Sagging Respectfully and Responsibly

by admin on June 22, 2011

On Wednesday, San Francisco police got a call about 9 a.m. that someone was exposing himself outside a US Airways gate, Sgt. Michael Rodriguez said.

An airline employee spotted Marman before he boarded Flight 488, bound for Albuquerque, and complained that Marman’s pants “were below his buttocks but above the knees, and that much of his boxer shorts were exposed,” Rodriguez said.

The employee asked Marman to pull up his pants before he boarded the plane, but he refused, Rodriguez said. Marman allegedly repeated his refusal after taking his seat on the plane.

“At that point he was asked to leave the plane,” Rodriguez said. “It took 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane, and he was arrested for trespassing.” Marman allegedly resisted officers as he was being led away.

Read the rest of the article here.

Count me in as one of those members of society that really doesn’t want to know what color and pattern your boxer shorts are.   I don’t want to see your thong, either.    I am apparently not alone in that sentiment as evidenced by the various campaigns to “raise” awareness of the need to raise pant waists.   New York Lawmaker Sen. Eric Adams has started a Saggy Pants Billboard Crusade to get young people to pull up their pants.

Click here to see embedded video.

Do I really want to be behind a man in super sagging pants as we attempt to emergency exit the plane?   As the next video demonstrates, sagging pants are a severe liability to mobility.

Click here to see embedded video.

Marman, it was just a pair of pants.  Hike them up when asked by employees instead of defending your entitled right to wear an item of clothing in a manner that many people consider vulgar or inappropriate as well as unsafe in certain situations.   And for your next flight, buy some of these pants designed by Thomasina Clarke so that you can sag “respectfully and responsibly”.

{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }

Phenyx June 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm

I must also respectfully disagree with the admin. Marman was nowhere near as bad this guy, who was let on the same airline company without any problems whatsoever:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/22/137348120/double-standard-us-airways-allows-man-wearing-panties-to-fly

Reply

lkb June 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm

I long for the old days when air and train travel was considered a dress-up occasion (check those old movies from the 30s and 40s).

I can see where some people are saying that he wasn’t exposing anything. I’m just waiting for some (ahem) gentleman to wear the baggy pants and forget that he’s “going commando” (shouldn’t be too much longer if it hasn’t happened already).

Reply

Tanz June 22, 2011 at 5:58 pm

I’m torn on this one.

I am a fat woman. Over the years I have heard and read so many comments (often hate-filled) detailing the clothing that people of my size should not be allowed to wear in public. They include, but are not limited to: skirts, dresses, t-shirts, short sleeved tops, jeans, sweats, or anything that shows or even hints at my size or ‘flab’. There are people out there who would happily stop people like me from going out in public because we – no matter how we are presented – are an ‘eyesore’. Damned if we do and damned if we don’t. So I can imagine being told by an airline employee that my favourite short sleeve blouse is ‘inappropriate’ for the flight (because you can see my flabby upper arms). I can imagine being told that my plain black slacks are not good enough either (because everyone can see how wide my hips are). And I can also imagine being pretty unhappy about it.

I think the baggy trouser look is ridiculous. I think stiletto heels are also ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean wearing them should equal eviction from an airplane.

Reply

SS June 22, 2011 at 7:20 pm

I’d also like to comment about the complaint that he was singled out because he was black. Don’t forget in the recent past that there was another case of an airline that refused to let a WHITE woman board the plane because her skirt was too short. The morality police do appear to chafe about fashions of either color.

Reply

SS June 22, 2011 at 7:21 pm

The link where a woman was not allowed to board when her skirt was too short… http://www.pantagraph.com/news/weird-news/article_6eb5453c-9dee-514b-9d91-541c867ef26b.html

Reply

Chicken June 22, 2011 at 7:27 pm

I’m sick of seeing it myself. And I don’t care for the excuse I have other underpants under the ones showing, that’s just stupid. I remember in middle school one boy actually had his pants fall off, sadly he didn’t seem to care. In fact a month later it was cold and poruring outside (I’m from New England) so while I and my fellow classmates were sitting in class soaked through and cold he strolled into class wearing nothing but the boxers! He put his pants on the radiator outside the classroom. His explanation was everyone had already seen his underwear, so why not? And he got away with it! If any of the girls did that they would have all been suspended or worse.

