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.’”
Don’t you love it when articles talk about an outfit and a picture of the outfit, but they don’t fucking show it?
They know what they’re doing. They’re a bunch of assholes.
It might’ve been too revealing
Bras are not required to fly. You’re thinking of doors.
As a note, I couldn’t find this woman’s Twitter post after a brief look and I did see other sites say she was apparently not wearing a bra.
The woman is also apparently a DJ.
Thank you, but the lack of bra and occupation of DJ was easily inferred since she was flying to San Francisco.
That and the 1970s style rose sunglasses.
Methinks she was wearing little boy sized clothes.
@DJettekiwi Here is the post if you are curious.
OK seriously, how tf does twitter work? I went to her profile and found a post that’s labeled as a reply, but when I click on it there’s no way to see what she’s replying to. Why did anyone ever use such a shitty platform?
Because the @(name) was the first thing in the tweet, it’s labeled as a reply. Usually people put a period - or other similar punctuation - in front of that, in order to prevent this.
OK, so really it’s because the shirt is fucking see through.
Thank you - I remember looking for this just really quick but I couldn’t find it.
Weird. Why isn’t it head-on to actually give us a good view of what the supposed problem was?
I’m curious how that is relevant
Oh, I can see the down votes already, but I’ll say it, because I feel like it should be said. Personal freedom shouldn’t encroach on others personal freedom. Not everyone wants to see your tits. I know society jokes about everyone loving boobs, but that isn’t really the case. Join civilized society and do the bare minimum when you are in a crowded and public space. When you force your beliefs, spiritual, sexual, or otherwise on to others, you are actually part of the problem you rail against with your personal expression. No one is telling you to be a different person, just wear something that maintains the modesty that is expected in public spaces.
Personal freedom shouldn’t encroach on others personal freedom. Not everyone wants to see your tits.
No one is telling you to be a different person, just wear something that maintains the modesty that is expected in public spaces.
…seriously? You mean, like, I don’t know… wearing a shirt? Do you think men should be barred from wearing tightish pants because it creates a visible bulge?
Removed by mod
A wet, white underwear is not what she was wearing. A dude wearing basketball shorts was showing more dick than her shirt showed tits, and I see plenty of dudes in basketball shorts on flights
You can’t see her tits.
In the selfie she took after she covered up and was allowed to fly? Yeah, that’s the point. Before that she was wearing a mesh rave shirt and no bra.
Source?
The picture she posted. If you look at the shirt under the jacket you can see that it is a mesh shirt that you can see any douchebag in a club wearing. You can clearly see her torso through it, and if she has taken the picture from a different perspective and without the jacket, her tits would clearly be visible.
I can’t see through that shirt. And the shirt color and skin tone doesn’t match at all, as in not transparent or anything like that.
Doesn’t look like a mesh shirt to me, honestly.
There, that’s basically the shirt, but without the pockets. Mesh isn’t the right word, but it get’s the point across. You can clearly see through it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
what is the difference between a man’s nipple and a woman’s? Because you’ve yet to answer my, or anyone’s, question.
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.
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?
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.
Or are you just going to respond that those who are uncomfortable around an entire gender need therapy or professional help?
Nope.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!! 🙄
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody wants to see these frat bros running around shirtless with their polo slung over their shoulder all over the place, but we gotta deal with it. We all have nipples, deal with it. I’ve seen fat old men with bigger tits than her, should they also be forced to wear a bra?
So if a guy gets an erection, can he be kicked off a flight? Or if there’s a visible bulge? What if it’s cold and I can see a guys nipples through their shirt? If people think the general shape of someone’s body is offensive and sexual, they’re the ones who should be ostracized.
If if if if if if if… We can talk circles around each other with hypotheticals all day long, but that isn’t what happened. Delta had a policy that they enforced. They were fair about it, and asked her to cover up. She did, was allowed to fly, and that should have been the end of it. Instead she is making a fuss over it and now it’s news.
No. we didn’t talk in hypotheticals all day. We can, though. The story is still going because we all have opinions on it, some less boot-licking than others.
I agree with this… Late to the show, I apologize…
Which is why when DJ Soda was booted from a flight for wearing a shirt that just said “FUCK” like 1,000x and she didn’t want to put on a big sweatshirt over it and complained… I thought that was too silly.
I just imagined my daughter saying “Daddy, what’s f***?”
Just as such… a seethrough shirt with nipples showing is completely unwanted by many people… So is a guy going shirtless on a flight, whether he has an amazing body or is fat. It’s just all so unnecessary and encroaches on everyone’s desire to have an uneventful flight.
Not everyone wants to look at your hair.
Not everyone wants to look at your mouth.Should you have to cover those?
If it was a societal norm. Jesus Christ you all make some of the worst most paper thin arguments.
Welcome to Lemmy. Where the idiots rule and the comments are always the stupidest thing you’ve read today.
I’m actually with you. I find nudity suuuper uncomfortable, no matter who it is, and I avoid situations where I’m likely to run across it. Like, I’m queer and I generally skip Pride even though it bums me out, because I know there will be all kinds of skin on display. Someone wearing a transparent shirt (regardless of gender, in my case) on a plane would be an issue. It’s not the lack of bra, it’s that the shirt doesn’t really cover anything. I don’t think it’s crazy to say that I don’t want to see anyone’s tits on a flight.
