# Leggings on Delta Airlines and how it highlights cognitive functions!!



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

There's a current event here in the United States that I think is a great example of the use of all of our judging functions. Mostly I want to list my thoughts and see if you think they make sense, and if so, this may serve as a practical example of our feeling and thinking functions.

The story is essentially that a couple teenage girls were not allowed to board a Delta Airlines flight because they were wearing "leggings" (skin-tight spandex pants, yoga pants...wherever you are from, you likely know what I mean).

The primary reason for this was that these two girls are family members of Delta employees (or something very similar) and thus have a special perk: they can fly any Delta domestic flight for free. HOWEVER, they are technically considered representatives of Delta and must therefore comply with Delta's dress code. Leggings do not comply with the dress code.

Many people are up-in-arms on behalf of the girls, and those that think this was completely ridiculous and have taken to social media to protest are, most likely, strong Fi users. They overlook the benefit the girls have in flying for free and any rules that need to be followed as a result and focus entirely on the injustice of being denied a flight just because they were wearing casual pants. (keep in mind that I'm just describing the situation. I AM NOT TAKING SIDES. So please take a deep breath if anything I've said so far made you cross  )

Those who are strong Te users will look at this situation and wonder what the big deal is. They'll say it was written in the rule book and that the girls had every chance to read those rules before the flight, and they'll have even less sympathy knowing that their flight was free. Te knows nothing is truly free, that everything has a price, and the price of flying for free is having to dress appropriately. They overlook the sheer ridiculousness of the situation, as well as any possible racial, gender, or age-related biases that may have helped cause this to happen, nor would they think as much about how nobody would have known they had any relationship to Delta anyway. They overlook the more individual aspects and just say "rules are rules. Life's not fair."

So how about Fe and Ti? I don't think they care as much about this story, Ti in particular.

Ti might dig the deepest into why a company cares so deeply about its image that they have these rules and would maybe ponder the whole concept of image. Or possibly dig into the legality of such a rule. But they won't be emotionally invested...they'll maybe have a few thought experiments and unique perspectives that they may or may not share with others, depending on how well formulated those thoughts are.

Fe would wonder how many people are affected by these rules. Does the company as a whole value its employees, or is this a clue that their organization is messed up? To be honest, I don't really know how an Fe reacts to this. Probably quite similarly to the Fi user, but a little more willing to give Delta the benefit of the doubt. They probably don't view this as a huge injustice, but they still think it's a stupid reason not to let someone board a plane.

Anyway, if you are trying to figure out which judging function you use the most, see how you reacted to this story and maybe it will give you some major clues!


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Just another thing that goes back to the hyper-sexualization of the human body, antiquated social norms, etc. Enforcing the rule under the assumption that anyone in their right mind is going to confuse a couple of teenage girls with airline staff is idiotic also.

I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into another 10 page thread of users wanking off their stupid opinions, but these two things are what it comes down to.


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

Shiver said:


> Just another thing that goes back to the hyper-sexualization of the human body, antiquated social norms, etc. Enforcing the rule under the assumption that anyone in their right mind is going to confuse a couple of teenage girls with airline staff is idiotic also.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into another 10 page thread of users wanking off their stupid opinions, but these two things are what it comes down to.


Hmmm. Opposition to traditional and probably destructive social norms = opposition to Fe? Is this a demonstration of Fi use? Or is this opposition to a Te system of rules? I guess I tend to think that dress codes are more Fe than Te constructs, but I could be persuaded either way....


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

SuperfluousNinja said:


> Hmmm. Opposition to traditional and probably destructive social norms = opposition to Fe? Is this a demonstration of Fi use? Or is this opposition to a Te system of rules? I guess I tend to think that dress codes are more Fe than Te constructs, but I could be persuaded either way....


You could say I'm generally seen as having pretty bad Fe, yeah. As far as simple Te, I'd think anyone who really values it would find the extension of a dress code to a pair of teenage girls who obviously don't represent the the airline to be a waste of Delta's time (resources).


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

The original article I read stated that the girls were around 10 years old. Leggings are standard dress for 10 year old's, and hardly inappropriate.

The father of the girls was permitted to board the plane wearing shorts i.e. showing his bare legs in all their glory. I guess it's a different dress code if you have a penis.

What I find most offensive is someone making a young girl out to be “inappropriate” when she was dressed no differently from other girls her age.

I could understand the airline not letting people on who aren’t wearing shoes, or aren’t covered. If I can see your ass crack, nipples or genitals, you should go put something on regardless of gender. If you’re clearly drunk or on drugs, you shouldn’t be allowed to board. But leggings on a child? Seriously? Someone working for the airline that day was clearly bored and in a bad mood looking to pull a power trip!

It’s just another example of sexist dress codes that apply only to females.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

SuperfluousNinja said:


> Those who are strong Te users will look at this situation and wonder what the big deal is. They'll say it was written in the rule book and that the girls had every chance to read those rules before the flight, and they'll have even less sympathy knowing that their flight was free.


Kind of. I think Te can still discern petty from important.



> Te knows nothing is truly free, that everything has a price, and the price of flying for free is having to dress appropriately. They overlook the sheer ridiculousness of the situation, as well as any possible racial, gender, or age-related biases that may have helped cause this to happen, nor would they think as much about how nobody would have known they had any relationship to Delta anyway. They overlook the more individual aspects and just say "rules are rules. Life's not fair."


No.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

If that's all they're wearing then yeah, I could see the problem.

If what stormgirl said is true, then 10-yo girls wearing tight leggings could be seen as indecent. If it's tights with a skirt or dress on top then I will say that being denied a flight does seem too harsh.


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

mytinyheart said:


> If that's all they're wearing then yeah, I could see the problem.
> 
> If what stormgirl said is true, then 10-yo girls wearing tight leggings could be seen as indecent. If it's tights with a skirt or dress on top then I will say that being denied a flight does seem too harsh.


A 10-year-old in leggings tight or not is not indecent. What’s indecent is the sick minds of people sexualizing a girl so young and then shaming her for not being “appropriate”. 