I don’t want to hear it’s racial profiling. I don’t want to hear it’s the fashion. I don’t want to hear it’s a free country and I’ll do as I please. Boys and girls need to have pants that cover their underpants. In fact it’s why they call them underpants, they go UNDER the pants! It’s disrespectful to others and tells the world you don’t care about the comfort of others. I’m not saying you have to have every scrap of skin covered, all I’m asking for is the basics, butts, boobs, etc.

Reply

Lynne June 22, 2011 at 7:29 pm

@Baku-chan — what rules? That’s the whole point.

I HATE the look of pants falling of men, but it is hardly indecent exposure.

Reply

inNM June 22, 2011 at 8:00 pm

I want to preface this by saying I don’t agree with Marman’s stance, and I think he took it way out of proportion. Furthermore, I’ve never been a fan on the visible underwear style, especially if you consider its roots.

However, an issue with this I have is how the situation was handled from the US Airways end. See the link below.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=91446

Apparently a gentleman flew from Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. to Phoenix, Az. in women’s underwear, thigh high stockings, heels, and a shrug. US Airways received complaints about his dress but chose to do nothing, and allowed him to fly uninterrupted. Their spokeswoman contradicts herself in the above article and in the article with Marman. I’m not going to say the obvious, only that US Airways has exposed themselves to a potential discrimination lawsuit, and an opportunity for Marman to get off on a technicality, by their very different public responses to what is, in its simplest form, the same situation: Two men attempting to board a plane with their underwear showing.

Reply

YWalkalone June 22, 2011 at 9:16 pm

This gets under my skin quite a bit.
While I absolutely do not like the baggy-pants trend and agree that those who dress that way are begging not to be taken seriously, I take issue with some persons telling others what to wear. While the clothes may be distasteful, it is really no one’s right to tell others how to dress. Because some people on the plane didn’t like this man’s low-riding pants, they have the right to demand that he either comply with their demands or deplane? This is basically the same argument as someone being offended if they walk into a fast food restaurant and see someone overweight eating there, or a young and able-bodied person complaining to management at Wal-Mart to kick out the elderly who shop there because they move through the aisles too slowly and slow the able-bodied down. We live in a free society and that is a double-edged sword–it means that while people have the freedom to be generous, beautiful, or conscientious, they also have the freedom to be ugly, rude, or inconsiderate. While we as a society can decry their actions, behavior, or dress if we don’t agree with them, we absolutely DO NOT have the right to control them or force them to dress to please us…and there is not a special “airline” clause. I apologize if this isn’t the most well-expressed argument but this quite upsets me.

Reply

Edhla June 22, 2011 at 11:07 pm

From what I understand, he was not thrown off for “having baggy pants.” He was thrown off for ignoring/defying an instruction from the flight crew. Which could make him a potential flight risk. I wouldn’t want to fly with someone who had such a foul “I do what I want, wherever I want” attitude that he couldn’t do something as simple as pull up his pants. The request was not unreasonable. It would have taken him two seconds. If this guy wants to play the rebel, he needs to understand that this WILL result in him being kicked off flights.

Reply

Baku-chan June 23, 2011 at 1:39 am

To the people who mentioned the guy in the bra and panties: Yes, it looks gross and inappropriate, but you know what? It wouldn’t have an effect on that man’s mobility. If there was an emergency, he would be able to move freely and not prevent anyone from escaping from a burning plane or something. However, having your boxers down to your knees would make it rather difficult to run or even walk quickly. He might trip and impede everyone else. Either that, or he would get trampled and then his family would sue the airline. Long story shirt: Marman was a SAFETY HAZARD.

