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”.

{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }

Bint June 22, 2011 at 6:44 am

I disagree. It looks chavvy as all get-out, but he wasn’t exposing himself and he didn’t break a dress code, just someone’s personal preference. The employee didn’t complain that he was dressed unsafely, after all.

I send the employee to EHell for complaining about someone else’s clothes taste. That employee had no right to tell Marman how to dress. There is no law against this, and the reaction was ridiculously heavy-handed. I’m not surprised Marman was angry. Why should he wear his jeans higher for a total stranger’s personal taste? That’s all this was.

Talk about heavy-handed and intrusive. Way worse than someone dressing badly and showing their underwear.


Margo June 22, 2011 at 7:03 am

Hmm. I think guys who wear their trousers this low look like idiots, but if thye have boxers on underneath they are not actually exposing anything (sepending on weather etc lots of guys wear shorts which are equally revealing)

So while it sounds as though Marman was being awkward, and could have saved himself a lot of hassle by just hiking his trousers up a bit, it seems to me that the original employee may have been unreasonable too.

(If he was being agressive or abusive on the plane then yes, he deserved to be removed, for the sake of the rest of the passengrs and crew)


josie June 22, 2011 at 7:21 am

I do not understand the attraction with the off the fanny fashion statement. But then again, I don’t see the attraction with shorts up to there and cleavage down to there and tatoos in all sorts of hideous colors and places. What’s wrong with just being clean and comfortably/appropriately dressed?


BB-VA June 22, 2011 at 7:28 am

My husband says that if he ever gets his monster movie script written, it will have a scene in which a young gentleman is fleeing from the monster, gets tangled in his baggy pants, and is promptly devoured.

I had a teacher tell me she would pay money just to see that scene. She was telling me about awards assemblies where the kids needed 3 hands – one to accept their award, one to shake hands with the presenter, and one to hold up their pants.

It looks so unsafe and uncomfortable to me.


SS June 22, 2011 at 7:35 am

As much as I hate that sagging pants look… I can’t agree with calling this ‘indecent exposure’. There is no skin showing… only more clothing. Women of all ages now seem to think it’s fine for bra straps to show (also tacky!!) or wear those tight leggings in place of pants (I saw a women wearing them so tight I could see the entire topography of her private part between her legs), as long as the actual buttocks skin isn’t showing while the pants are sagging then there isn’t exposure.


Chocobo June 22, 2011 at 7:38 am

I’m surprised this still happens. This came into fashion when I was a young teenager, and that was some time ago now. I mean really, isn’t it time to move on from baggy clothes? They’ve been in use for over a decade — I’m amazed that the celebrities who espouse this look haven’t. It doesn’t make sense to me that in a celebrity obsessed consumer culture, where celebrity is often based on how much you have and how exclusive the things you own are, that the celebrities haven’t tried a new look. Recently I have seen young people doing this less, though, so maybe it’s starting to fade out.


ferretrick June 22, 2011 at 7:44 am

I don’t care for it myself, but I’m not sure it justifies kicking someone off a plane. I tend to just role my eyes. I remind myself I’m a child of the 80s-I look back at pictures of myself from that time with over gelled hair and popped collars and cringe. Imagine what these guys are going to think when they look at their teenage pictures in 20 years.


Hemi Halliwell June 22, 2011 at 8:02 am

I have never cared for this trend in attire. I don’t understand why it is considered “cool” or “trendy”. The color and style of your underpants should be your business and no one else’s.
If airline policy forbid sagging pants, then the young man should have pulled the pants up and cinched the waist with a belt.


The Elf June 22, 2011 at 8:07 am

I don’t like the sagging pants, but I can think of a lot worse etiquette offenses commited on planes. Check out Flights From Hell for some real doozies. Sagging pants are ugly, but not a security threat or a disruption to the other passengers. As for the safety issue of being behind someone with sagging pants in an emergency situation, I bet they’d manage. It’s amazing how well you can move when highly motivated! (And how likely they’d get pushed from behind if they weren’t.) The bigger problem in emergency escape would be someone who required assistance in some way, such as being a child or having a disability. I wouldn’t dream of banning them from flight for safety reasons!