Why were her adult father’s BARE legs acceptable for the flight, while a ten-year-old child’s COVERED legs are not? She doesn’t even have anything to fill out leggings for God’s sakes. She’s a CHILD. 

Society continues to sexualize girls at younger and younger ages. That’s the real issue here, not leggings.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

stormgirl said:


> A 10-year-old in leggings tight or not is not indecent. What’s indecent is the sick minds of people sexualizing a girl so young and then shaming her for not being “appropriate”.
> 
> Why were her adult father’s BARE legs acceptable for the flight, while a ten-year-old child’s COVERED legs are not? She doesn’t even have anything to fill out leggings for God’s sakes. She’s a CHILD.
> 
> Society continues to sexualize girls at younger and younger ages. That’s the real issue here, not leggings.


The indecency I refer to is a reaction, not a willing sexualization. Reactions are based on instinctual variables related to an individual's upbringing, or personal experience, or systemization. Quite a few people do not feel comfortable with tight clothing in general, but it's tolerated. When it comes to children, it's a different case, as we have the tendency to want to shelter children from any negative influence (and there is nothing wrong with that, only what the influential factors are can be debated).

The reaction is not a willing sexualization, but based upon one of the social foundations of our modern world: children are innocent and must be protected. Where am I going with this? The idea that what this reaction I speak of is actually related to _desexualization._ This is only more recent, as centuries ago children were married shy of their teenage years and expected to have their own children. Whereas nowadays such a thing is abomination. This leads me to state the fact that, whether we see it that way or not, children are sexual creatures. Because of the social structures governing how we see children, it's not something we like to think about. For example, we immediately see pedophiles as worthy of all hell when a) their attraction does not mean they automatically are offenders and b) throughout history and throughout our cultures children were not exempt from the duties of the marriage bed, and even wed to adults. It's almost like our treatment of children is hypocrisy. 

The way children were viewed before has to do greatly with short lifespans and different societal and cultural customs, that dictated that people must procreate at an earlier age, or stop seeing children as children even before they turn 10, for example. Nowadays we know better. Aside from lengthened lifespans and better understanding of child psychology, we now know how cautiously we must allow children to be raised so they become healthy adults. We know that they have development that doesn't stop until 18-21 and must be given that time to grow. And so we tend to have a healthier view on children compared to before, right?

Except we've lived so long that seeing children as having a sexuality...it's taboo. It's sacrilege. When the truth of the matter is that children do have a sexuality = children are more than capable, of course unconsciously, attracting the unwanted attention of adults or other sexually-mature youth. (These would be the deviants who willingly sexualize children, are comfortable with the idea, and have no problem pursuing the idea or the action). We're unconsciously aware of it, and so we're often consciously aware of children. You see it displayed in many forms (wanting to protect our young) and what they wear, how they express themselves, etc. is taken into consideration by parents and adults overall in fear that any of an infinite amount of influence (which can be debated) will be a danger to them.

And so I come to the leggings again. The difference between shorts and leggings will depend on who is considering them. Though this may vary from person to person, I will state what comes to mind when I say shorts:

-summertime, hot weather, keep cool, comfortable

Applied to men, women, and children, the idea is the same. Keeping cool in warm weather.

When I say leggings:

-yoga, black, form-fitting, female, big sweaters, athletic

These are all ideas that come to mind but we aren't formulating them in verbal representation, but rather general abstract ideas.
Leggings are still seen as more of a new thing compared to shorts. Keep in mind that the majority of leggings wearers are: women.
Not generally spread out enough. among sex and age. And consider how many things aside from leggings (skinny jeans, jeggings,
skinny clothing for guys is worse off) are seen as indecent because of how it accentuates the figure, or makes men and boys look more feminine. Compared to shorts, they're not seen on the same plane. Not because of gender, so much as a sociocultural phenomenon. Leggings might be seen as clothing reserved for women, not girls.

No one is seeing "covered legs" vs. "bare legs", rather the idea behind both articles of clothing and what is considered acceptable.
Also, as far as "she doesn't have anything to fill out leggings". That isn't much of an argument when one considers that there are innumerable outside factors contributing to the "sexualization" of youth that have nothing to do with our views, rather the media that they so easily consume. (though that's a different topic) The idea is, once again, the _representation_ leggings have in some people's minds.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

mytinyheart said:


> The reaction is not a willing sexualization, but based upon one of the social foundations of our modern world: children are innocent and must be protected.


It can really come to a full stop right here. Time for the social foundations and contradictory "for the children" line to be left in the dumpster where they belong - we all know the latter is just an excuse. The "representation leggings have in some people's minds" is irrelevant. Better to crush those people in the name of progress, not pander to them. All opinions are _not_ created equal.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

I think it was a petty issue, also (I read further down) the girls were ten. It's not their fault and should not have been the ones excluded from the flight. Too young to know the rules, and under legal age for them to even have consented to the rules.
Really it's the father who is responsible for not ensuring the girls met the dress code (and made sure they were wearing shorts or something allowed). 

Really, the actual issue is the fact the airline would let the father board and not the girls. It is not safe to leave children in a public area by themselves when young. Even if the father happen to board the plan without the kids (for what ever reason, perhaps confusion?). Does the airline want to be held responsible for the kids safety if something went wrong?

At the end of the day, a childs safety is much more important than a dress code.


So which judging function do you recon?


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

SuperfluousNinja said:


> There's a current event here in the United States that I think is a great example of the use of all of our judging functions. Mostly I want to list my thoughts and see if you think they make sense, and if so, this may serve as a practical example of our feeling and thinking functions.
> 
> The story is essentially that a couple teenage girls were not allowed to board a Delta Airlines flight because they were wearing "leggings" (skin-tight spandex pants, yoga pants...wherever you are from, you likely know what I mean).
> 
> ...


It's huge injustice that women as a social class are wearing sexualized clothes in public spaces (mentioning specifically women, because it's usually women who wear sexualized clothes).



stormgirl said:


> The father of the girls was permitted to board the plane wearing shorts i.e. showing his bare legs in all their glory. I guess it's a different dress code if you have a penis.


