS covered. I think it's odd that he would have chosen HER to comment on when he has likely seen people with far less coverage UNLESS he is either just a crazy loon or we are not seeing the whole story as it is presented in this picture. My PERSONAL opinion is that this is not an outfit I would want a daughter of mine to wear simply because it shows all of one's nooks and crannies. That is just a preference, but I would never assume to tell anyone else they couldn't wear it. I believe I even stated this very thing somewhere upthread. Additionally, I agree that he was the one being inappropriate. I never said otherwise.

 

As for the Muslim aspect, this is a fear-based product of our country's current climate. This isn't news. Many people are afraid of Muslims. Many people are uneducated on the issues and believe that all Muslims seek to destroy Americans. I don't think it has anything to do with them wearing too many clothes, but rather what those clothes symbolize and the fear that they can invoke in those who simply don't understand.

 

This is absolutely right on! My dad was just telling me 2 days ago about a young woman he had just interviewed. She was dressed in a micro mini skirt and sleeveless shirt with a neckline that makes this airport kid look like a nun. At the end of the day, her reasons for dressing that way could have been myriad. Who knows what she was thinking. But, how can an employer not make assumptions based on that type of first impression? It's not about oppression. It's not always about avoiding rape or assault. Sometimes, it's just about learning to be socially appropriate for a given situation. Sometimes, it's about having enough self-esteem to know that you don't need to put your goods out there for everyone to see in order to be noticed in the world.

 

She doesn't have any "goods" that are "out there!" She is *covered*! And it is NOT socially inappropriate to dress in comfortable leggings and a tank top on a plane. My eldest dd is 17. Because she is a military brat, she has friends who live in Germany, Japan, all across the US from Virginia to Montana to Texas to Seattle. A lot of her friends are on my Facebook so they can comment on photos and such. Photos of girls dressed very similar to this come across dd's Facebook feed *every day*. Just yesterday some friends of dd's playing miniature golf took pictures of each other wearing outfits almost identical to what the girl was wearing in the airport. SHE was not the one being socially inappropriate in this case, HE was.

 

She did not "confront" him to find out what he was mumbling, she just said, "excuse me?" Saying "excuse me" when you cannot hear what someone inspecting your documents has said is totally normal and not an example of confrontation.

 

Not only did *this* TSA agent overstep, but we have examples in the TSA thread of TSA agents treating Muslim women badly because they have on too many clothes. Women just cannot win. Would you tell them that they should wear fewer clothes so as to better protect themselves and not make themselves a target? I should hope not. This is about HIS behavior. The very fact that so much time has been spent on this thread talking about what the girl is wearing is the best evidence for what the dad was talking about in his blog.

 

[FaithManor]

Absolutely agreed!

 

Just a thought. By vilifying those who may dare to question one's clothing choices, are we sending the message to our children that no one has the right to judge us for what we wear and therefore, anything is acceptable anywhere as long as it makes us feel good? It seems like we are sending some very mixed signals when, as much as some people don't want context to matter, in the real world it really is important.

 

 

Tough question for certain and food for thought. I think the answer may come with the word "judge". To assume intent and moral character failings based solely alone on clothing choices is troubling. I've seen kids treated horribly for very superficial reasons such as this and it makes my heart bleed.

 

If we decide she's a trollop and a slut for wearing a camisole under an unbottoned up shirt, then isn't it also okay to think and God forbid SAY OUTLOUD "trash" when the little boy down the street whose parents can't afford nice clothing shows up to the school openhouse in a dirty shirt and worn out jeans. I had an elementary teacher in school who ass exactly like this. Your entire school year and the success thereof was predicated on what you wore the first day of school and how much your parents could afford. That's judgment too. Most people would be appalled, but the reality is she assumed he was of low character because of his clothing. That's exactly what people have done in this thread with the young lady in question.