Marman should have hiked them up when asked. It’s their flight, and they can bar you from it for pretty much any reason. Maintaining proper thug fashion standards should take a backseat to getting home. But I really don’t see why it even came up.


Twik June 22, 2011 at 8:18 am

OK, we are all going to have to sing it…

“Pants on the ground,
Pants on the ground,
Looking like a clown, with your pants on the ground!”


Quieas June 22, 2011 at 8:21 am

Saggy pants are nasty not only in looks, but in hygiene as well. Those are your UNDERWEAR for goodness sake. It’s so nasty when one thinks about how much fecal matter is being transferred from those boxers, unto wherever they sit, or whomever* they brush up against accidentally when in a busy place.


*P.s: Is it ‘Whoever’ or did I use ‘Whomever’ correctly? Lol.


Jennifer June 22, 2011 at 8:23 am

Plus do you really want to look like you have taken a dump while you are walking down the street?


Mike Johnson June 22, 2011 at 8:26 am

Besides the etiquette mistake of potentially exposing your privates there is the practical issue of; how in the world do you walk with your pants down? The High School I went to had a fashion thing among the boys of letting the legs of our boxers hang down below the bottom of our shorts (hey it was the 70s and yes I’m embarrassed to admit it) but at least we were not at a constant risk of losing our pants and falling on our faces.


Goldie June 22, 2011 at 8:54 am

Seriously, a lawmaker steps in to ban saggy pants? Reminds me of a story I heard from a coworker who lived in China during the Cultural Revolution in the 60’s-70’s. She told us they had militia units patrolling the streets, and if your dress didn’t comply to the dress code, they’d stop you and alter your outfit right there on the street. For instance if your pants were too flared, they’d trim your pants with scissors; same thing if your hair was too long – trim it with scissors. Do we really want to go there? FTR I do not like saggy trousers, and neither do my teenage sons, but we dislike the moral police even more. What other people wear really doesn’t bother me, unless there actual naked privates showing, or something that is similarly against the existing law.

Also, baggy pants have been out of style for about a decade now. Right now where I live, teenage guys are into skinny jeans – not a pretty sight either, if you ask me, but hey, it’s a free country.


Brian Katcher June 22, 2011 at 8:57 am

I live out in the country, where the saggy pants thing has never really caught on. And yet, I’m forced to look a people’s butts, simply because a lot of men apparently don’t know what a belt it. I’d rather seen a young guy’s boxers than a middle aged guy’s bare rear.


DGS June 22, 2011 at 9:05 am

LOL @Twik – “The Pants On The Ground” song was exactly what I was thinking of, too!

I don’t care for the look personally, but if he was wearing boxer shorts underneath, it is not indecent exposure, simply a poor fashion choice in my opinion, but not anything that violates safety or offends someone by being discriminatory against a particular group (like wearing a hate-group t-shirt, for example). I don’t think that the young man deserved to be kicked off the plane, and I agree with those posters who said that the airline employee committed a faux pas by kicking the man off the plane. Personally, I don’t care for tattoos, body piercings, unnatural hair colors (e.g. purple, green), or wearing skintight clothing but unless this person is my own minor child or violating a dress code for an event (e.g. wearing a leather mini to a black-tie affair I’m organizing), it is not my place or right to do anything about someone else’s choice of attire or appearance.


Lisa June 22, 2011 at 9:09 am

I think the saggy pants look stupid, but if they are not actually exposing flesh then I think it is equally silly to get all upset about it. The exposed thongs look far worse than the exposed boxers.


Wendy June 22, 2011 at 9:17 am

I think we’re missing the point here. IIRC when this story first came out, the airline has a policy on appropriate dress and having your pants half off fell under those guidelines. The employees were initially polite but firm. The offender used the excuse of having just come from a friend’s funeral as a reason why he refused to comply. Seriously? Grieving allows you to be rude and disrespectful of airline staff…or anyone, for that matter. The airline has a right to enforce it’s policies, whether someone is grieving or not. All he had to do was pull his pants up…it is not hard, most of us do it every day all by ourselves without help. But he decided to be the martyr (or idiot, the jury is still out on that) and got himself a nice fine instead. And he’s a college student?