It's mostly because sexualized clothes are mainly a female problem. From my observation, men almost always wear non-sexualized clothes. Like in men in daisy dukes are luckily rather rare. Shorts for men almost always mean knee-length or longer shorts.
It is common to see women in short skirts even in early spring accompanied by men in either full length or knee-length trousers.
Women usually additionally have specially fetishised legs by removed leg hairs and often wear bizarre leg-deforming fetish shoes.



Shiver said:


> Just another thing that goes back to the hyper-sexualization of the human body


I doubt such thing exist outside of sexualization of the human body through sexualized (revealing/tight) clothes.



Shiver said:


> antiquated social norms


It's a completely meaningless statement trying to make pro-consent norms look "bad" because they are supposedly old.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> It's a completely meaningless statement trying to make pro-consent norms look "bad" because they are supposedly old.


I'm not sure what you're talking about with "consent", but cultures do evolve over time and much of America is still trapped in something of a Puritan mindset, disconnected with its younger generations and those changing norms. Do you still use Windows 95? Similar principle, lol

At any rate the application of a rule that supposedly has basis in sexuality to ten year-olds is pretty skeevy; they were probably just wearing the leggings because it's a fashion trend or because they're comfortable (ever tried them on? they're super comfy).


----------



## artisanrox (Nov 5, 2016)

My first reaction when I read this story here, because OP has more details in the story than I've read elsewhere (and I've definitely heard of this issue on Facebook but never considered it "important" enough to research LOL) was that I can't possibly understand the reason for the dress code because they're "delta representatives". I mean, do these employees who can travel at company's expense sit in specific chairs that have big signs drop down above their heads that say "I'M TRAVELLING FOR FREE AS A DELTA EMPLOYEE ASK ME ANYTHING" or something?? 

I mean, does anyone else boarding the plane look at these people and somehow know they're employees?? Are they supposed to carry signs in their carry-on luggage that they bring out after takeoff?? If I was on a plane how in Pete's name would I know how anyone else there is travelling for or who paid for it? 

It's baffling how companies will try to give something for "free" and then make rules that are pretty much subjectively enforced only when they decide to not follow through with the "free something".


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

stormgirl said:


> The original article I read stated that the girls were around 10 years old. Leggings are standard dress for 10 year old's, and hardly inappropriate.
> 
> The father of the girls was permitted to board the plane wearing shorts i.e. showing his bare legs in all their glory. I guess it's a different dress code if you have a penis.
> 
> ...


No, it isn't because it applies to _everyone _

"Delta’s policy for its Buddy Pass program outlines that its non-rev passengers are to adhere to the carrier’s “Buddy-quette” (PDF). Here’s what that means:

“Appearance: Flying in comfort and style. Delta has a relaxed dress code for pass riders, including Buddies. The standard is based on respect — for our customers and for you. Delta trusts your good judgment when traveling on a Buddy Pass. Just remember, Delta has a relaxed code for pass riders, but that doesn’t mean a sloppy appearance is acceptable. You should never wear unclean, revealing or lewd garments, or swimwear or sleepwear on a flight. The relaxed dress code also applies for Buddy Pass travel on Delta Connection carriers.”

The airline also tweeted a shot at United, informing its passengers that they’re allowed to wear leggings. However, while that was presumably directed toward revenue passengers, it’s unclear if that also applies to non-rev passengers."

It may be vague and on a case by case basis, but it says nothing about gender here. I'm quite sure a man would be kicked off for wearing leggings too....except that would open up an entirely different can of worms and likely be in the supreme court by now.
You're representing the airlines. They expect you to look decent. Just do it.


----------



## BNB (Feb 15, 2017)

people are always up in arms over the stupidest shit.. seriously.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Fumetsu said:


> You're representing the airlines. They expect you to look decent. Just do it.


A pair of young girls is representing the airline? And they look indecent? I'd ask how and why but I've already seen through this exchange. Sigh. 



BNB said:


> people are always up in arms over the stupidest shit.. seriously.


Leaving this "shit" unchecked is all that is required for it to run out of control.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Shiver said:


> A pair of young girls is representing the airline? And they look indecent? I'd ask how and why but I've already seen through this exchange. Sigh.
> 
> Leaving this "shit" unchecked is all that is required for it to run out of control.


What " How and why?" The airlines have rules and children are not exempt. That's all.

It's a free ride. Accept their rules or don't accept the ride.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Fumetsu said:


> What " How and why?" The airlines have rules and children are not exempt. That's all.
> 
> It's a free ride. Accept their rules or don't accept the ride.


"How and why" to the questions I posed in the prior sentence, clearly. It's mostly rhetorical given my first post in the thread. 

There will always be _that person_ to enter and champion the absurd. The same mentality was probably seen in the 50s, saying," Colored folk give up their seat. Accept their rules or don't ride the bus."

Personally, I'm not content to go through life mindlessly accepting all rules and expect a conversation with someone holding your current position would be pointless, hence "I've already seen through this exchange."

EDIT: I should probably preemptively point out that the intention of the part you're most likely to jump on is to draw a parallel between unwillingness to question rules and social norms passed down by a perceived authority. Arguing that it is absurd on the grounds of dissimilarity between the current situation and the Civil Rights movement would be missing the essence of the statement.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Shannon Watts complaining via Twitter? Say it isn't true.

The girls were wearing leggings without a skirt, shorts, or dress that covered their legs. United Airlines (Delta is not the airline involved in this situation) said that is inappropriate wear for employees or relatives/friends of employees flying free. 

The girls were in their teens.

The manner of dress did not meet dress code.

You don't like it? Pay your fare. Then you can wear leggings.

Bottom line is that we all know that leggings without cover of some sort is not really suitable for public wear. Unless you are one of the people of Walmart.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Fumetsu said:


> What " How and why?" The airlines have rules and children are not exempt. That's all.
> 
> It's a free ride. Accept their rules or don't accept the ride.


Thank you @Fumetsu I thought I was going crazy.

Rules are rules, what the hell is all the outrage about?

