Dress code for Flying?

OMG, I can see her.... thighs!!
I vote mandatory orange nomex flight suits, and helmets of course.

Adder wrote: I vote mandatory orange nomex flight suits, and helmets of course.

Of Course.

Trisskar wrote: Personally - Talking from a Jedi like perspective. I feel it is our responsibility to be good role models and set good examples. This not only applies to how we behave but also in how we dress. You should know better than to stand out and wear gaudy things in public places where you may or may not hurt or offend people. Be considerate. And most important of all. A Jedi is not above the laws and social rules. If you go to an airport and the captain or staff tells you to change - Don't argue and be a douche bag idiot. Go to the gorram restroom and change - If you are a Jedi, you will/should be prepared with a spare set of clothes for long travels anyways.

As an average citizen - Same thing. I am not above anyone else and my own ego is not important. I do not care to raise a fuss over something so stupid. Dress however you like in your own backyard and with friends - not in public as if your existance is the only one to bend a knee to.

Just my thoughts

I like this notion of being an example for others. Being aware of how I come across to others helps me to be the person I want to be. We are ambassadors of the Force. I hope people use words like "dignified" and "respectable" to describe Jedi.

As for the lady wearing socially unacceptable clothes, I don't see anything wrong with having a dress code in certain places. A woman shouldn't enter a mosque without some kind of head covering, yet on stage at a burlesque theater, she would look silly if she were wearing a parka. At the same time, I also see it as bad form to tell someone that they are dressed wrong.

At first I was thinking it's funny how the airline did all this because people 'might' be offended, meaning they speculated people who aren't staff would say something, except they haven't....

But then the idiot had to bring feminist crap into it. It's not misogyny. There wasn't a bloke on that flight in the same outfit, gracing the seats with his arse's skin, was there?

People don't like it because it's actually dirty, why would they be cool with that when they disinfect the equipment at the gym because of a bit of sweat? Those seats get properly cleaned once a week if you're lucky.... She is a literal slut (someone with low standards of hygiene and morals) and having standards is not shaming (or shameful).

ren wrote: People don't like it because it's actually dirty, why would they be cool with that when they disinfect the equipment at the gym because of a bit of sweat? Those seats get properly cleaned once a week if you're lucky.... She is a literal slut (someone with low standards of hygiene and morals) and having standards is not shaming (or shameful).

That is a bit presumptuous isnt it? She could be wearing underwear, and it covers her butt. Are armrest covers cleaned more often then seat covers because an armrest is going to get a lot of skin action, if your concerned about sweat, and some people sweat a lot to the extent it goes through clothes - should they be disallowed from boarding a flight? If you don't like sitting on a chair someone else might have sweated in, then wear more clothing. The individual has the power to alter their own actions to compensate for the variability of a relatively free society. Her clothing is not particular indecent, as all you can see is legs so who is being shamed, her or you, sounds like you which I guess just shows a difference of standards or are your standards the standard everyone must follow? She might not sweat much, especially in a dehumidified atmosphere of air conditioning. Some tight dresses show more detail then those shorts, and some guys tight pants do the same....

I reckon the biggest problem is they 'looked' like underpants, and that it might create extra work for the cabin crew explaining to anyone who might ask if they were! It is a place of business, so they can certainly set their own standards of dress I guess but they'd want to be consistent and have appropriate reasoning.

That is a bit presumptuous isnt it?

No Adder. It was an educated opinion. nothing to do with perception (though personally I quite like the perception of bum cheeks and the occasional pussy slip these small shorts offer -and they do-) or saving the children or other garbage people come up with.

It has to do with:
-Plane seats don't get cleaned that much or that well, much like other public transport seats.
-People with hep C leakage out their ass use pubic transport wearing things like this or other hygienically insufficient clothing because they're assholes. Considering a woman 'leaks' 24/7, I just don't think this type of outfit to be sufficient for the hygienic needs of everyone else as I would not consider the outfit sufficient for a 'non-leaky' guaranteed-free-from-infection man either.

All freedom has a beginning and an end. Go sauna in germany, it'll be the best you'll ever have. But you have to:
-not wear any clothing (unhygienic)
-not touch the wood with any part of your body (it ruins the wood for everyone else -use a towel-).
Rules for the common good.

Of course instead of my preference for rules I could go the australian route, and hate everything which isn't australian. Or the american route and shoot everything that's not patriotic. But I'm not quite ready for that yet. I know we could halve the pollution from personal vehicles if we could just shoot the sluts who put their feet on the bus seats (you know, the ones who complain about manspreading, but won't take their feet off the seat when asked?), but I remain stubborn in my belief there has to be a better solution. Blame excessive idealism.

ren wrote: No Adder. It was an educated opinion.

Nah, it still seems presumptuous. There was material covering all areas which would otherwise be covered with underwear, and therefore whether her shorts had legs or not is irrelevant to your assertion of hygiene - unless she did not have underwear. This is the presumption required for your point to make any sense. But of course then doesn't your argument then have to presume that no-one else ever goes commando, in which case its irrelevant to how much leg is being shown which again defeats your point. What you need for your point to stand up is either clothing sufficiently small to show no underwear being worn, or pants checking folk to make sure they have at least 2 layers of pants on
:S

ren wrote: I could go the australian route, and hate everything which isn't australian.

Really? Hehe, well that is what happens when ya live in the best country in the world and go visit other places which are not as good...
:ohmy: :lol:
:whistle:

Very well Adder. People do not think daisy dukes are unhygienic (only me and my sense of hygiene, no health professional agrees), and even though laws of physics + stuff visibly hangs out when they bend over, no public transport seat has ever been contaminated in anyway (even though i've seen it with my own eyes, they must've had shit in them). No woman has ever done anything wrong or stupid because feminism said so and Adder enforces it.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Really? Hehe, well that is what happens when ya live in the best country in the world and go visit other places which are not as good...

Well a pair of shorts certainly is a lot of coverage when compared to the wicked weasel bikinis of bayron bay. Sure is a pretty country.

On a more serious note I've not known australians personally, and rather enjoy watching mighty car mods, but every australian I've met was a bit on the racist side, funny considering they weren't in australia at the time? Though I guess australian tourists probably are a lot better than british ones. (england is already being threatened with expulsion from the european championships over supporter behaviour ??!!!!!!!!!1!!! )

ren wrote: Very well Adder. People do not think daisy dukes are unhygienic (only me and my sense of hygiene, no health professional agrees), and even though laws of physics + stuff visibly hangs out when they bend over, no public transport seat has ever been contaminated in anyway (even though i've seen it with my own eyes, they must've had shit in them). No woman has ever done anything wrong or stupid because feminism said so and Adder enforces it.

I'd like to make a few points.

1. Vaginas are not dirty. In fact, I'd guess that they're far less hygienic than the front door handle of a public building, or a handrail on a bus, or the railing at a public park. Basically anything you touch in an area of public traffic.

2. I don't understand why you think the skin of a woman's thighs, or even her butt cheeks is any "dirtier" than, say, her forearms, or back.

3. Your language is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory - though I'm certainly not the first to bring this up. Calling a woman a "literal slut" for wearing shorts and then referring to women as sluts in general when they put their feet up on a bus (a practice I don't agree with either, but I don't understand how that makes them "sluts") and then ridiculing those who defend a women's right to wear what she wants. What is your goal here? Who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of?


Why are you so preoccupied with the assumed personal hygiene (because you don't know what that woman's actual level of hygiene is) of people who sit in a airplane seats, and what they wear?