Also, the panties that the other man was wearing did not have a fly. All of the boxer shorts I have seen have a fly. Who is to say that the fly won’t accidentally open and reveal Marman’s junk to the world?

Reply

m June 23, 2011 at 5:08 am

I won’t weigh in on the whole debate on etiquette v/ freedom or expression in this particular case, but to those who insist that wearing baggy pants is not inconveniencing others, on a practical level, I would like to say that yes, actually, it is.

Every day, on my way to work and back, I have to choose between walking up the subway escalator, which is a long and tiring endeavour after a long day at the office, or having my face (nose and mouth) at the same level as the bum belonging to the person sitting in front of me. Considering the propensity of this fashion choice among the young men in my neighbourhood, I would say this sort of thing happens to me at least once daily.

I will not go into the lengthy detailed description of why this is wrong, but leave you with the mental image of me with my nose up another person’s butt. Take from it what you will.

Reply

Bint June 23, 2011 at 8:12 am

I have just remembered one of the earliest Ehell stories, about the ‘minister’s wife in a small New England town’ who slated the bride for her bad dress taste.

And the Ehell Dame responded that there was no etiquette violation in someone wearing something that didn’t break a dress code but that someone else just didn’t like. In fact there were a couple of stories where this was pointed out.

Refusing to obey the order to pull up his pants is a possible violation, but the first one was definitely done by the airline employee. There was no dress code. There was no indecent exposure. S/he had no right to make that demand, any more than anyone else does.

Seriously, I had a man stop me in the street once and tell me to dress more respectfully because I had shorts on (he belonged to a religious group). He has no right to tell me that, as I told him. That is the faux pas here, regardless of whether you like that dress sense or not.

Reply

livvy June 23, 2011 at 8:26 am

For those of you saying it’s a safety/mobility issue – yes, perhaps it might have slowed him down in an emergency, but to accept that argument, they would have to ban any elderly, disabled, or very young children from flights, so that’s not a valid argument in this case, unless he was in the exit row.

For those who are offended at the sight of underwear – this is something I’ve always found amusing – because it’s just clothing. when I was a kid in the 1980’s, wearing boxer shorts as shorts was all the rage – yes, we sewed up the fly (most of us, anyway) and wore underwear underneath, but I certainly didn’t check. And we don’t check any other passenger either, to see if their outerwear is doubling as their underwear. So, what’s the issue? As long as there is a layer of fabric between their skin and my eyes, they’ve satisfied the “rules” as far as exposing themselves. Everything else is fashion.

We might all wish that everyone in the world were lovely and a pleasure to look upon, but we have no right to insist upon it being so. I’m sure there are plenty of men and women in the world who are horribly offended that I’m not covered up from head to toe in a burka – but at least in this country, they can’t make me.

Reply

livvy June 23, 2011 at 8:30 am

One final comment: I believe that the original intention of underwear (in the days prior to dry cleaning and washers/dryers) was to protect the outerwear from sweat, dirt, oils coming from the person wearing them. They weren’t there for modesty purposes. Even corsets, girdles, etc. were invented for the purpose of fashion, not modesty.

Reply

lkb June 23, 2011 at 9:15 am

I must say that the comment by a previous poster about the sanitary aspects of this particular style of dress put the issue in a whole new light for me. EWWW!
I’m grateful that I don’t use public transportation much. Nor am I in ‘m’s’ situation where there’s only a very thin wisp of fabric between my face and someone’s lower regions. Again EWWW!

To those who say the style does not expose anything, so what’s the issue….Whatever happened to decency? Keeping one’s private areas private (including undergarments) shows respect for yourself and for the people around you — respect they deserve simply by existing.