Also, leggings and yoga pants are VERY crude public attire. 
Just because everyone is wearing thongs and miniskirts doesn't mean its appropriate clothing.
Terrible parenting.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Double post.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> Thank you @Fumetsu I thought I was going crazy.
> 
> Rules are rules, what the hell is all the outrage about?
> 
> ...


What and who defines "appropriate attire" and why? At what point should rules and norms be challenged, or do you always just mindlessly obey authority and perceived majority opinion?


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Shiver said:


> What and who defines "appropriate attire" and why? At what point should rules and norms be challenged, or do you always just mindlessly obey authority and perceived majority opinion?


The persons that write the rules decide. Your job is to follow the agreements you sign. If you don't like the rules then don't agree to them before hand. 

Also, the whole "comfort" argument is complete bullshit. 
Loose sweatpants are also comfortable. Pants don't have to be skin tight to be comfortable. Yoga pants and leggings are extremely distasteful attire ESPECIALLY on children. Just because they're children doesn't mean parading them around practically naked is okay.

Whats the difference between wearing black leggings and having black skin and walking around naked. It's practically the same visually.
What if you wore leggings that matched your skin tone. Is that then considered racy attire?









Skin colored yoga pants vs non-skin matching yoga pants









They are BOTH crude public attire meant purely to flaunt the body.

If a man wore skin tight leggings THE SAME APPLIES.
Is this okay public attire? No its not, the man's junk is basically hanging there for everyone to see. Now picture a boner. Yeah... not something I want to see in public.










Those people are free to wear whatever they desire no matter how crude as long as they haven't signed onto an agreement that limits their attire.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> The persons that write the rules decide. Your job is to follow the agreements you sign. If you don't like the rules then don't agree to them before hand.


Alternatively, it is reasonable to question how fitting said rules are; rules (and norms) are not absolute and can be subject to change, much like laws.



> Also, the whole "comfort" argument is complete bullshit.
> Loose sweatpants are also comfortable. Pants don't have to be skin tight to be comfortable.


But they _are_ comfortable. Lighter, too.



> Yoga pants and leggings are extremely distasteful attire ESPECIALLY on children. Just because they're children doesn't mean parading them around practically naked is okay.
> 
> Whats the difference between wearing black leggings and having black skin and walking around naked. It's practically the same visually.
> What if you wore leggings that matched your skin tone. Is that then considered racy attire?


Distasteful why? What is inherently shameful about our bodies, exactly?



> Skin colored yoga pants vs non-skin matching yoga pants
> 
> They are BOTH crude public attire meant purely to flaunt the body.
> 
> ...


Same question as above. Also nobody is really obligated to care about what _you_ want to see in public. Do you make a habit of checking out ten year olds?



> Those people are free to wear whatever they desire no matter how crude as long as they haven't signed onto an agreement that limits their attire.


Did the ten year old children sign into said agreement? Are they considered legally able to do so? Agreement or not, what makes the created rules acceptable? I'm seeing a lot of subjective reasons that involve whatever is going on in your pants, but nothing really compelling...


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Honestly I doubt that policy is something somebody put a whole lot of thought into. It's probably just one of those poorly documented things that the lemmings have to invoke as law regardless of whether it makes sense. The weird thing to me is that this is a big deal or news.

Also...it was United Airlines.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

tangosthenes said:


> Also...it was United Airlines.


In this case, skin tight clothing was probably for the best. Don't give them anything they can grab!


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

As I understand it, the rules for family on planes isn't about dressing "decent" but dressed UP. They are supposed to be wearing NICE clothes. Like Sunday best clothes. 

At least that's what I've been told by someone who got free flights because they had a parent that worked at a different airline. I'm surprised shorts passed for dressed up though. Must have been some real fancy shorts!


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

@Shiver

You're taking two different things and lumping them together assuming my logic works that way.

*It does not.*

Regarding the girls, personally I don't really care. If I were on duty that day I'd have let them go and probably not even noticed because I don't like ruining other people's day. 

It's like a cop seeing someone Jay walk and ignoring it. Why be an asshole? Yes, you have every right to ticket them for jay walking but.... why be an asshole?

So on that tone, I don't care what the girls were wearing. But it *IS* crude attire and the parent is *SHIT* for parading their children in skin tight attire. 

That's a personal viewpoint, I understand. I mean there's women that dress their 5 year old daughters in stripper clothes and parade them around shows for medals. So if that's publicly acceptable I guess ass-crack tight leggings are too. 

*Personally*, I think its crude.


But you can argue left and right all you want. The fact is the asshole that prevented them from boarding was within her rights, as was the airline. The agreement that was signed covers everyone taking advantage of the free tickets in question.

If you don't like the rules, FUCKING BUY A TICKET.
You can't have it both ways.

In this case you surrender a little bit of freedom for a FREE AIRPLANE RIDE.
Its like complaining your homeless rations don't come in strawberry mango flavor. Well sorry, its just a compromise you're going to have to live with.

As far as caring what my personal opinion is... nobody has to.
The airline doesn't have to care what your opinion of them is either. 
Because in the end, everyone that buys shitty american flights whether they are eagle, united, or american... is paying for garbage service because they can't afford better tickets.

The end.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> [...]
> 
> *Personally*, I think its crude.
> 
> But you can argue left and right all you want. The fact is the asshole that prevented them from boarding was within her rights, as was the airline. The agreement that was signed covers everyone taking advantage of the free tickets in question.


My problem with it is that this sort of personal preference manifests in the form of unnecessary rules meant to impose an agenda - on children, no less. The signed agreement is completely meaningless to me - if a line of thinking isn't defensible, it has no right to exist and the contract is as good as toilet paper. Better to have no deal at all than one which seeks to impose by way of foolish restrictions.



> If you don't like the rules, FUCKING BUY A TICKET.
> You can't have it both ways.


I would imagine a ten year old girl can't have it either way as she _probably_ isn't purchasing a ticket on her own. At any rate, yes, the clear solution is to buy a ticket - from another airline.



