SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - A woman was escorted off of a Delta flight after she was told her clothing was "too revealing." Now, she's calling for change.
In January, Lisa Archbold was flying out of Salt Lake City to San Francisco when she was told to get off the plane after everyone was boarded and quiet.
She claims she was told by flight staff that she needed to "cover up" due to her clothing.
"She came to my seat and loudly asked to speak to me in private and escorted me off the plane as though I was a criminal," Archbold said. "I felt it was a spectacle aimed at punishing me for not being a woman the way she thought I should be a woman."
Archbold, who identifies as queer, says she was dressed like a little boy in baggy pants and a shirt.
She posted on "X," formerly known as Twitter, a photo of her outfit.
Archbold says Delta told her it's their policy that women need to cover up. She was told if she put on a jacket, she could fly. So, Archbold complied.
Now, she and her attorney are calling on the airline to change their policy.
"Delta's contract of carriage says that Delta may remove a passenger when reasonably necessary for the ‘comfort or safety of passengers.’ For example, when ‘the passengers conduct, attire, hygiene, or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers,'" said Archbold. "Please explain how wearing a t-shirt without a bra causes ‘an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance.’"
I remember discussing with my (very conservative, Baptist) Aunt at the beach once that movies showing nudity shouldn't be rated 17+ or Mature because the human body is natural. Violence, however, is not. She remarked that she didn't want to see nipples in movies, they made her uncomfortable.
I responded asking if she didn't have any of her own, and then pointed to the literal thousands of men around us, enjoying the beach with their nipples on full display, even up on the boardwalk, with children everywhere.
So, what's the difference between a woman's nipples and a man's? I'd say they're made of the same parts, look damn near the same, and was even going to give you the benefit of saying a woman's are attached to breasts while a man's aren't, yet, I've seen plenty of breasts on men in our ever-growing obese population.
So, again, what's the difference? What makes a man's exposed nipples "modest" for society while a woman's are considered "encroaching on other's personal freedom," as you so eloquently put it?
What's the difference between roadkill and a side of beef? You can have two things that are ostensibly the same, but very different culturally. There are cultural practices that one must adhere to to be a member of society. It sucks that you don't get to choose where you are born, but if you want tits and no guns, I'd say move to Europe. If you want guns and no tits, America is the place to be. If you want both, try Brazil.
Mmm, one is potentially disease ridden and could kill you since it's found on the side of the road, while the other is regulated heavily by the government and likely won't kill you so long as it is cooked properly.
Regardless, neither have anything to do with the fact that a nipple, regardless of gender, does not have the potential to kill you, and the whataboutism is cute but off topic.
So once again, without bringing up things that no one was discussing (like guns, or countries of origin, or in the case of another of your comments, a dick under a pair of transparent and water logged underwear), what is the difference between a man's nipple and a woman's? Because you've yet to answer my, or anyone's, question.
Men, hands down, are the more violent and aggressive of a species, and make many people uncomfortable to be around. Do we get to ban men from public spaces because they are encroaching on the personal freedoms of those who are made uncomfortable by them? Or are you just going to respond that those who are uncomfortable around an entire gender need therapy or professional help? Or should they just uproot their entire lives, as you seem to suggest, and move to a country with no men? Oh, they don't exist? Funny, since the vast majority of people have nipples, and last I checked, a nipple has never raped or killed anyone.
Since you seem to like to take arguments to the extreme or compare them to things like unregulated and regulated meat, what's your take on that?
That wasn't "whataboutism", I was comparing two things that are the same, but are viewed differently by society. Your bad faith arguments just won't let you admit to it, but let's continue.
I haven't because you make the argument in bad faith. You know that I know the difference, I know that you know the difference, but no matter what I say, you'll tell me that I'm wrong. However, for the sake of answering your question, sure, I'll tell you.
Biologically: Both sexes have nipples because early in the womb we were all the same gender before we got the ol' switcharoo that we were born with. Nipples were formed before your dick/vagina, and they stuck around afterwards instead of falling off. In the female of mammalian species, the female nipple facilitates breast feeding.
Sexually: In many societies and cultures, the female nipple is viewed as an object of sexual desire (see: every ratings board, ever), and thus, is typically obstructed from view based on the cultural in which the woman is present. Even in places where it is completely legal for women to walk around topless (like where I live) it is still culturally appropriate to wear something that covers them. The easiest way to give an example that offers a repeatable outcome is to post two pictures in this thread, one of a male chest, and the other of a female, both nude. The female will get removed by the automod.
There are laws for that, yes, though they are not targeted directly at men, they affect them disproportionately. Some examples being loud, rowdy men at a bar are seen as a nuisance, where as loud, rowdy women are just having a girls night out. I'm not saying there is a real difference, but culturally, that is how it is seen a lot of the time. I can give many, many more examples, but I'm not going to waste my time on a battle of the sexes.
Nope.
I think you had a point when you started that thought, but it got lost somewhere along the way, and now it makes no sense. Sorry, I can't find a way to respond to it.
Take on what? Sex and violence? I don't need to make the argument on difference there. There are many cultures that have a different view of the two than the American view.
Either way, I'm done with these arguments. All of you, and truly, I mean all of you have been making bad faith arguments simply to virtue signal. Not a single person here has made a good argument as to why a woman with her tits showing through her shirt should have been allowed on a family flight where she was showing more than could be shown on network television. Call her persecutors prudes or whatever, but rules are rules, and if you don't like them, you try to change them. Admittedly, that is what she seems to be doing, but in the most narcissistic way possible, which doesn't really help her case.
It was, myself and everyone here were discussing a woman, wearing a shirt that barely showed her nipples, and your first line in response to me was comparing the situation to roadkill. But, I'm sure you'll just chalk me pointing that out to you as more "bad faith" arguing, since that seems to be the catch-all term now for "you're pointing out flaws in my logic and I don't like it."
Again, says the person who compared nipples to roadkill, but I'm arguing in bad faith, got it. Same with that pic of the guy's dick you posted, that totally wasn't a bad faith argument taking the discussion to the absolute extremes. But let's see your answer.
Cool, so the only difference you could point out, biologically, was that a woman's nipple facilitates breastfeeding. Since this woman wasn't doing that, and afaik, breastfeeding is legal in public, I still don't see the issue.
Feet are considered sexual, yet we allow people to wear sandals in public. No one bats an eye at men wearing basketball shorts or tight jeans with obviously noticeable bulges. So really, your argument is that women can't show their bodies because they're just sexual objects, cool, way to defend misogyny. 👍 And to your point about the automod: cool? Yet that pic you posted of the clearly visible dick, that's, again, totally fine since it hasn't been taken down by the automod. Hear that, guys?!? You can whip your dick out in public now because this guy's dick pic wasn't removed by an automod!!! 🙄
No, there are no laws banning men from existing in public anywhere. Your example is an example of drunk and disorderly conduct, which I have seen women and men escorted from bars/public places for taking part in. Your issue with the woman in the airport was that her nipples were observable, so I brought up the fact that men, simply by existing (very much like women's nipples) make many people uncomfortable, yet we don't ban men from public spaces like we do women's (and only women's) nipples.
Do you see the difference, Mr. Expert-On-Everything? My point was that if we're banning things based on how uncomfortable they make people, men shouldn't be allowed in public. Since this entire argument revolves around comfort, that was the point I was making. Outside of comfort, there is literally no difference between a man's nipple and a woman's.
The point (which I guess you couldn't follow) was that men, the most violent of the sexes, aren't banned from public and exist everywhere, despite the harm they've caused to multitudes of people. Nipples, who have never harmed anyone as far as I'm aware, have never committed the atrocities that men have. So, again, what is the issue with this woman minding her own business in a slightly see-through top while trying to travel when, as far as anyone knows or was reported, she wasn't harming or bothering anyone?
And even if you could respond to it, you'd probably just accuse me of more bad faith arguments because that seems to be your go to for having your idiotic logic thrown back at you.
I think you had a point when you started that thought, but it got lost somewhere along the way, and now it makes no sense. Sorry, I can't find a way to respond to it.
We're not virtue signaling or arguing in bad faith, we're asking you to logically explain why a woman, minding her own business, waiting for her plane, being allowed to board her plane, and then being removed from her plane after everyone else had been allowed to board, should have been when her only "offense" was wearing a slightly revealing top? Call the fucking army, she should be shot, folks! She showed a body part that the majority of human fucking beings and every fucking mammal on the planet has, oh the everloving humanity!
Her tits were not showing through, they were barely noticeable, and she was bothering no one. I didn't see a report saying she was shoving them in people's faces or running up to kids and flashing them, and from the picture she posted, it looked like she had a light jacket on as well. So because people like you can't control themselves and not stare at someone's barely noticeable nipples, she had to have her life dramatically inconvenienced because oF tHe ChIlDrEn.
What a joke, all of your arguments have been used to suppress minorities: we can't let LGBTQ+ people hold hands/kiss/exist in public, won't anyone think of the children?!? It makes us uncomfortable to see two men kissing, what will I explain to my children?!? I can't have my child see a nipple, he's only got two himself, how will I explain that other people have nipples too, oh GOD the humanity!?!?!?!? 😭😭😭😭
What a joke. You're a misogynist who, like the majority of society, thinks any part of a woman is automatically sexual, and it's disgusting, and I applaud this women for making people like you uncomfortable.