Reply

Lydia June 23, 2011 at 10:12 am

@Tanz:

Brava! I agree completely. From all appearances, Marman was penalized for not complying with the airline employee’s clothing standards . Why should he have? A few commenters mentioned the risk of indecent exposure, but Marman wasn’t revealing anything scandalous (unless his boxers had lewd illustrations). Others say that Marman’s clothing represented a potential safety hazard. But his clothing didn’t violate the airline’s safety regulations, and I can think of more “accepted” fashion conventions that would present greater safety risks (stiletto heels, as Tanz mentioned) which would never raise this much alarm. While it may seem simple enough to just pull up one’s pants, I would feel a little righteously indignant if a stranger in a position of authority misused their power to humiliate me for wearing what they considered to be a too-short skirt or too-heavy make-up. Readers who feel Marman chose to deliberately offend those around him come off a bit narrow-minded; dignity for some equates to pants belted at the waist, but for others it’s the right to regulate their own image, even in the face of rude, self-important meddlers.

Reply

badkitty June 23, 2011 at 10:12 am

I’m not comfortable with the whole “he can’t move quickly so he was a danger to the other passengers” argument. Do we now only allow the nimble and able-bodied on flights? I do tend to dress up a bit for air travel (because it makes the whole experience a little less degrading and I find I get better treatment when I look like I’m a business traveler), which sometimes means wearing very high heels or narrow skirts which limit my mobility. These things are not a problem because I’m planning on *sitting* on a plane, but I would be outraged if the gate clerk or someone had the nerve to tell me that I couldn’t wear that outfit on the plane in case it crashes. And what about those who can’t move quickly no matter what they’re wearing? No, the complaint from the airline employee was indecent exposure, and we need to address that claim only; anything else is just adding silliness and supposition to an already ridiculous situation.

The employee had no right to tell this person that because a garment designed to be unseen was visible he needed to adjust his clothing – period. It’s no different than wearing a low-cut blouse with a camisole under to fill in, or even wearing a sheer top that leaves the bra visible – you may not like it, but as long as all the bits are covered, it’s not indecent. However, once given an instruction by an airline employee, the passenger has a responsibility to address it in some way, either by complying or by taking it up with a higher authority. Ignoring the instructions of airline employees at the gate or on the plane is just asking for trouble. Bottom line: everybody handled this wrong, right down to the mother who played the race card (again, addressing issues other than the ones present).

Reply

Louise June 23, 2011 at 10:41 am

I think that, from an etiquette standpoint, it’s inappropriate to walk around flaunting your underwear. That applies whether you’re a middle-aged white cross dresser or a young black gangsta-type. Underwear goes under.

As to whether the young man here was a flight risk, if your pants are so low that you need one hand to hold them while you shuffle along, yes, you’re an impediment in an emergency.

Reply

Serenity June 23, 2011 at 11:20 am

While I am not interested in seeing someone’s underwear, I disagree with Marman being forced to leave the plane. I feel that Marman’s pants/boxers combination provided coverage for private areas. I feel the airline employee was in the wrong. Just because that particular employee did not care for Marman’s outfit does not mean that Marman should be deprived of transportation he already paid for. The employee was the one who was rude. Very poor customer service.

Reply

inNM June 23, 2011 at 12:15 pm

According to the article, I quote:

“Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for US Airways, said the airline’s dress code forbids “indecent exposure or inappropriate” attire.”

The article, nor US Airways in the article (I am not sure about other sources) said nothing about Marman being a safety hazard. Inferring that his pants posed a tripping safety hazard is just that, inferring.

This is what was said.
-“An airline employee spotted Marman before he boarded Flight 488, bound for Albuquerque, and complained that Marman’s pants “were below his buttocks but above the knees, and that much of his boxer shorts were exposed,” Rodriguez said.”
-“The employee asked Marman to pull up his pants before he boarded the plane, but he refused, Rodriguez said. Marman allegedly repeated his refusal after taking his seat on the plane.”
-“At that point he was asked to leave the plane,” Rodriguez said. “It took 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane, and he was arrested for trespassing.” Marman allegedly resisted officers as he was being led away.”