> In this case you surrender a little bit of freedom for a FREE AIRPLANE RIDE.
> Its like complaining your homeless rations don't come in strawberry mango flavor. Well sorry, its just a compromise you're going to have to live with.


But the _why_ is every bit as important. If there is no defensible reason for a person to "surrender a little bit of freedom", it should raise some questions. "Just because"? No...there is a driving force behind it. And we should seek to eradicate those poor driving forces.



> As far as caring what my personal opinion is... nobody has to.
> The airline doesn't have to care what your opinion of them is either.
> Because in the end, everyone that buys shitty american flights whether they are eagle, united, or american... is paying for garbage service because they can't afford better tickets.


United's local $1.4 billion stock drop would suggest that a few less people are buying their tickets as of late, heh. And that's excellent, because "voting with the dollar" is one way to start insisting on a change.



> The end.


See, this type of thing _definitely_ has the opposite effect of silencing me. At any rate, you still didn't satisfactorily answer why it is "crude" and what is so inherently shameful about the human body in this scenario. This does seem to be one of those commonly accepted norms that people feel uncomfortable questioning...


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

@Shiver

I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying (and failing) to make you realize that your argument has no grounds.

If I offered a free ferrari ride for people as long as they wore cat ears I'm within my rights to refuse anyone a free ferrari ride if they didn't wear said cat ears. 

You have no ground to stand on. 

I don't care about the "ten year old girls" as if the fact they're children makes a difference.
They are the responsibility of their parents. If the parent makes a mistake that inconveniences their children that's on the parent and the children have to live with the parent's stupidity.

Arguing that the rules have to change is a different matter but again... you can't force the airline to change them.
Just like you can't force me to give you a hypothetical free ferrari ride if you don't wear the cat ears the agreement mentions. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too comes to mind.

Your argument is invalid regardless of whether I personally find leggings to be crude of not.
Dress your kids like strippers if you want, it doesn't affect me... unless you sign a contract saying you will dress in formal attire to represent my company in return for free ferrari rides... then it DOES become my business.

I'm done... you can argue with someone else. I've said all I have to say on this matter.

PS:
All the above is regarding the actual incident.
If you want to boycott the airline in order to force them to change policy for the future, feel free to do so. 
Rebelling for change is something we have to do all the time.
Regardless my argument stands for this present case.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying (and failing) to make you realize that your argument has no grounds.


Oh, but you _are_ trying to silence me. The effort to convince is exactly that and your very responses to me are necessarily an effort to impose some sort of personal will - the perpetuation of your private views. Denying this fact is plainly silly.



> If I offered a free ferrari ride for people as long as they wore cat ears I'm within my rights to refuse anyone a free ferrari ride if they didn't wear said cat ears.
> 
> You have no ground to stand on.
> 
> ...


The ground is that it's an irrationally-based demand (unless you'd care to demonstrate otherwise) and so shouldn't exist in a better world. When a rule is found to be a poor one, it should be overturned - unless you _prefer_ to live in a world devoid of reason.

At any rate, the question remains of the rationale behind the demand. If you can't defend it, do you really have a "right" to make it? I find the world far too tolerant of this sort of thing.



> I don't care about the "ten year old girls" as if the fact they're children makes a difference.
> They are the responsibility of their parents. If the parent makes a mistake that inconveniences their children that's on the parent and the children have to live with the parent's stupidity.
> 
> Arguing that the rules have to change is a different matter but again... you can't force the airline to change them.
> ...


Actually you _can_ force them to change such things, it's just that people like you apparently don't have the stomach for it. One might also say that extensive media coverage of things like this and the beating of a passenger resulting in drastic stock value drops are exactly how to do it in a "peaceful" way. It takes people actually acknowledging that a change needs to be made and living up to that ideal, rather than rushing to the defense of the airlines because their "rights" allow them to enforce such idiocy.

However, suppose it were legal for me to just shoot you in the face and take your Ferrari (which makes about as much sense as the idea that our bodies should be treated as inherently shameful for whatever reason). Would it still be "rules are rules"? Or might you be inclined to object on the grounds that something needs to change, so that people can't just shoot each other for cars? How do you rationalize the abuse of the rights in systems you uphold to enforce (i.e. impose) _personal_ outlooks such as your own if you think that this would be a bad legal ability? I think _you_ want to "have your cake and eat it too", conveniently applying logical systems to how society operates, provided it serves your desired ends.

(I'd also question the line about children being the responsibility of their parents in this context with the sneaking suspicion that "responsibility" is near synonymous with "property" with regards to how they allegedly "represent" the airline, but that's likely too divergent to be of use here being as you are already unwilling to engage the basic essence of what I'm saying with the attitude that "it is what it is".)



> I'm done... you can argue with someone else. I've said all I have to say on this matter.
> 
> PS:
> All the above is regarding the actual incident.
> ...


Your "argument" doesn't even address the essence of what I'm saying; in fact you're conveniently evading it. Nobody in their right mind would confuse these two girls for "representatives" of the airlines - if the policy is idiotic (that is, _invalid_), it should not exist. It clearly isn't even a very useful policy. Feeble people upholding things like this while attempting to halfheartedly play both sides are exactly what holds society back, practically and ideally. Root cause needs to be uncovered and addressed to ensure that corrupt systems are eliminated.

_(multiple edits made for better clarity)_

---------------

@SuperfluousNinja

You might consider the above Ti vs. Te in terms of approach, complete with rapid disintegration, haha.


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

niss said:


> Shannon Watts complaining via Twitter? Say it isn't true.
> 
> The girls were wearing leggings without a skirt, shorts, or dress that covered their legs. United Airlines (Delta is not the airline involved in this situation) said that is inappropriate wear for employees or relatives/friends of employees flying free.
> 
> ...


Auxiliary Te.


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

Vast Silence said:


> Thank you @Fumetsu I thought I was going crazy.
> 
> Rules are rules, what the hell is all the outrage about?
> 
> ...


Ah, classic Fi-dom and some Te in there. "rules are rules" (Te) and a pretty firm opinion about a specific element of this story and a sense of outrage that originated on its own (definite Fi).