The style of wearing your pants half off conveys one message: you’re too dumb to dress yourself. It’s not cool (as a female, I’m not impressed guys, I’m turned off) and you look like a moron. Go to Walmart and buy yourself a belt and learn how to use it.


Snowy June 22, 2011 at 9:33 am

The look came from prisoners; people decided it looked “hardcore” and started emulating it. The reason they give for the sag is that prisoners don’t get belts, thus the sag. But when I had to take DIP school (whoops, speeding a bit) the officer told us that that’s not the case. If it was, all prisoners would have baggy-arsed pants. It’s a signal–wearing your pants down means you’re someone’s, er, rhymes-with-witch, and that you are sexually accessible.

I don’t think that’s the message they want to send.

Beyond that, it looks silly. Really, really silly. I can’t take someone seriously as a thug if they’re wearing their pants so low that they can’t even run–which is another good reason for them to have asked that passenger to pull his pants up. If there was a crash and he had to deplane quickly, his pants were a hazard to himself and, in turn, others.

This is the silliest trend I’ve ever seen.


The Elf June 22, 2011 at 9:42 am

The source of the fashion is prison. Belts are usually prohibited in prison (they can be used as a weapon or as a means of suicide). So, it was adopted to show you’ve done time. Makes it so much more understandable, doesn’t it? That’s just the message I like to project!


Daisy June 22, 2011 at 9:56 am

I don’t care for the look myself, but then the young people wearing it probably don’t like my tailored pants, shell, and jacket either. I just smile and remember that anyone wearing their pants somewhere below their hip line has very little chance of being taken seriously by anyone other than their friends.


karma June 22, 2011 at 10:03 am

Thanks, Twik! I was waiting to see that!

In my humble opinion, when you are availing yourself of a service (flying), and a rep from that service speaks to you about something he needs you to do or not do, it behooves you to follow their request. This is simply another example of a customer who feels that the customer is always right. We all know how we feel about those types in grocery stores, banks, cafés, trains, and movie theaters.

Compare it to an employee asking someone to:
–take your loaded shopping cart-load to the regular line, not the express checkout
–switch to a regular seat and leave the handicapped accessible seats open just in case
–keep your voices down in a family-restaurant because you and your pals are telling a risque story
–stop your child from climbing on a bench at the zoo

See, none of these things are illegal, and none break policy, but all are generally considered to be actions considerate to other guests. The possibility that a handicapped person might need the seat, the possibility that another family could complain, the possibility that someone with one item could need to check out quickly, or the possibility that the kid could fall onto someone else sitting on the bench is sufficient for an employee to speak up.

The possibility that the young man could expose his privates, trip in an emergency, or cause other passengers to complain is something the airline employee had to anticipate.

Everyone wants nameless, faceless employees to do their jobs until it inconveniences them personally.


Kovitlac June 22, 2011 at 10:38 am

I want to commend that employee. Whether you agree that the man should or shouldn’t have been punished isn’t the point. The airline can choose to bar you from flying for any reason. The fast this kid refused to listen to the employee and simply pull up his pants goes to show how little regard or respect he has for anyone but himself. At that point the employee can’t back down, lest more kids get the idea that this is okay to try.

This actually brings back a little bit more of faith in airlines.


Wink-n-Smile June 22, 2011 at 10:43 am

A lot of the indecent exposure depends on the type of boxers he’s wearing. If they’re silk, especially white silk, and it’s a hot, humid day, well. . .

Apparently, there’s a dress code, and this is against the code. They weren’t targeting him because he’s black. They were targeting the inappropriate dress. And it wasn’t just the employee’s personal taste. It was code, and for the comfort of the 95% of the passengers who don’t want to see his rear hanging out of his pants.

This style came to being in the prison system, as a means of, ahem, advertising. It is not appropriate for travel.