We do not know if he was a hazard, if he was seated in the exit row and therefore needed to have his legs free. Nothing was said to indicate this. All we were told about the incident is that his pants were low, he had been asked to pull it up (which I agree with because I believe underwear is for UNDER your clothing), he refused, and although he had a legitimate boarding pass and a right to be there, because he chose not to honor the captain’s request to pull up his pants (we still don’t know if it was a safety hazard to the plane or just personal preference behind the captains motive) they called the police and hauled him off the plane for trespassing, citing indecent exposure or inappropriate attire.

Then we are presented with the cross-dressing man in underwear. How is this not “inappropriate attire”? If I were to walk onto a plane in either men or ladies underwear only, you would be very sure US Airways would ask me to put on clothes over the underwear. As well, you may or may not see this mans genitals and behind outlined in the underwear as he moves through the cabin of the plane. If we cite that Marman’s genitals in underwear is inappropriate or indecent, then it’s only fair that this man is classified as inappropriate or indecent as well. Yet he flew without incident, even though other passengers complained, and the airline’s response was no where as drastic as it was to Marman.

What if the response to this is that Marman is placed on a no-fly list because he had to be removed by officers? He’s a college athlete who may have to fly to play games for his university on the NCAA circuit. Is it fair that a judgement call by an airline employee means that for the rest of his life he has to go through additional screening and stress at the airport, especially when you compare him to another man who took it to the extreme and had no negative action taken against him?

(Before you begin to talk about there is a procedure to be removed from this list, it is a painstaking and difficult process that many persons who have been placed on it erroneously have confirmed it is near impossible to be removed from the list)

Whether you agree or disagree about the saggy pants, I offer no argument. As I explained before, I personally do not appreciate the saggy pants or its jailhouse history. As a result, I do not agree with Marman’s stance about refusing to pull up his pants. I honestly think if he had pulled his pants up, he would have been relaxing in Albuquerque without the $11,000 fine.

I do have a problem with different laws/rules/policies for different persons, especially when the response to the less severe issue is dealt with a heavy hand while a more severe issue is brushed off. I also have a problem with officials, when pressed to deal with the matter in an equal manner, give us, the public, a response to their over-reaction that is weakly held together by some poorly defined policy dependent on judgement instead of a clearly defined rule that does not rely on personal opinion but fact.

Reply

Sharon June 23, 2011 at 12:52 pm

I work for a hospital. One day as I was walking into the Women’s Center (where the babies are born), there was a young man struggling to put a infant car seat in the back of his car, He was all bent over leaning across his back seat with hir rear sticking out. His pants were half-mast and this tightie-whities were stretched across his butt. Not much was left to the imagination. But, I was never so gald for that thin piece of cotton Fruit of the Looms that protected me from completely going blind.
And, when they are walking down the halls, they are always holding their crotch to keep their pants from falling all the way off. Or, maybe there is something else there that they are afraid will fall off????
I can’t stand it.

Reply

Xtina June 23, 2011 at 1:12 pm

@ Merrilee: haha! That Clueless reference was what popped into my mind, too—who would have ever thought that the sloppy fashions she is referencing in that movie, which was made in 1995, I believe—would still be going strong today? And I hate those idiot baggy pants even more now than I did back then.

I think the reason the airline picked on Marman and not on the cross-dressing guy (or on other passengers who may have been dressed inappropriately over the years; I’m sure there have been plenty!) was probably just an individual employee’s interpretation of whatever USAir’s policy must be. What is grossly inappropriate to one person may not be to someone else. It is the same, in my mind, as an employee at one store allowing an item to be returned when an employee at another branch of the same store may not—just depends on who you talk to.

The airline needs to take this as a sign that it is time to come up with a very specific, clearly enforceable, and widely posted dress code to avoid this issue in the future. “Underwear”, in whatever form it is displayed, should be hidden behind one’s clothes—that’s pretty simple and easy to interpret.

For the record, I do not think that the cross-dresser, or Marman should have been allowed to fly with so much underwear showing.