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

tangosthenes said:


> Honestly I doubt that policy is something somebody put a whole lot of thought into. It's probably just one of those poorly documented things that the lemmings have to invoke as law regardless of whether it makes sense. *The weird thing to me is that this is a big deal or news*.
> 
> Also...it was United Airlines.


Bolded portion above is classic Ti-dom. I strongly suspected that most Ti types would wonder why anyone cares about this.

This thread is a gold mine!


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

Shiver said:


> @SuperfluousNinja
> 
> You might consider the above Ti vs. Te in terms of approach, complete with rapid disintegration, haha.


Yes!! This might not have been a pleasant argument for you, but if anyone wants a prime example of Ti vs. Te, read all of post #32. If you are still unclear about your type, Shiver, just know you were clearly using Ti in that post more than any of the other judging functions. Vast Silence, being an INFP, leads with Fi and has inferior Te in his stack, so he was always going to react to this issue with his own idea of what is right and wrong (in this case, things like how he interprets bodily expressions and whether he considers it tasteful for the groin to be exposed, etc.), and with Te he was always going to stand up for the laws, as senseless and useless as they may be. Ti is the type that steps back and evaluates these laws instead of just accepting their presence.


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> > They overlook the more individual aspects and just say "rules are rules. Life's not fair."
> 
> 
> No.


I might take this moment to point out that Vast Silence did, in fact, use the exact phrase "rules are rules" in post #21, and he's a Te user.

So. YES.


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

Also, if this matters to anyone, the girls were not 10 years old, they were "teenagers". Their exact age is not specified, but they are at least 13, maybe older. If that matters.

I've just seen a lot of references to them as 10 year old girls in this thread and that isn't true.


----------



## SuperfluousNinja (Jul 26, 2015)

stormgirl said:


> A 10-year-old in leggings tight or not is not indecent. What’s indecent is the sick minds of people sexualizing a girl so young and then shaming her for not being “appropriate”.
> 
> Why were her adult father’s BARE legs acceptable for the flight, while a ten-year-old child’s COVERED legs are not? She doesn’t even have anything to fill out leggings for God’s sakes. She’s a CHILD.
> 
> Society continues to sexualize girls at younger and younger ages. That’s the real issue here, not leggings.


Here you are looking at the larger implications for society and looking at broader themes of sexuality. And you're auxiliary Fe. Good example of Fe use, how consideration (or lack thereof) is given to society as a whole.


----------



## Nashvols (Jan 15, 2017)

Be careful what materials you wear when you fly. In the case of an accident, you don't want to wear something that could possibly cause more damage.



> 5. Keep It Together: To avoid burns and unintentional cartwheels on your way down the slide, keep your heels up and your arms crossed over your chest. A lot of injuries happen when people hit the ground and sprain an ankle or break a leg because they came in out of control. *Also, women should avoid wearing spiked heels and pantyhose when they fly. Pantyhose can melt onto the skin in the heat of a plane fire (as if you needed another reason not to wear pantyhose).*


How to Escape Down an Airplane Slide - TIME

I know we're talking about leggings here...but I would guess this would apply to pretty much any synthetic material. 

(for both men and women)
-wear long sleeves and non-synthetic pants
-wear leather-soled shoes if possible


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @SuperfluousNinja
> 
> Wasn't this United Airlines?


Every news story that pops up in Google is referencing United, yes.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Shiver said:


> But they don't define it in the absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I read your presumption. I ignored it because it was wrong. It isn't about descrimination, or social norms or fighting the man.

It is about choice, which these people had: follow the rules required for free service or pay. That's _it._


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

niss said:


> Bottom line is that we all know that leggings without cover of some sort is not really suitable for public wear. Unless you are one of the people of Walmart.


I wish we all knew that. It's an incredibly common sight these days. It being asscrack.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Fumetsu said:


> Yes, yes they do. Their business their policy. There is no " almighty" of airline services with a holy dicterine of sky-law. Although, maybe they should at this point.


A business policy is not a logical argument on the subject. It seems you're either unwilling or unable to actually see what I'm getting at with this, further illustrating what I referenced to OP as something of a Ti/Te conflict. The business policy is irrelevant to me if its contents fall outside the umbrella of a higher system. I am looking at the _why_ behind it.



> Uuh your presemption was incorrect and irrelevant to my point. It isn't about rights or social norms.


My presumption was correct and addressed what it needed to, as you did _exactly_ what I pointed out in your attempt to discredit me based on a relative comparison to the Civil Rights movement rather than understanding the "essence" of what I said. This is why I said it was going to be a waste of time to argue - you're still like two steps behind and I lack the patience for it.



> It is about choice, which these people had: follow the rules required for free service or pay. That's _it._


It really doesn't matter how many times you people try to reduce it down to a simple matter of "that's _it_", "it's really that simple", "the end", etc. I've brought up quite clearly how there is a connection to a larger picture here; your refusal or inability to engage it isn't addressing that, but it is probably giving OP more info to work with regarding related functions. There's really no point in your responding until you understand this.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

stormgirl said:


> A 10-year-old in leggings tight or not is not indecent. What’s indecent is the sick minds of people sexualizing a girl so young and then shaming her for not being “appropriate”.
> 
> Why were her adult father’s BARE legs acceptable for the flight, while a ten-year-old child’s COVERED legs are not? She doesn’t even have anything to fill out leggings for God’s sakes. She’s a CHILD.
> 
> Society continues to sexualize girls at younger and younger ages. That’s the real issue here, not leggings.


First of all, only the younger girl was ten. The older girl was "a teenager" and old enough to know the difference between casual and formal attire.

Second, they were kicked off the flight because the clothes they were wearing were casual, not that it was sexual. Do you deny that leggings are casualwear?

Third, the problem with LEGGINGS is not LEGS. Did you assume that because the word "legs" is in "leggings?" That's a really stupid assumption. Obviously the reason people find uncovered leggings vulgar is because of how the clothing molds and supports the "private parts." Ass, asscrack, full frontal are not congruent with public decency. But again, this is not why United had a problem with the girls' clothing. Again, their problem was that it was casual, not that it was sexual.