Can we please go back to the days when people dressed UP to travel? Put on suits and dresses? I’m not saying women have to wear silk stockings and stilettos, but please, try to make yourself presentable, and avoid the hanging-around-the-house look. The coach section is not your living room.

Maybe if people dressed up a bit, they’d feel less entitled to put thier feet on the headrest of the chair in front of them. Just because YOU are capable of folding yourself in half, like a taco, doesn’t mean everyone else is, or wants to be pushed forward by your feet, or want to see your contortionism, anyway.


Celeste June 22, 2011 at 10:44 am

while I really dislike having to look at some guys underwear while he waddles around, I actually find this whole situation to be very discriminatory. I feel like the employee is more in the wrong, he let another passenger decide that a dress code based on personal preference should be enforced. I would bet money that many women with their chests almost exposed traveled that day with no issue from the staff at all. It just doesn’t seem fair to me to single out one particular style over others. As far as im concerned I would much rather explain to the little girls in my care that that boy just needs a belt, then to explain why that lady’s boobs are showing…..


Yellow Rose June 22, 2011 at 10:50 am

I live in an area where this look is de rigueur for men, young and old. While I loathe the fashion, I am always guaranteed a laugh at the penguin waddle gait it lends it’s adherents. I’ve advised my girls that they need to study hard and go into orthopedics because a whole generation will need hip replacements by the time they hit 40 years old. Cha-ching!


Leslie June 22, 2011 at 10:52 am

Although I am no fan of the saggy pants look, it is certainly not uncommon. The young man was on his way to a funeral. I think US Air erred more than Marman did. According to a US Air spokesperson, they have no dress policy. (This was said today after they let a man dressed in women’s undergarments fly w/ no problem.)


ED June 22, 2011 at 10:56 am

While I agree that people in general should keep their pants up (you too ladies – I don’t want to see your panties either) there is way more to this story. This kid was wrong, but why did US Airways target him and not the guy who flew on their airline the week before and was dressed far more offensively (only wearing women’s underwear, thigh high stockings, a mid-drift exposing tank top with a sheer cardigan over the tank top and stiletto heels). Link to the article, with pictures, in sfgate here:

I think that Marman should have cooperated, but isn’t it rude of US Airways to target some passengers who look a certain way, and not others?


Ashley June 22, 2011 at 11:10 am

I think the issue here is the fact that the situation had a very very good chance of turning indecent. Where I live, the nearest mall is in a VERY diverse part of town, so you see people dressed in all possible ways. The most frequent thing you will see though, is young guys with their pants hanging halfway off their butts, doing some sort of weird waddle to avoid tripping, and keeping one hand on the front of their pants to keep them up. At least four times in the past year, I have watched one of those guys start walking a bit faster to try and go say hi to someone, and completely lose his pants, and in one of those cases the underwear went with too. Kids shop with their parents at that mall, they don’t need that sort of potential eyefull. Neither did the people on that plane. Yes, grown people should be able to wear what they want and how they want, but I cannot understand why anyone would want to dress in such a way that they might wind up showing off more than they planned.


Proboscidea June 22, 2011 at 11:22 am

And yet we have this, a recent US Airways passenger wearing nothing but a bra, matching panties, thigh-high stockings, and a see-through open-front sweater. No pants at all.

US Airways spokeswoman Valerie Wunder …”We don’t have a dress code policy,” Wunder said. “Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that’s not appropriate. … So if they’re not exposing their private parts, they’re allowed to fly.”


summertime June 22, 2011 at 11:39 am

This is an etiquette site after all, regardless of what legal trouble the young man got himself into, we are talking about the etiquette of wearing these types of clothes. I think in our society today, a genteel, courteous, responsible person does not wear his pants past his underwear, nor exposes his underpants to others. Regardless of whether I like the fashion or not, I also don’t think it is proper etiquette to show any undergarments at all –like bra straps, etc., let alone skin in certain areas. Whether you think I should let people dress they way they want (and I do) I do think proper etiquette calls for a certain dress code.


Kat June 22, 2011 at 11:49 am

I’m with Bint. This is not my favorite look at all, but it doesn’t qualify as indecent exposure. Marman DOES have a right to wear his clothes in a style others don’t like – that’s not entitlement.


Harry June 22, 2011 at 11:55 am

Do these saggers not realize how stupid they look?

From what I see, most are unemployed losers who want to appear “cool”. Got news for you … you look like idiots.


Laila June 22, 2011 at 12:11 pm


Had that young man been white, no one would have said anything. The saggy pants are unsightly; however it is a subject that is easily targeted because it is considered something done majorly by African American youth. So yes eHell, it was a faux pas. But the SAME AIRLINE allowing a middle aged white man to fly in underwear, knee highs, and pumps makes this incident discriminatory. The airline has acknowledged that they have no dress code i.e. no basis for atttempting to enforce a code selectively. This was discrimination, and I can’t wait for this young man to laugh all the way to the bank. #straightlacedsista


MamaJ June 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm

My 13-year-old daughter was recently at the mall with my mother, when a young man in his early teens approached her and started flirting. He was wearing extremely low pants, with the majority of his boxer-clad backside exposed. My daughter told him, “I’m sorry, but I really can’t take you seriously when your pants look like they’re about to fall off and trip you,” and went on with her shopping. An hour or so later, they saw the young man again. He gave my daughter a sheepish grin as they passed one another, and she noticed that he had pulled his pants up several inches.


Jillybean June 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Um…wow to the man traveling in women’s underwear. To each their own, but I don’t think a woman should be allowed to board a plane that way, so I definitely don’t want to see a man board one that way. Same way I don’t want to see Lady Gaga at a ballgame wearing a team jersey knotted at her waist and a pair of underwear.

That said, I think the airline overreacted, but I do think the trend is moronic, and I think that children should be taught that their undergarments shouldn’t be on display.

@wink-n-smile: I’ll consider dressing up for plane travel when customer service raises to the quality of perhaps a nice restaurant. Until then, I’ll certainly take comfort over fashion while riding in the flying sardine cans. Though I certainly agree that people shouldn’t be dressed inappropriately.


Leslie Holman-Anderson June 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm

I’m afraid I’m with the airline. The ‘poor young man’ went out of his way to look like a thug, acted like a thug when requested to pull up his pants (heaven forbid he look less thuggish!) and then complained because he was treated like a thug. Wink-n-Smile is absolutely right: You want people to respect you? Then look and act respectable.

And then, as several people have mentioned, there’s that walk. Or chain-gang shuffle. Yellow Rose is right; in a few years they’ll all be candidates for hip replacement. Also, as I note whenever one of their boomboxmobiles passes within three blocks of me on the street, for hearing aids.


Twik June 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Possibly the underpants were sagging as well? That might have created some justified complaints.

As to whether or not the airline has a dress code, they might have VERY quickly created one after the other incident people are mentioning, simply on the grounds that it’s clear these things can no longer be trusted to the passengers’ own sense of decorum.


TychaBrahe June 22, 2011 at 12:37 pm

That outfit, while offensive in my opinion, won’t stop you from evacuating the plane in case of an emergency. Having your pants around your knees very well might.


Louise June 22, 2011 at 12:39 pm

Wow, I was all in favour of the airline until I saw it let the cross dresser board no problem. I think his outfit was inappropriate, too, because he’s wearing nothing but underwear down below. He should have worn some pants or a skirt.


Clair Seulement June 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm

As other commenters have pointed out, cleavage and bra straps are acceptable, and stiletto heels, no safer than pants cinched around the thighs, are also acceptable. I think it’s classist to single this guy out (it’s not exactly a “preppy” look) and I would resent being told how to dress on an airplane, among all of the other ludicrous restrictions they feel justified in heaping on.


Chocobo June 22, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Quieas — You are correct, it is “whomever”. You should use “who” for a subject and “whom” for an object in a sentence.

For example, in the sentence Who ate my cookie?” you are looking for the subject of the sentence, i.e. Janet ate your cookie. But in the sentence “This cookie belongs to whom?, you are looking for the object, i.e. This cookie belongs to Ronald. “This cookie” is the subject.