I once saw a couple of guys at the beach fighting on the street—one of the guys had the baggy pants, which fell down to his ankles. The other fellow (who was wearing normally fitting pants) beat the crap out of baggy-pants guys as he was trying to disentangle himself from his pants. Bet that guy didn’t think his look was so cool anymore after he was beat up AND publicly humiliated—people were laughing at him because of his stupid pants.

Reply

Jillybean June 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm

M – I’ve ridden a lot of escalators and have never found myself at eye level with anyone’s backside. I guess if you are a few steps down from the person in front of you (escalators are always full where I live), it could happen, but doesn’t seem like it would be the norm.

Also for those commenting on how quickly this person could get off a plane in an emergency, well, evacuating any space is a slow process, no matter what the emergency. He won’t be running down the aisle tripping over his pants, so I think that’s a weak argument. Also, if his pants are capable of being pulled up at the flight crew’s request (even though he didn’t comply) then clearly if he were in an evacuation situation he could pull them up to move more quickly in an emergency.

Not sure what I think of the incident, though I do think when a flight crew asks you to do something, it’s probably just easier to comply than deal with the hassle of fighting.

Reply

Shannon June 23, 2011 at 3:07 pm

I get the safety concerns now that everyone’s mentioned them, but as for other forms of dress that offend but don’t necessarily cause tripping or falling, I’ve always thought that the best thing to do was to largely ignore the wearer in terms of outright reaction (attention is probably what he’s looking for, anyway), but to give him looks that clearly communicate his status as a soiled paper towel through looks and other kinds of social ostracism. That’s the point of etiquette, right? To encourage or discourage certain behaviors that fall outside the realm of enforceable law?

Reply

Mike Johnson June 23, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Another thing about exposing your boxers is that there is a potential gap in the front for obvious reasons for men. Unless he was wearing some sort of special boxers that lack this then there is a real chance of; well let’s just say certain things being exposed. At that point it goes from fashion style to indecent exposure. Plus the constant reference to this being a racial issue ignores the fact that this is a fashion that is more popular among African Americans so guess what more African Americans are going to come up against this issue. If Saris were deemed to be offensive than more Indian Americans would have issues.

Reply

Shiksagoddess June 23, 2011 at 4:41 pm

My daughters brought friends home wearing that look. But only once. They all learned I was serious when I threatened to “pants” them. They either wore their clothing in a respectful manner, or they were embarrassed.

Yeah, I was rude. I have my own reserved parking spot in E-hell.

Reply

Heather June 23, 2011 at 6:47 pm

I guess I wonder why we bother with the outside garments at all, since obviously nothing scandalous shows, right? It’s not indecent untill you see something, is what I’m seeing here.

Reply

Jillybean June 23, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Shiksagoddess – forget rude (which it is absolutely is), it could actual be criminal. There are cases where pantsing has been considered sexual assault, and as you are doing this to your child’s friends, it would be sexual assault on a minor. Pretty gross.

Reply

chechina June 23, 2011 at 8:36 pm

It’s an airplane. He paid to ride it. He disagreed with the request that he hitch up his pants so he said no. And they kicked him off because they have a right to refuse service to a customer. That’s all. Everybody was perfectly in the right/ behaving ridiculously here.

Reply

--Lia June 23, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Lydia– I’ve been dragging my feet trying to express what you said so eloquently. You found the logic and the words. I’ll be curious how this one plays out.

Reply

cLEVERGIRL9 June 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm

I dont get the sexist aspect of this. If a woman walked the streets in her panties with her jeans belted around her mid thighs exposing 90% of her underpants I assure you shed be promptly arrested. I see guys on my morning bus holding their pants in one hand in a bunch in the front to keep them from falling off..often entire underpants is showing to the hem.

This “jailing” style is to honor being arrested and being in a holding cell when they take away your belt. what a lovely thing to emulate, eh?