Finally, I agree with you that the increasing sexualization of women's bodies is abhorrent and should be opposed. It's weird to me that you don't seem to realize that fashion trends like bare-butt uncovered leggings are a major driving force behind the sexualization of the female body. Designers produce these clothes with that sexualizing effect in mind... stores sell them because sex sells... If you really have a problem with women being viewed as sexual objects and not as people, you should support fashion trends which emphasize women's FACES and HUMANIZING FEATURES as opposed to T&A.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> Second, they were kicked off the flight because the clothes they were wearing were casual, not that it was sexual. Do you deny that leggings are casualwear?


As was stated by someone prior, I'd certainly deny that shorts hitting 2-3 inches above the knee on a male are considered anything but casual in most societies, but United was apparently fine with it. But it would seem that it's not even an issue of "casual" vs. "formal" to begin with. United goes on record as saying:

"_Its not that we want our standby travelers to come in wearing a suit and tie or that sort of thing. We want people to be comfortable when they travel as long as its neat and in good taste for that environment._"​
So apparently it's rather arbitrary (an objective case for "good taste" would be most amusing to read, I'm sure). This is of course to say nothing of how completely artificial the ways we decorate our bodies are and change over time to begin with, which is what my earlier posts were attempting to get at. I _detest_ "arbitrary" - again, "function related"? Perhaps.

EDIT: Interestingly, the part referenced by United in a tweet, referring to Contract of Carriage, rule 21, is under Section H, "Safety": [link]

"_5. Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;_"​
Very curious that it's under the "safety" section but that it apparently was not referenced for that reason. So was the spirit of this rule in mind during this incident? Hmm...


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Shiver said:


> As was stated by someone prior, I'd certainly deny that shorts hitting 2-3 inches above the knee on a male are considered anything but casual in most societies, but United was apparently fine with it. But it would seem that it's not even an issue of "casual" vs. "formal" to begin with. United goes on record as saying:
> 
> "_Its not that we want our standby travelers to come in wearing a suit and tie or that sort of thing. We want people to be comfortable when they travel as long as its neat and in good taste for that environment._"​
> So apparently it's rather arbitrary (an objective case for "good taste" would be most amusing to read, I'm sure). This is of course to say nothing of how completely artificial the ways we decorate our bodies are and change over time to begin with, which is what my earlier posts were attempting to get at. I _detest_ "arbitrary" - again, "function related"? Perhaps.


Some shorts are appropriate for semi-formal wear. The girls were expected to be in semi-formal attire and they were not. This should not be hard to understand.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> Some shorts are appropriate for semi-formal wear. The girls were expected to be in semi-formal attire and they were not. This should not be hard to understand.


You'll probably want to reference the edited version of my post above, regarding the specific rule that was allegedly enforced, as referenced by United themselves. This does make their expectations rather dubious.

At any rate, this does not provide a satisfactory objective argument for what is "semi-formal" or why a rule requiring such a thing of individuals who are most likely _not_ going to be mistaken for representatives of United exists. I fully expect you to elude this line of reasoning in the same way that others who came before you did, of course.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Shiver said:


> You'll probably want to reference the edited version of my post above, regarding the specific rule that was allegedly enforced, as referenced by United themselves. This does make their expectations rather dubious.
> 
> At any rate, this does not provide a satisfactory objective argument for what is "semi-formal" or why a rule requiring such a thing of individuals who are most likely _not_ going to be mistaken for representatives of United exists. I fully expect you to elude this line of reasoning in the same way that others who came before you did, of course.


Yeah, I'll grant you that Tweet is pure bullshit. Obviously wearing casual attire is not a safety hazard. They said the girls' attire would have been perfectly fine if they had been paying customers, so clearly it's not a safety hazard.

That doesn't change anything. They have a de facto semi-formal dress code for those flying as internal United personnel.

Are you seriously going to pontificate about what "semi-formal" really means? Just google it... it's a commonly understood dress code in our society... Yes I'm aware of the epistemological limits of defining an echelon of dress formality, but like... that's not a real objection.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Dante Scioli said:


> Some shorts are appropriate for semi-formal wear. The girls were expected to be in semi-formal attire and they were not. This should not be hard to understand.


...the exact opposite. Many leggings pass for semi-formal, but men's shorts usually don't because leggings are still for all intents and purposes pants while shorts show bare legs.

At every place I've worked where the dress code was semi-formal or alternately business casual, nobody could wear shorts but women could wear leggings. In formal settings, women generally have more freedom than men since men essentially have to be dressed in a polo or button-down and slacks whereas women can wear pants/skirts/dresses/leggings and they have more options for tops besides a strict button-down.

I don't know about the story and don't care to look it up, but if the given fact is accurate (that men could wear shorts), then the problem could not possibly be about the level of formality. Leggings are more formal than shorts in almost every setting.

Edit: Unless I'm being ethnocentric and this happened some place where shorts can be semi-formal? Lol that's possible.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> Are you seriously going to pontificate about what "semi-formal" really means? Just google it... it's a commonly understood dress code in our society... Yes I'm aware of the epistemological limits of defining an echelon of dress formality, but like... that's not a real objection.


It's as "real" as it needs to be, and it's what I'm picking at, yes. I've always found regulations based on such things to be idiotic and conveniently manipulated.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

star tripper said:


> ...the exact opposite. Many leggings pass for semi-formal, but men's shorts usually don't because leggings are still for all intents and purposes pants while shorts show bare legs.
> 
> At every place I've worked where the dress code was semi-formal or alternately business casual, nobody could wear shorts but women could wear leggings. In formal settings, women generally have more freedom than men since men essentially have to be dressed in a polo or button-down and slacks whereas women can wear pants/skirts/dresses/leggings and they have more options for tops besides a strict button-down.
> 
> I don't know about the story and don't care to look it up, but if the given fact is accurate (that men could wear shorts), then the problem could not possibly be about the level of formality. Leggings are more formal than shorts in almost every setting.


Which is more formal...


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Shiver said:


> It's as "real" as it needs to be, and it's what I'm picking at, yes. I've always found regulations based on such things to be idiotic and conveniently manipulated.


Okay sure, anything which is hazily defined can be conveniently manipulated. But I think wearing uncovered leggings qualifies squarely as NOT SEMI-FORMAL. It's not a borderline case.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Leggings without a dress or something else that covers your ass are not semi-formal attire in any situation I have ever encountered. They're barely suitable for grocery shopping, let alone a situation where you were asked to dress nicely. There are definitely some grey areas - jeans? shorts? - but leggings are not one of them. That's pretty cut and dry, right alongside flip flops and crop tops.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

star tripper said:


> ...the exact opposite. Many leggings pass for semi-formal, but men's shorts usually don't because leggings are still for all intents and purposes pants while shorts show bare legs.


Amusingly, it seems to come down more to what the nature of the _top_ garment is, and whether it covers, _ahem_, lower down. I think somewhere in this equation, what is "sexual" _is_ considered, given that:



Dante Scioli said:


> wearing uncovered leggings qualifies squarely as NOT SEMI-FORMAL.


Tying this quote in with the above, as this anticipated response has allowed me to do, it should probably raise the question as to the reasoning _behind_ what is "formal", "semi-formal", and so on. To me, this does seem like very much a veiled case of attempting to "police your daughters' attire" using this questionable validity. The fact that something is "commonly accepted" really has little to no meaning to me, in part because of this. But then I never claimed Fe as a valued function. ;p


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Shiver said:


> Amusingly, it seems to come down more to what the nature of the _top_ garment is, and whether it covers, _ahem_, lower down. I think somewhere in this equation, what is "sexual" _is_ considered, given that:
> 
> Tying this quote in with the above, as this anticipated response has allowed me to do, it should probably raise the question as to the reasoning _behind_ what is "formal", "semi-formal", and so on. To me, this does seem like very much a veiled case of attempting to "police your daughters' attire" using this questionable validity. The fact that something is "commonly accepted" really has little to no meaning to me, in part because of this. But then I never claimed Fe as a valued function. ;p


You're right, I'm sure if that the grown men whose tickets were paid for by United had showed up in comparable legwear they'd have been allowed to fly. We just pick on girls unfairly even though their clothing is pretty much identical in every way. A little penis outline never hurt anybody, totally semi-formal and decent.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Shiver said:


> A business policy is not a logical argument on the subject. It seems you're either unwilling or unable to actually see what I'm getting at with this, further illustrating what I referenced to OP as something of a Ti/Te conflict. The business policy is irrelevant to me if its contents fall outside the umbrella of a higher system. I am looking at the _why_ behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I get you're argument. I disagree with it. If your birlliant and unique mind is too complex to comprehend that I really don't know whta to tell you.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> You're right, I'm sure if that the grown men whose tickets were paid for by United had showed up in comparable legwear they'd have been allowed to fly. We just pick on girls unfairly even though their clothing is pretty much identical in every way. A little penis outline never hurt anybody, totally semi-formal and decent.


Read again and you'll note I didn't differentiate between gender, I merely pointed out that what is sexual appears to play a role. However it is also "commonly accepted" that women are to be more sexualized to begin with...so it's really no surprise that situations will arise in disproportionate amounts.

Insofar as my mention of how fashion has changed over time with regards to what is acceptable, might you be familiar with cod pieces? This goes back to why I find discerning between such standards (for an airline, of all places!) to be entirely silly.



Fumetsu said:


> I get you're argument. I disagree with it. If your birlliant and unique mind is too complex to comprehend that I really don't know whta to tell you.


Sounds good, although if you think you disagree with something, should you not actually address it?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Shiver said:


> Read again and you'll note I didn't differentiate between gender, I merely pointed out that what is sexual appears to play a role. However it is also "commonly accepted" that women are to be more sexualized to begin with...so it's really no surprise that situations will arise in disproportionate amounts.
> 
> Insofar as my mention of how fashion has changed over time with regards to what is acceptable, might you be familiar with cod pieces? This goes back to why I find discerning between such standards (for an airline, of all places!) to be entirely silly.


The gendered implication is there when you say people are "policing your daughters' attire". Otherwise it's just a case of policing attire, which is pretty standard. Lots of places have dress codes. 

Of course fashion changes, that doesn't mean we can't have standards of dress in our own cultural and geographic contexts. There are still things which are appropriate and inappropriate in various contexts and who gets to decide that depends and varies. In many cases it's whoever owns the business. My boss gets to dictate what I wear to a reasonable degree, including telling me that I can't wear leggings or running shoes to the office. He can't tell me I have to wear a bikini or a burka, but that's where the word _reasonable _comes in. 

Sexuality certainly has something to do with what we consider to be decent attire even when it's not overt, but it's just one factor of many. I don't think that should be surprising.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> The gendered implication is there when you say people are "policing your daughters' attire". Otherwise it's just a case of policing attire, which is pretty standard. Lots of places have dress codes.


The two individuals in question were young girls, so yes, this is why female as a gender was referenced. Would they have kept boys off of the plane with similar "gendered" clothing equivalent? Unknown.

And yes, I find most dress codes similarly idiotic in most settings. What inane things humanity focuses its attention on.



> Of course fashion changes, that doesn't mean we can't have standards of dress in our own cultural and geographic contexts.


Why are the necessary? What objective backing do they have? 



> There are still things which are appropriate and inappropriate in various contexts and who gets to decide that depends and varies. In many cases it's whoever owns the business. My boss gets to dictate what I wear to a reasonable degree, including telling me that I can't wear leggings or running shoes to the office. He can't tell me I have to wear a bikini or a burka, but that's where the word _reasonable _comes in.


This comes _after_ any potential justification and is thus irrelevant to me.



> Sexuality certainly has something to do with what we consider to be decent attire even when it's not overt, but it's just one factor of many. I don't think that should be surprising.


"Why" and whether it is justified remains unanswered - I expect no one here can or will even try to provide those things. Most seem content with the insufficient, "Because that's the way it is!"


----------