Since in your sentence the Person Who Might Be Brushed Up Against is the object, while the Baggy Pants Wearer is the subject, you are correct in using “whomever.”


b-rock June 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm

i agree with what some have said, although people who wear their pants like this look like idiots, it is not indecent exposure and it is not illegal. he should have done what the airline asked just to save himself the trouble, but it was a heavy-handed response to something that’s not that big a deal. also, in the original article it said he was in town for the funeral of a close friend, so perhaps he was simply not in a frame of mind to deal with an overly intrusive response to his clothing.


--E June 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm

Re: the guy in the women’s underwear

It’s entirely possible that US Airways adopted their explicit “no dress code” policy as a result of Marman’s arrest.

Let’s see what the follow-up on Marman’s case is. I fear that they’ll go after him on the resisting arrest charges (which can in theory be proved in court). I expect the indecent exposure business will be quietly dropped.


Tori June 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Next time tell said sagger where that style came from. Most people believe that guys do that to say that certain aspects of themselves are too large to wear their pants properly. However the trend started in prisons. Sagging your pants meant you were willing to offer certain things(things that should be done between a married couple) to your fellow inmates.


Merrilee June 22, 2011 at 1:35 pm

I’m sorry, I know this is slightly off topic but the baggy pants fashion trend makes me think of the movie Clueless, where the main character comments on the fad:
“So okay, I don’t want to be a traitor to my generation and all but I don’t get how guys dress today. I mean, come on, it looks like they just fell out of bed and put on some baggy pants and take their greasy hair – ew – and cover it up with a backwards cap and like, we’re expected to swoon? I don’t think so. ” Sums it up nicely as to how I feel about it, actually.

As to the airline being within its rights: If they don’t have a dress code policy, they are opening themselves up for a potential litigation. But I agree with the prior poster that said if the attendant asks you to do something and it’s within reason to a logical person, you comply.


TylerBelle June 22, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Yeppers, the ‘Pants on the Ground’ song buzzes through the brain each and every time I hear something of this trend. Hee. Wish those followers would heed its message.

I agree with those who say as much as this is a loathsome fashion statement, it’s not any worse than bra straps hanging out, thongs above waistbands, etc. It may be even the lesser of those evils.

BB-VA: Please count me in with that teacher. 🙂


Miss Raven, displeased June 22, 2011 at 2:49 pm

This whole thing leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. Yes, I personally think that guys with their bums hanging out of their pants look like Grade A morons. But there is no indecent exposure happening, and if we’re going to start becoming the Garment Police because of a POSSIBILITY of indecent exposure, then I’ve seen a whole mess of potential female offenders at every airport I’ve ever been to. Chests popping out of their tops, one wrong move and BAM: instant wardrobe malfunction. We don’t arrest people for the RISK that they may commit a crime and likewise it’s at BEST silliness to marginalize someone’s clothing because there is a RISK of indecency.

The gentleman was going to be, I’m sure, seated for the entire plane ride barring a trip to the lav. At that point, can anyone — even his seatmates — notice whether or not his pants are at his waist?

US Air has no dress code. This guy was picked on, pure and simple, by someone who got a little taste of power and became the sad little king of their sad little hill. It’s not an etiquette violation to wear your clothing in a manner that some may find distasteful. It’s just not. I tend to dress up when I fly out of habit, and I find it extremely distasteful to see older, larger women in skin-tight Juicy velour sweatsuits and big ugly Crocs. However, lots of people dress that way on planes and because I’m not a crazy person, I just suck it up and live and let live.


Baku-chan June 22, 2011 at 3:17 pm

I love how Marman’s mother whines that her son was singled out because he was black. Guess what lady, not everything is about skin color. In this case, it’s about your son being self-entitled and thinking he is somehow above the rules. It’s not like they were ordering him to run a 100-meter marathon, they just wanted him to pull up his damn pants.


Shoebox June 22, 2011 at 3:36 pm

I can sympathise with the anti-baggy pants crowd, but honestly, unless this young man was in obvious and imminent danger of exposing himself (not likely with boxers on), he’s pretty clearly the victim here. In fact, he may be enough of a one for a lawsuit.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: