This comes in the context of recent events where a young woman, a college student, was embarrassed for wearing a short skirt on a plane from California to Arizona, and nearly removed from that flight. The same woman, wearing the exact same clothing a few hours later and using the same airline, not only received no objections from the flight crew members, but she reports she was complimented on her attire by one of the stewardesses. While her skirt was admittedly short, it was not indecent, and was consistent with usual street attire.
If I were to try to describe why it is that this attire (or lack of it) bothers me, it would be because the exhibitionist nature of it suggests to me that this man may in some way be gratifying a sexual urge by wearing this odd outfit. While I do not care in the slightest what consenting adults do in private, I do not wish to be an unwilling participant in their fetish, sexual or otherwise. Clearly, this man appears to be very pleased with himself.
A male college student was arrested in California, flying back to New Mexico, and is being held on $11,000 bail, for not pulling up his pants when the upper part of his underwear was visible.
In neither of the cases involving the two college students was there as much skin displayed as in the above picture. While a small amount of undergarment was revealed in the case of the male college student, it was nothing like the revealing outfit worn by the man in the picture.
But this led me to a rather whimsical chain of thoughts, including, would the TSA NEED to either screen or pat down the man wearing pretty much nothing except women's underwear? And would it simply add to his enjoyment of his particular kink?
So, clearly there is no consistency in airline policies; not on the same airline, on different flights, and not between airlines as some sort of industry standard.
After getting past that initial overwhelming desire to place a 911 call to the fashion police, and I admit to laughing a bit at this guy in the photo, the next thought that came into my mind was to think back to the Jesse Ventura kerfuffle over his being patted down by the TSA. Given some of the outfits Jesse wore, back in the day, like these:
Ventura was no less flamboyant in the outfits worn by his 'action figures' (apparently doll is too feminine a classification for these toys, or perhaps it makes them seem more adult and less childish). These two action figures also seem to favor the pink and floral motif, and presumably had the governor's approval before they were issued by the toy manufacturer.
Regrettably, none of the photos of the real wrestler Jesse Ventura or the figures of his image shown here display his famous signature feather boas, most of which he has donated to charities, to his credit. But I don't think that Jesse's wrestling era work clothes, or lack of them, would really be suitable street wear either, and they would be doubly unpleasant on a fellow-traveler who lacked the celebrity of Ventura who likes public attention himself.
Which led me to wonder, whatever happened to the TSA lawsuit filed by Ventura in federal court in Minnesota in January of 2011? The answer is that the end of March 2011, the feds moved to have the case dismissed back in April (April 1st, appropriately), and it was reopened in May 2011 by a motion to intervene filed by 'American Travelers', whoever they are. In response to the reopening of the suit, and the intervention motion, the last I can find is that the feds responded to the intervention motion of 'American Travelers' on May 31st, 2011. For anyone else who is interested in tracking the developments of this case as it progresses, the case number is 0:11-cv-00174-SRN-AJB.
Now I wouldn't wish our former governor, who flies quite often apparently for his conspiracy theory show, to be made uncomfortable by the actions of the TSA, including sexually. Whatever professions he has followed in his life, his sensibilities do deserve respect. Just as I wouldn't wish to be made uncomfortable by sitting next to the man in the blue women's underwear and high heels. But in contrast, at least the TSA is attempting to prevent terrorist violence which could kill people, both those flying and on the ground, while I cannot find a similar safety pretext for the under-dressed gentleman in the top photo.
I think for those who fly, and for those who travel by any other mode of public transport, we need to find some common ground and some common sense that respects the freedom of people to dress as they wish and to express themselves, including so far as is consistent with public safety, those who wear ethnic modes of clothing, without disrespecting the freedom of those around them. I would be satisfied if the travel industry came up with a dress code of some kind that formalized that concept, so at least there might be some consistency in our airports, train depots, bus stations, etc.
Written with special affection for those of my blogging colleagues who spend a lot of time in planes and trains, and even automobiles. Happy Traveling!
What a society 'believes' is appropriate often undergoes the three-fold evolutionary process that is outlined in Chris Hedges book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. We are born ignorant of societal mores, of course, then we learn those of our particular culture. The third and final stage is the overt over-reaching of those rules and/or one comes to the judgment that it was all hogwash to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of Thomas Wolfe's oft-quoted remark, "Naked and alone we came into this unspeakable and incommunicable prison of this earth..."
Perhaps his intent was not literal nakedness, but rather the nakedness of the knowledge of rules and societal mores into which a child is born.
The rest of Wolfe's line seems ripe for the age in which we live: "Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father's heart? Which of us has not remained forever prison pent? Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone? "
I wish I could remember the line from the film "personal services" where the WWII RAF ace makes a comment about flying missions wearing panties and a bra.
ReplyDeleteLaci, I don't care if this man or someone like him wants to wear this stuff under his clothes while flying as a passenger.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that any WW II RAF ace wore ONLY a bra and panties during missions, given the temperatures at altitude and the relative heating (or lack thereof) in the planes of that era.
In the movie Bull Durham, the character played by Tim Robbins wears a garter belt and hose to overcome a problem he has pitching.
He doesn't go out on the baseball diamond wearing only a garter belt and stockings.
It is the aspect of this man appearing to receive some gratification from shocking or at least making uncomfortable the other passengers, particularly those seated in the closest proximity to him. Someone wearing this UNDER other clothing wouldn't be seeking that particular gratification. Likewise I don't care what people DON'T wear under their clothing. If I'm sitting next to someone for example in a kilt, I'm going to assume that they might very well be wearing it 'regimental'. Their bits are covered; beyond that how traditionally they do or don't choose to wear their clothing is none of my business - and they aren't trying to make it my business or to elicit a reaction from me or others.
There are places where beaches allow women to wear just a thong and go topless. I wouldn't wish to sit next to another woman in that state of undress either.
As much as he is probably a fascinating conversationalist, I also would not wish to sit next to our former governor in his wrestling era wear either, although it would be an improvement over the guy in women's undies.