 

The actual intentions of another person are pretty hard to exclusively tell based on clothes. Yep, I teach my kids that people do it anyway...it is the game we play...trying to make other people like us or not think ill of us in certain social situations based on what we wear. Look at the whole "what to wear to this wedding" thread. Dress codes at weddings, not attending if you can't afford the tux, what will people think if you wear khakis and a long sleeve button up to a beach wedding and then it turns out that all of the other guys have suits! It goes on and on. Our culture is very superficial and assumes its okay to ascribe any number of character flaws and intentions to all kinds of personal clothing and accessory choices. I'd like to see us grow up as a nation and try, especially when we aren't talking about needing a dress code for a business situation because we are trying to please everyone all the time, to think a little more deeply and not make judgments on what we see at first glance. The miniskirt gal might be the nicest, kindest, most compassionate, community service minded, volunteer the town has ever seen. Will the people who decide she's a whore because she's in a mini- skirt ever know that? If this thread is any indication, it's kind of doubtful. Everyone is assured that the clothing choice automatically dictates matters of the heart. To be honest, it's the "I'm better than them because I choose X" comparison and sad to say, self included at my low points in my life, we pretty much all probably do it at one time or another. Humans aren't actually all that kind to each other naturally. We have to work at it!

 

The boy with the baggy pants and the nasty t-shirt might also be the one that spends every Friday night at the soup kitchen ladling up broth and befriending homeless men. Will the people who decide he's a punk based on his clothing ever know that? Probably not. If we write people off so quickly, what are the chances we'll stop to get to know them?

 

Do I like it when dad has to make an employment decision based on appearance or reaction to a dress code? No, I hate it. On the other hand, he's trapped by the dictates and very probable narrow mindedness of the people he needs to write him checks for his services and products. He's hampered by the society he happened to be born into...we all are.

 

So, I have to teach my kids that there is a huge population of people out there that will judge them, and judge them severely, based on something like their choice of jeans. On the other hand, while I have to teach them that some of these people have to be sucked up to because you are between a rock and a hard spot if you don't - the dean, the grant committee you make your proposal to, your employer, etc. - I'd also like to think I teach them to be a lot kinder in their own minds and much more respectful of the other humans on planet earth.

 

Yep, lot's of mixed messages, and I have absolutely no wisdom concerning how to get around some of it or change it or make the world a nicer place.

 

Faith

[albeto]

As for the feminist aspect, this is a fear-based product of our country's current climate. This isn't news. Many people are afraid of feminism. Many people are uneducated on the issues and believe that all assertive and confident women seek to destroy traditional America. I don't think it has anything to do with them wearing too little clothes, but rather what those clothes symbolize and the fear that they can invoke in those who simply don't understand.

 

Perhaps the changes I made in your comment will help illustrate the issue.

[albeto]

I'm pretty sure you understood what I was communicating and you are looking for me to type more words that you can pull out of context and twist into something I did not say nor believe. I have seen the pattern. The end.

 

If I understood, I wouldn't ask for clarification. If you can't define these terms for me, then they are useless in the discussion.

[Mrs Mungo]

My post that you quoted was not in regards to the 15 yr. old airport girl so I'm not sure why the hostility.

 

I am not hostile, I merely emphasized words.

 

The part in red below was a generalization, not specifically meant for this particular girl.

 

Then how is it relevant to this discussion?

 

As for the Muslim aspect, this is a fear-based product of our country's current climate. This isn't news. Many people are afraid of Muslims. Many people are uneducated on the issues and believe that all Muslims seek to destroy Americans. I don't think it has anything to do with them wearing too many clothes, but rather what those clothes symbolize and the fear that they can invoke in those who simply don't understand.

 

I don't think you see the connection I am making. The many, many comments about the girl's clothing *also* are strictly about the hyperfocus of the body as a sexual being instead of a human being that we see in the US. You do not have this sort of hyperfocus on sexual parts in many other countries. It is culturally driven and highly subjective. But, people are acting as if there is some standard that the girl failed to adhere to and therefore deserved comments of one sort or another.

[Hoot]

Do you mean our specific children or general society? Because these are very different things.

 

My children attend lots of different types of events that require dressing up in nicer clothes. They seem capable of understanding that we wear one thing to the beach, something else to work functions and an entirely different mode of dress for balls and other formal events.

 

I don't see how not expecting a TSA agent to comment on normal attire is the same as telling a child that nobody should ever judge what they are wearing. Those are not equal statements.

 

Just a thought. By vilifying those who may dare to question one's clothing choices, are we sending the message to our children that no one has the right to judge us for what we wear and therefore, anything is acceptable anywhere as long as it makes us feel good? It seems like we are sending some very mixed signals when, as much as some people don't want context to matter, in the real world it really is important.

 

I am very much speaking culturally, as a whole, not anyone in particular. There is a trend amongst parents to automatically assume that their child(ren) are perfect little angels who can do no wrong when anyone other than themselves are involved. These same parents often have the mindset that "whatever makes junior happy is A-OK." I saw it working in public school all the time. Junior gets in trouble and the parent is automatically up in arms at the teacher. There is no possibility that the child could be in the wrong, and even if they are, you have no right to discipline them. My question is, if this same line of thinking is applied to dress (and clearly it is to some degree since many young people have no idea what constitutes appropriate attire as evidenced in the job interview anecdotes upthread), are we doing children a disservice when the fact of the matter is, appearance matters? If we're collectively telling a nation of kids that NO ONE has the right to have an opinion on what they wear, then where is the line drawn? Why then do employers' opinions matter? Why then does it matter what is considered socially acceptable attire for a funeral? church service? ball? No one has a right to tell junior that his clothes aren't appropriate.

[albeto]

Second to albeto, thank you for the dialogue. And I never meant to imply that a woman should dress modestly to protect herself from rape or actual physical attacks. Rape is about power, not attraction, I know.

 

It's been a pleasure talking with you, Danielle. As to your comment here, this makes all kinds of sense. I don't imagine anyone would argue with this. However, it does reveal a cognitive dissonance with regard to the argument being supported that the teen was in some way "inappropriate" in her dress. If you'll indulge me, I'll break it down a little more.

 

But I do think a woman dressing modestly can protect herself from unwanted advances or more likely just being ogled.

 

Well, that's really debatable, I think. On the one hand, we can't seem to determine how "modesty" ought to be defined. Do the Orthodox Jews have the best idea? Perhaps the conservative Muslims are on to something. Maybe just covering hair and all skin is enough. Then again, perhaps clothing familiar to the FLDS and Amish communities are more appropriate. Or do evangelicals or conservative Catholics better understand what makes for proper "modesty"? If the argument is valid, then women really shouldn't wear slacks because they supposedly draw attention to the buttocks and crotch. Yikes, who wants men to be staring at that? Do you see the difficulty with this concept from the very beginning?

 

Then we have to ask, does the man determine if a woman is dressing modestly enough? If she has been violated in any way, does the man get to defend his actions by explaining that she didn't dress modestly enough and he was justified to behave the way he did? What angers or interests one man does nothing for another, so should women dress as conservatively as possible in order to appease the most sensitive men in the population? Where does the argument stop?

 

 

And I don't mean that ogling has to mean prolonged staring while drooling. Just that someone would notice her and "enjoy" the view she provided. I would not want someone looking at my daughter the way some people look at the Victoria Secret posters mentioned earlier. And whether they should be looking at those posters in that way or not, they DO, so it's only logical to assume that at least some of them would look at an actual person that way as well.

 

I have a couple questions here. In what way is being the object of one's attention bad? If one looks at another person and either thinks to him or herself, "yumm!" or simply responds physiologically (increased heart beat, sweating palms, etc), does that victimize the person being looked at? If you suggest it inspires attack, I would encourage you to separate the two behaviors, because they need not be related.

 

The other question has to do with public policy. If you don't want your daughter to be the object of someone's attention, does that mean other women are wrong for allowing themselves to be? What if a woman wants to be the object of attention? If that doesn't justify unwanted sexual behavior, is there an objective, detrimental issue at play, or is this a matter of protecting against the slippery slope we explored a bit in the first paragraph?

 

And as far as whether she was wearing the flannel shirt at the time or not, we do not know. But I'm with Kathryn on this. It all makes much more sense if she was not wearing it, and I could easily see her having it tied around her waist or folded over her arm or tucked in her carry-on. In the picture, she doesn't appear to be carrying much around, so it's not like she would be juggling armloads of stuff.

 

In my opinion, it doesn't make any difference. She should be able to walk through the security line with the flannel in one hand, her cami tied in a knot under her rib cage, and Daisy Duke denim shorts, and heels high enough to make Lady Gaga jealous, it doesn't justify someone telling her how she ought to dress. That decision is hers to make, and it doesn't objectively imply invitations to "surprise sex." That's a learned behavior. It can be unlearned.

[albeto]

 

I am very much speaking culturally, as a whole, not anyone in particular. There is a trend amongst parents to automatically assume that their child(ren) are perfect little angels who can do no wrong when anyone other than themselves are involved. These same parents often have the mindset that "whatever makes junior happy is A-OK." I saw it working in public school all the time. Junior gets in trouble and the parent is automatically up in arms at the teacher. There is no possibility that the child could be in the wrong, and even if they are, you have no right to discipline them. My question is, if this same line of thinking is applied to dress (and clearly it is to some degree since many young people have no idea what constitutes appropriate attire as evidenced in the job interview anecdotes upthread), are we doing children a disservice when the fact of the matter is, appearance matters? If we're collectively telling a nation of kids that NO ONE has the right to have an opinion on what they wear, then where is the line drawn? Why then do employers' opinions matter? Why then does it matter what is considered socially acceptable attire for a funeral? church service? ball? No one has a right to tell junior that his clothes aren't appropriate.

 

No one is making this argument.

[Mrs Mungo]

If we're collectively telling a nation of kids that NO ONE has the right to have an opinion on what they wear, then where is the line drawn? Why then do employers' opinions matter? Why then does it matter what is considered socially acceptable attire for a funeral? church service? ball? No one has a right to tell junior that his clothes aren't appropriate.

 

I don't think we are telling them that *as a whole*. People of all ages show up to job interviews dressed inappropriately all of the time. I know more than one person who does hiring, and they love to share stories about the crazy things people wear, say and do. They are not relegated to one age group. I have teenagers. They participate in many different types of activities. It is my experience that most teens are aware of how to dress appropriately for various occasions. Some are not aware, they do not know. But, the wedding/etiquitte threads are clear indicators that the small percentage of people who don't know how or when to dress appropriately exist in all demographics.

[FaithManor]

Contessa, if you haven't seen my post on the previous page about the question you raise, you might want to go back and read it. It kind of ellucidates my thoughts on judging others on appearances, why it happens, why I'm not particularly comfortable with it, and why I don't have a clue what to do about it and still teach my kids about clothing choices and societal situations though I'd prefer that our culture not ascribe deep character flaws to individuals based soley on what we think of what they wear.

 

Faith

[PeacefulChaos]

 

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.

 

:svengo: :blink:

Astro doesn't wear a shirt half of the summer. He spends almost all of his time in swim shorts and nothing else.

Oh, dear. Maybe I should worry about the *pure minds* of all the little girls across the street... :rolleyes:

 

 

On another note, I personally think the TSA agent was way out of line to say anything about what she was wearing.

AND after reading this thread I am giving great thought to what I will wear for my travel days to Thailand this winter... hmm...

[unfrumpable.]

The photo you linked is different and has lower clarity than the one in the OP of this thread. Yes, I can see through that shirt and so could anyone who was standing near her. ... I never said the G-man should have voiced his opinion to the girl. I said she should have been covering her goods better, regardless of what anyone said or didn't say. I'm saying that the fact that people think she should cover up her boobs is not some kind of anti-girl conspiracy. The idea that "cover your boobs" today is going to lead to "cover your face and keep your mouth shut and stay in the compound behind high walls" tomorrow is ridiculous. The idea that an older guy telling a 15yo she should be covering means he wants to rape her, or would approve of anyone else raping her, is beyond ridiculous. The fact that I think the girl's shirt was too revealing means I think rape is justifiable is extremely offensive.

 

You must have x-ray vision!!!

[FaithManor]

:svengo: :blink:

Astro doesn't wear a shirt half of the summer. He spends almost all of his time in swim shorts and nothing else.

Oh, dear. Maybe I should worry about the *pure minds* of all the little girls across the street... :rolleyes:

 

 

On another note, I personally think the TSA agent was way out of line to say anything about what she was wearing.

AND after reading this thread I am giving great thought to what I will wear for my travel days to Thailand this winter... hmm...

 

Dh says scuba suit or one of those outfits from the musical "Cats" minus the tail!

 

He's probably not being that helpful. But, hey...at least they can't accuse you of hiding anything!!! :D

 

Go with the Cats costume, I would imagine the scuba suit would be really uncomfortable for such a long plane journey!

 

Faith