People make the same arguments about non-binary people, you realize that, right? And trans people, and public displays of affection by members of the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.
So by your logic, you’d be completely fine being removed from a flight because someone else, who you aren’t even interacting with, finds your presence uncomfortable?
I’m sorry, are you comparing nudity to people just existing? Those two things are not related and honestly, you can fuck right off trying to act like my discomfort with the former is anything like the latter.
I’m sorry, are you comparing nudity to people just existing?
No, I’m comparing comfort to comfort in public spaces, which is the topic if discussion. She also wasn’t nude, she was wearing a shirt, albeit see through, and was “jUsT eXiStInG.” As far as I could tell, she wasn’t wearing a sign that says “Check out my tits!” or walking up to strangers shoving them in their faces.
She was, as far as any of us know, waiting for her flight, then boarded her flight, and then was asked to leave due to “discomfort.” So, discomfort is a justifiable reason when it’s your discomfort, but not anyone else’s?
Those two things are not related
But they are. They’re nipples, unless you’re an alien, as far as I know, you have them too. Had she been wearing a plain T-shirt but her nipples were hard, does she deserve to be removed from her flight that she paid for because of your discomfort?
you can fuck right off trying to act like my discomfort with the former is anything like the latter.
Classy, I didn’t insult you, I pointed out the flaw in your logic: things that make people uncomfortable shouldn’t be allowed in public, which is just asinine. Your argument here is basically “but it makes me uncomfortable,” which is just entitled and childish.
The majority of people who wear sandals, in my opinion, have disgusting feet, to the point where I wouldn’t be able to eat around them. Feet are a fetish, therefore sexual, so do I now have the right to ask anyone wearing sandals to be removed from public or to “cover their nudity” because it makes me uncomfortable? No, the logical solution would be to, idk, not look at them. Wow, crazy idea, not to focus on something that makes you uncomfortable.
My point was, many people are “uncomfortable” around two men/women kissing, or even holding hands, and those same fucking arguments have been and are used to ban innocent behavior in public because of comfort. This woman was doing nothing wrong, and if you are so put off by seeing a nipple that you would have such a difficult time traveling to your destination, then you need to talk to someone professionally about it. Or, if you’re incapable of, again, just not looking at them, then you need to work on your own self control.
And before you start with any bullshit about me being an asshole or LGBTQ±phobic: I’m a trans woman who has spoken to my therapist of 6 years now, at length on several occasions, about my discomfort around other people’s feet and body hair. Never once, once, has she suggested that other people should be barred from public for checks notes fucking existing.
Maybe learn to work on yourself and grow as a person, rather than demanding society bend over to appease you, personally. But what do I know, I was only raised in a household where your exact arguments were made to justify anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, but that can’t be, because you claim they’re completely unrelated. 🙄
Thanks for being reasonable and realizing that everyone is different.
You could also just not look at her tits.
Edit: fine, look at her tits, you big baby.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want this young woman to wear a bra.
Some people hold the regressive belief that anyone who identifies as femme must wear a bra because femme nipples are “lewd”. Alternatively, there are also people out there that believe a woman’s body is for men to look at and must meet certain standards.
Well that’s the thing … I want to look at it, hence the agreement that she should go braless should she so desire.
Edit: oh, that’s over the line?
Stop being on her side! lol
Make up your damn minds. If the nip is out, I’m going to look. I will fight for your right to go braless! Free the nipple!
I don’t care what people wear, but everyone is saying she’s in trouble for wearing a T Shirt without a bra as if the mere outline of a nipple was the problem, but it looks like in the picture that her shirt is pretty see through. I think that’s the issue.
Again, I don’t think she should have been kicked off the plane over it, but a see through shirt in Utah? That seems like an unreasonable risk of offense to me. Utah is crazy conservative. Delta isn’t taking a moral stance, they’re just protecting their profits in a Conservative state by enforcing a pretty reasonable dress code. You have to have coverage over your body.
I don’t see where the shirt looks see through. It’s just an off white shirt.
I’m pretty sure it’s a white shirt and the reason it looks off white is because it’s so thin you can see her skin underneath. The color of the shirt is thicker fabric, and you don’t see the skin color underneath.
I think that you probably could have put 99 more t-shirts on her, and not one of them would have invoked this policy, because most t-shirts are not designed to be see through.
I’m not convinced that’s the case honestly. To me the color looks too uniform for it to be caused by her skin underneath. But even if that is the case her nipple is not at all visible. Their justification makes 0 sense to me. This lady is fully clothed. I don’t see how she could possibly cause any kind of danger or disruption.
Fucking Utah.
Their policy isn’t an unreasonable risk of danger or disruption, it’s an unreasonable risk of offense. You’re not allowed to wear clothes that offend other customers. They can kick you off the plane for wearing a shirt that has an image of giving the middle finger or a curse word. You can tell it’s see through because the collar is fully opaque where the fabric is rolled over itself.
Plus it sounds like they gave the woman the option of changing her shirt or adding a jacket and she wasn’t willing to do that
Thank God Delta is doing their part in battling the nipple scourge that has plagued this fine nation
Mormons…
Show nipple, no fly.
Hahaha, Gloria Allred.
ragebait article lol