I was in a movie theater recently, saw a guy striding across parking lot, sure enough, the pants fell off. The guy taking out ticket looked up and said “I see that happen all day long here”

Reply

fashion Urbia June 23, 2011 at 10:51 pm

what I do not understand is why US Air has a problem with saggy pants but not a man wearing womens underwear and little else
http://cocoperez.com/2011-06-23-us-airways-allows-male-passenger-to-fly-in-womens-underwear/?from=PH

Reply

m June 24, 2011 at 4:08 am

@Jillybean: They’re tall, I’m ridiculously short and I always leave one step between myself and the person standing in front of me so as to not overcrowd them. Needless to say, I walk :)

Reply

Jillybean June 24, 2011 at 12:01 pm

hahaha – M – I was coming here so I could say, “ooops…I was wrong” and there is your explanation. I guess I mostly just don’t pay attention, but I was on an escalotor this morning with one step between me and the next person and found myself thinking, “Hmmm…I guess if M is shorter than I am, I can see how that could happen.” But, hey, walking is good for us, right?

Reply

Kitty_ev June 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm

I hate the saggy trousers look (sorry, UK citizen here, I can’t write pants ’cause I’ll get confused!). I think it looks ridiculous buttoning and buckling one’s trousers and belt below one’s buttocks. I can cope with the waistband of someone’s underwear peeking above the trouser waistline, but I don’t particularly like it- I think underwear should be concealed. I think the appearance is ridiculous and certainly revealing more underwear than I like to see, but I think an individual has the right to look ridiculous if they choose as long as their genitals and a reasonable amount of breast are concealed.

That being said, I think the aircraft were correct in asking this gentleman to pull up his trousers, not on the basis of aesthetics, but because they are a serious hindrance to his movement. As the last video in the original post shows, it’s very easy for trousers worn this way to fall down. Imagine the potential consequences in an emergency situation on an aircraft- people rushing to exit and their escape being blocked because this twit has fallen over because his trousers have fallen down. Fire and smoke can spread incredibly quickly and block off escape routes.

I’d say this man’s choice of clothing is a health and safety hazard and I’d support the airline if they asked him to pull up his trousers on account of this. At the end of the day, the airline are responsible for the lives of all passengers and staff on their aircraft. Safety should come before fashion.

Reply

Enna June 29, 2011 at 10:35 am

If the man whose trousers where too low just pulled them up that would have been the end of it. If he felt he had been a vicitm of racial abuse then he could complain about it later using the proper channals. It is a health and safety thing – if he trips over his trouser legs because they are in the way of his feet and knocks himself out it could be a costly outfit regarding the medical bills. Evil Enna wants to say if unless you are a gentelman or lady of the night showing of your “wares” please leave something to the immigation.

I think there needs to be blanket guidelines across the board with areoplane travel. Freedom of expressions is one thing, but baggy trousers are dangerous not to mention inapprioite and if someone wears a skirt too short in an accident e.g. spilled coffee and tea, tehy are more likely to hurt themseleves not to mention expose themselves. In some countries indecent exposure could lead to being whipped, stoned, nasty prision sentance.

Reply

Enna July 1, 2011 at 10:22 am

Also, it’s bad the cross dresser wasn’t told to put on something like a skirt or a dress, as it is hypocricitcal he was showing more off then someone wearing baggy trousers and from the article he was showing off private parts. For those who think it is okay for the cross dresser to be let on and the other not, I doubt they would like their children to see private bits of other passangers. The clothing may not impede the person getting off the plane in an emergancy, but showing that much off could lead to wores cuts and scrapes and burns as there is no clothing to protect the skin.

Reply

Jessica January 2, 2012 at 6:52 am

I too hate this dress code of the saggy trousers, however for the amusement of all readers, I shall explain the origins of this form of dress. In male prisons, men who wear thier trousers in this manner do so to advertise that they are available to… “be accessed” back there by other inmates. While I would recommend not telling individuals who do so in public, as these individuals in my experiance tend to be dubious in nature, their ignorance can be seen as amusing, as I am certain this is an image they do not wish to project.

Reply

Katje June 4, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Sagging is still indecent exposure even if it’s not flashing or mooning somebody. It’s just as bad as somebody showing off their thong or bra. Don’t wanna see that.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: