Video flashback: Too hot to fly, 1972 edition Update: “We move our tails for you”
posted at 10:45 am on September 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Or rather, too hot not to fly? Thanks to reader Gary W. for tipping me to this.
Yes, it’s the same airline.
Update (bp): The Manolo has found a couple more photos of Southwest flight attendants from the 70s and before. Ya gotta see ‘em to believe ‘em.
Manolo says, Ayyyy! The Irony! One minute, you are looking like Hooters Girls, and the next you are escorting them off the plane for indecency.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Hard to believe we’re more puritanical now than when I was 12 years old.
flipflop on September 8, 2007 at 11:05 AM
It’s like a transmission from another world – a better world…
Apeking on September 8, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Dot dot dot and amazingly Southwest Airlines still has this advert on its website:
http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/advideo.html
There’s a similar one, “remember what it was like before there was someone else up there who loved you”. For some reason it reminds me of the Pan Am shuttle from 2001.
Apeking on September 8, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Hey, I found a similar clip on a previous post! No fair! :P
kiakjones on September 8, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Judging by this article from TIME magazine, there was a “stewardess war” going on in the airline industry at the time:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944906,00.html
“Since National Airlines took off with its “I’m Cheryl. Fly me” campaign in 1971, the sexy—and sexist—slogan has enraged feminists. It has also pulled in business. National reported a 23% increase in passengers during the first year of the campaign, nearly twice that of the industry as a whole. Having succeeded that well with sex. National is now drumming up an even more suggestive campaign scheduled for television airing this summer. The new ads feature National stewardesses looking seductively into the camera and breathing “I’m going to fly you like you’ve never been flown before.” The film makers coach them “to say it like you’re standing there stark naked.” A San Francisco-based group called Stewardesses for Equal Rights is considering complaining to the Federal Communications Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” – June 1974
Apeking on September 8, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Unbelievable! Why don’t they concentrate on being on time or on schedule for a change instead of worrying about dress code. They could also take better care of luggage and security.
countywolf on September 8, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I demand a refund from Southwest for not employing hot, sexy stewardess’s, dressed like the above all these years…that’s what I’m suing for….lost eye candy sightings!!!
That’ll teach’em a lesson for false advertising!!!
Mcguyver on September 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I totally forgot about this! Many, many cool points to Gary W.
Theworldisnotenough on September 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I’m no fan of the courts….but lady sue the paint right off the plane.
(clip beat the hell out of ol black beard on the other thread)
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Her lawyer has SO got to play this at the trial.
At first, I thought her case was silly considering her panty shots.
But this, I’d say, proves her case. She’s got a slam dunk. The jury are going to laugh at South West if her lawyer gets this in.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Apeking, that is so hilarious. They DO have it on their website, under the headline:
Remember What It Was Like Before Southwest Airlines? You Didn’t Have Hostesses in Hotpants. Remember? (1972)
Too funny. They haven’t a prayer in court. They should settle, and fast.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 11:35 AM
This bares! repeating (if only because I say so).
Now. If only the airlines would put as much huffing & puffing into getting the flights to land on time….
locomotivebreath1901 on September 8, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Somehow I don’t think that the stewardess wearing hot pants which cover everything all the time no matter what position she may be in is comparable to a wide open crotch display.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I wonder if Kayla was wearing a thong. With a dress that short and putting something in the overhead bin it would make for quite a show.
roux on September 8, 2007 at 11:57 AM
From Leno yesterday: The problem was that the men on the plane couldn’t put their trays down.
Canadian Infidel on September 8, 2007 at 12:01 PM
What’s her lawyer’s name?
We should shoot him a link just to be safe… so that the world of short skirted airline passengers is protected for all mankind.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Anywhere SW flies for life, and a nice chunck o’ change oughta do it. I didn’t realize SW was this dumb when it comes to PR. I agree with the comments that SW should concentrate on keeping flights on time and not losing luggage.
Ordinary1 on September 8, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Or how about instead of huffing and puffing, they actually assign seats.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I always refer to the David Chase character played by what’s his face from the first Matrix. Tony, she’s a huwar. What did you want me to do?
The guy mentioning the overhead bin maneuver is dead on. I bet that’s what set of the chain reaction of events (practicing for the jury :P).
pc on September 8, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Little Timmy sees that ass hanging and Mom sees little Timmy and that head starts to rocking. Kick that little wenches rear. Public decency is not asking too much when I have to rub cheek to jowl with strangers on the plance.
pc on September 8, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Very shagadelic, baby!
Mazztek on September 8, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I remember a time when we dressed as ladies and gentlemen when we traveled (e.g., suits and ties, etc.), because we were sensitive to the sensibilities of other travelers, and because we respected ourselves. Now it seems the only thing we care about is what we want, be it slovenly comfort or sophomoric attention. This girl dresses the way she does to get attention; she’s simply unhappy that she can’t control precisely what that attention is. Toughen up, Toots–when you begin to behave as a lady, you’ll find you are treated as one.
DrMagnolias on September 8, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Man, those three babes are as hot as our sexy babes.
Being 1972, undoubtedly furrier. But still hot.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Sort of, but I think it’s pretty natural to have a backlash when things get out of hand.
The irony of the spot is hilarious, but to say that a company can’t change its opinion in 30 years is little unreasonable. 1972 isn’t 2007.
After all we have McGriddles.
apostle26 on September 8, 2007 at 12:30 PM
They can change their opinion. But having this on their website in 2007 without a written dress code to the contrary is going to kill them at trial.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I don’t see what’s so surprising, one saw the same change in women’s clothing on Star Trek. The original TV show had short skirts, hot pants, etc. while the later movies were far tamer in dress, even though we are talking about broadcast TV versus movies decades later.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Gimme a break fellas (and ladies)….go to the mall lately?
Amusement park? Beach walk? Major league ball game?….
‘Sorry Mam you gotta go. We can’t see your stuff but think about it.’….
I am no advocate that everyone’s daughter should walk around like this but some do and in every public place you have been. She is in an airline seat for Pete’s sake with maybe two pairs of eyes close enough to be distracted.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Look at this picture and tell me that she is wearing her skirt normally for the photo. She has the skirt pulled down level with her crotch and is using the shirt to cover her hair line(unless she shaves) It’s obvious to me that when that skirt is worn normally her crotch would be visible when she’s standing.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Sound more to me like all you guys like to tie your shoes alot.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 12:56 PM
lawsuit for hottie hooter girl eminent.
ajmontana on September 8, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Of course she shaves. It’s the fashion now.
And don’t ask me how I know.
I know.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 1:07 PM
The original business plan for Southwest was to appeal to the male business traveler. The method used by most airlines was to sex up their
flight attendantsstewardess’. The original uniforms used by many airlines were designed to encourage just that. Since that time the relative cost of air travel has dropped drastically. Making such travel accessible to the general population, this includes families. This combined with women no longer wishing to be viewed simply as sex objects caused a dynamic shift in the industry. This in turn required all airlines to adjust their marketing to appeal to the new broader traveling population. So what was the norm in the 70’s is no longer acceptable today. I’m sure we all remember the anonymous sex that was popular during the 70’s. Try that now and your risking death. What Southwest did is not hypocritical in the least as all companies have to change with the times or die. What are you guys going to link next, photos of the “Whites Only” signs that were prevalent throughout the travel industry? I question whether this is truly about protecting her rights, as most posts and articles around the media primary focus is her attractiveness. I’m not a fan of theirs in the least, as I do not like the Cattle Call seating arrangements. But I’m sure people go to Hooter’s because they have great wings.Zaire67 on September 8, 2007 at 1:07 PM
When your lawyer starts using the Paris Hilton defense, then you know your a ‘Ho.
Zaire67 on September 8, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Ahhh, the good ol’ days. “Come Fly Me” or “We Move our Tail for You” – oh yes don’t forget the body painting of “Laugh In” fame. Bet Your Bippy, innuendo has always been key to great marketing.
Unfortunately, leftists rely so heavily on visuals to help them understand an issue and their limited viewpoint does not allow them to understand or appreciate a message that combines innuendo and visuals they go into mental overload.
Proof, their limited attention span (one ringy dingy) and low tolerance of flirtations, Clinton’s dalliances, (two ringy dingies) led to their belief of his innocence.
MSGTAS on September 8, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Exactly. This is what the prudes in the other thread don’t get. The only reason why the woman was hassled, was not because she was too sparsely clothed. It was because of political correctness. We weren’t politically correct in 1972, yet. That is the only thing that has changed. And that is why, I, as I conservative, come to her defence.
jihadwatcher on September 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM
That’s when the airlines were regulated (routes were defined by the FAA, ticket prices were defined by the FAA, with no competition) and we were treated like ladies and gentlemen.
Now we’re cattle packed into sardine cans, then pushed away from the gate so they can work on the plane for an hour and still get credit for an on-time departure.
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Zaire, what you said makes no sense:
There are no “White’s Only” signs on the South West Airlines website, obviously designed to showcase in a cheeky way the company’s past hip ads.
I know you’re going to come back with some kind of rebuttal for this, but don’t bother. You can’t come up with a good one because you’re wrong. They aren’t the same.
The point is, these “express our unique personality” and “our our favourite”… currently. In 2007. According to South West Airlines.
So. As I said before. That kills them at trial.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Oh, and Zaire? Find me a “White’s Only” sign on the website of ANY current travel business.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Yes, this is all well and good, but ten bucks says these chicks wore panties most of the time on their flights, which would be the key difference between them, and say, the Hooters trash that’s convinced her civil rights were violated when Southwest told her to cover her a** up.
E. M. on September 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Trash?
Allahpundit on September 8, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Did they say she wasn’t wearing panties? No. Do you have any reason to believe she wasn’t? No. Where did you get your “fact”?
Your anus. (Hey, I could have misspelled it like the planet, but I didn’t want to confuse you.)
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Please, is it necessary to be nasty?
I also have read that she was not wearing underwear, or that it was some sort of g-string/thong number. I don’t know if this is true or not. I do know that according to the Today show’s producer, Dan Fleschner, she “flashed” their audience; I also understand that they subsequently edited the later airing of the segment for modesty’s sake.
DrMagnolias on September 8, 2007 at 1:49 PM
She didn’t intentionally flash the audience, although it was possible to see her panties, which were modest so far as panties go.
Anyway.
If I say “your anus” to someone who calls another human being who has committed no moral crime that I’m aware of “trash” then she’s just gonna have to suck it up.
Was it nasty? It was intended to be. Necessary? Nope.
Desired.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Bing-Badda-Boom! :)
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 2:11 PM
DrMagnolias et al., so you know where I’m coming from, I started by saying:
So I wasn’t totally opposed to your position she is dressed inappropriately for travel on a plane.
But then I saw the Southwest Airlines website circa today saying these ads are their favorites and express their own unique personality.
And after that, they don’t have a leg to stand on.
Another airline… perhaps one without similar statements and ads on its website and even a dress code may have a leg to stand on.
Southwest doesn’t. In this case, they’re screwed.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Sorry but don’t see crotch shots the same as the hot pants.
Wade on September 8, 2007 at 2:50 PM
So what? Her crotch is only visible if you are staring at her. Don’t look at her. I help women out of their cars every day at work before we service the vehicle. Some are wearing skirts that have ridden up while they are driving. I get flashed all the time. It’s not intentional; it happens. Now I guess I could be a ‘true conservative’ and start screaming ‘trash’ and ‘whore’ at my customers because I saw their underwear, but I prefer to avert my eyes and pretend I didn’t see anything, to keep from embarrassing her, and myself.
I flew 3-4 flights a week for years at my old job; I had to sit next to people for 2-3 hours who smell like they ate a dead skunk burrito; I wanted to have them removed from the plane at 10,000 feet and all the airline staff did was laugh at me and ask me if I wanted a later flight. I cannot believe that fully grown adults can sit here and be so damn mean to someone who has bad fashion sense. Her ‘garden of eden’ doesn’t hurt you if she’s sitting down; oops, she’s getting her bag. Look away, for f*cks sake. And lets’ not forget the children. Oh, the children. Mommy, why is that lady showing her butt? Because her mommy didn’t dress her right. Grow up already.
austinnelly on September 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM
austinnelly, ILY.
That was brilliant.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 3:03 PM
And the president of the United States when hotpants ruled the skies was…..
yup. Richard Nixon.
wonder if Rove was involved somehow….
Always Right on September 8, 2007 at 3:20 PM
1972 vintage eye candy is just not the same. That was BEFORE plastic surgeons invented Pamela Anderson’s breasts.
CyberCipher on September 8, 2007 at 3:22 PM
So if I understand correctly, when I see or hear something I don’t like on television or the radio I’m supposed to turn the channel, and when I am confronted with someone’s private parts in a public place, I’m supposed to look away. Is there anywhere I get to go where the burden isn’t entirely on me?
I detest government regulation, which is why I’m willing to turn the channel. But what seems to be unfolding here is an idea that private industry should not be able to exercise any standards, either. In fact, my opposition to government intervention is exactly why I want private industry to have their standards–so I can choose whom to patronize and whom to avoid, depending upon whether I agree with them. I want to help the market work, but that is increasingly difficult when there is no place I can go where I can take my eyes off the ground or my fingers out of my ears.
DrMagnolias on September 8, 2007 at 3:31 PM
A few points:
1. Sothwest Airlines had the lowest rate of customer complaints last year, and the best on-time record of all the big airlines (smaller airlines tend to be more on time for obvious reasons. It has consistently ranked near the top in customer service ratings for decades.
2. Southwest and the other airlines who follow its business model are the only airlines that operate in the black. And their competition is airlines that have filed repeatedly for Chapter 11–which in effect is a subsidy. SWA has made a profit every year for 34 years. Most airlines are only able to operate due to Chapter 11.
3. SWA has never had a layoff. It consistently ranks near the top in ratings of best companies to work for.
4. Before SWA was founded and gave the legacy carriers competition, ordinary people could not afford to fly.
5. This story is “he said-she said”. None of us were there, and we don’t know what happened. If her privates were showing, she deserved to be told to cover up. If not, then some employee went off on a power trip, and he and/or the company should be punished.
juliesa on September 8, 2007 at 3:36 PM
er…not to me…the point is she was dressed to meet any legal standard you want to name. Just because I think she was trashy looking doesn’t mean squat. Granted if SW had a posted policy that said ‘you can’t fly dressed like this’ that is one thing. They didn’t.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 3:42 PM
In fact, my opposition to government intervention is exactly why I want private industry to have their standards–so I can choose whom to patronize and whom to avoid, depending upon whether I agree with them.
Exactly.
juliesa on September 8, 2007 at 3:46 PM
They don’t need a policy.
Wade on September 8, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Exactly. The crew decided she was disruptive and therefore took action. Good for Southwest.
Wade on September 8, 2007 at 3:53 PM
That is a great point, if you know what their standards are.
That is a great point, if you don’t know what their standards are.
I want to be the guy standing at the gate measuring the distance between the underwear and the hem of the skirt to decide who gets to travel.
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 3:53 PM
This from the SWA Contract of Carriage, which every customer enters into upon buying a ticket:
Of course, then it depends on what one’s definition of lewd, obscene or offensive is.
juliesa on September 8, 2007 at 4:02 PM
(continued from above)
But the company, through its employees, can make such a determination in upholding their standards, and there is no law against that, nor should there be.
juliesa on September 8, 2007 at 4:08 PM
My point is where….exactly where…is the violation other then inside someone’s head?
I go into Jacque’s Snail BBQ and he says ‘No tie, no service’ fine. His place.
I go into Jacque’s Snail BBQ and he seats me, takes my order, and then comes back and says ‘go change your clothes then I’ll serve you’ and then throws me a blanket to cover up with as a compromise. Sorry, that is just BS. If she wasn’t ‘fit-to-fly’ then SW shouldn’t have let her on the plane in the first place.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Hooray for vague nonspecific standards applied occasionally.
Now we can throw anyone off the flight, just by making a value decision. I want this job.
Mostly, I want to be bribed by people so they get let onto planes. Sorry sir, that attire is… oh, a twenty. Please, enjoy your flight.
And my high school bully would never fly again. Seriously, I’d make a pact with the other values-based morality officers and we’d have our own “no-fly list”.
A world where I’m given abusive power with no guidelines, no specific rules… perfect. And hey, some people will even cheer my decisions. Even better.
gekkobear on September 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Limerick, your point is valid. It’s possible that the employee only took action because other passengers or employees complained after she was on board. The comfort of the other passengers has to be considered as well.
But we really don’t know what happened here. If the airline screwed up, they should suffer some consequences, but there is no proof in these news stories that they did.
juliesa on September 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM
point taken :)
I, like gekko said above, don’t mind rules. I just want to know what they are.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 4:45 PM
That, my friends, is why they call them “The good old days”.
BigAnge on September 8, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Great just great. Y’all give her 15 minutes of infamy and then some. Yep, that’s normal wear on flights. Sure uhhuh…
MNDavenotPC on September 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM
True.
And we all know 70s women were so furry that even if she took it all off you couldn’t see anything anyway.
I don’t know why that was so funny, but it was.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Amen!
Does anyone recall the A&E program from about two years ago called “Airline,” which featured the workings of Southwest Airlines? There were plenty of instances shown of offensive flyers: stinky people mostly, but there was one instance of some guy wearing a kilt (he wasn’t a Scot, though, just odd) and going commando. The kilt was much longer than this girl’s skirt/fig-leaf rendition, and yet he was made to ditch the commando status before he could board. The SW personnel handled it without commotion.
The whole thing is much ado about nothing; she’s got her fifteen minutes and will soon get a hefty out-of-court settlement from Southwest.
Kimmer on September 8, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Actually it wasn’t. It was childish and disgusting.
Kimmer on September 8, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I don’t know. Pubic hair doesn’t bother me.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 6:32 PM
And Kimmer, apparently their determination, if their public presence is to believed is:
1. we don’t have a dress code
2. hey look at these videos of our hot 70s stewardesses in short pants with sexy asses… these are “our favourites”
3. the above reflects our unique personality
Not a very strong position to go to trial with.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Of course it’s not. Southwest will lose. My point is that private companies should have the option to determine whom they will and will not serve. This is why I, even though I am a nonsmoker, am disturbed about the smoking bans in places like NYC.
BTW if you thought that was clever, it wasn’t.
Kimmer on September 8, 2007 at 6:49 PM
I agree with your point. See my first post on this subject.
If Southwest wants to create a dress code, remove those videos, or even just put a disclaimer stating: “This video is for historical purposes and does not reflect current Southwest policy. For current appropriate for flight dress guidelines, click here.” then, yeah, they’ll win the next case.
Just nostalgia, dude. I miss it. Oh the 90s.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 7:10 PM
SWA wins because, as noted, this information is on every airline ticket.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Attorney to jury…’Yes..I see. Just as I’m sure the members of the jury have read the fine print on the back of their tickets and understand it.’ No further questions your Honor.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Judge to attorney: Willful ignorance to your carrier contract is no excuse. The contract is included with the ticket. It is incumbent on the part of the ticket purchaser to understand the contract.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 7:47 PM
SWA loses because of those videos on its website.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 7:47 PM
In the event of a crash damages are limited to $5.50.
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM
And her wasn’t lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.
Yes, a prude might think so. But a normal person who sees women walking around in miniskirts constantly including from the glory days of the 70s when SWA was gladly sexing up its stewardesses and the glory days of September, 2007, when they were gladly trumpeting up their unique personality of sexing showing off their favourite sexed up stewardesses… they don’t have a prayer.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM
lol
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 7:50 PM
:) just being onry. I think she was beyond resonable in her dress but perfectly within the ‘rules’.
Cheers fellow Cheney robot!
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
unresonable oops
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Prayer has nothing to do with a legal binding contract which every ticket holder enters into when they purchase a ticket.
See page 11.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
and i can’t even get that right…….
Limerick on September 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Also, read the paragraph under item 13 on page 12.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Guardian, that won’t protect them if Article 10 was unreasonably applied.
The courts can override silliness like the fine print on the back of a ticket.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I can sell a product and include language that says, “Na na, you can’t sue me,” and, in America, the courts will say, “Yeah, right!”
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 8:06 PM
“reasonable” is determined by SWA and ultimately the Captain of the aircraft. It’s a legal checkmate. She contractually agreed to the terms when she purchased the ticket..
I would love to see the words “Na na, you can’t sue me,” on a product. :)
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Hardly. Reasonable as determined by the courts.
And the question is was her dress patently obscene, lewd, etc.
Well, all her lawyer has to do is pull out a cache of the September 8, 2007, Southwest Airlines website and they lose. As Kimmer, who is otherwise supportive of your position, declares.
Heck, *I* support your position. But legally, SW screwed themselves. They’d look like idiots trying to defend this.
It’s not just the videos, it’s the wording describing them: “our favourites” “our unique personality”.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Airline pilots have absolute authority on who they will permit to fly. It’s held up in court many times. See the flying Imams story. Also there is most likely more to the story than what is being told so far. If she became argumentative with the attendant, that in itself will be all that’s needed to suppress her claim. Also the passengers who were made uncomfortable (see page 11 again) was the instigator of the act. SWA responded to said complaints as they are contractually required to do.
I really don’t see how old commercials posted as nostalgia and not active advertisements on a web site has anything to do with a legal written agreement that was carried out to the letter as stated in the contract today.
The stewardesses in the old commercials were wearing shorts not mini-skirts and were therefore not able to “flash” themselves during normal routines.
SWA could also claim that the shorts WERE complained about and that is why they are not part of attendants attire today. Just because it was OK then doesn’t mean it’s OK 10 – 20 – 30 years later. What counts is the agreement TODAY.
Guardian on September 8, 2007 at 9:04 PM
and
I have to add, I don’t miss the days when fur ruled the planet, either.
Anyone wanna bet that this particular Western “fad” is also alive and well in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey?
Wanderlust on September 8, 2007 at 9:20 PM
That’s what I was saying.
Thanks for that clip.
TheSitRep on September 8, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Me like.
Hotpants good!!!
Hening on September 8, 2007 at 9:47 PM
I know for a fact it is. And for a lot longer.
Arab women, at least, shave. It is a long tradition.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Guardian, you’re so blind and biased. It’s almost impossible to speak with you.
One:
They can’t just perjure themselves and they’re not going to. It has to actually be true.
Two: What counts is the communications they are issuing at the time she flew, which were rather inviting.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 9:49 PM
(Waiting for link for shaved Arab women in order to form an intelligent decision while twitching madly)
Hening on September 8, 2007 at 9:52 PM
If it’s true (Christoph, if it’s not, you’re a horrible tease), then it confirms my belief that there had to be *something* about Islam worth keeping.
Of course Allah wouldn’t stand for linkage on this site, but if you have some linkage, you could always send a nod to shifting_paradigm1 – AT – yahoo
And I don’t even care if it’s taquiyya, either. Besides, doesn’t too much fur contribute to global warming? Trapping greenhouse gases and all that?
Wanderlust on September 8, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I have to say it’s rather funny with what she has up as her graphic on her site. Not as revealing, but the intention is the same. Let’s show some leg and get some attention.
- The Cat
P.S. But hey, I like it.
MirCat on September 8, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Unfortunately I don’t have links, Wanderlust. My knowledge comes from knowing Arab women, mostly as friends.
But, yes, I ask questions and they like to answer.
Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 10:08 PM
SIGH.
At least some truths are universal…(ducking as the feminists take aim)
Wanderlust on September 8, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Sorry, CyberCipher, but plastic surgery has ruined more women’s figures than anything else before it.
Breast implants are “pretty” only from a narrow angle, IMHO. Otherwise they vary between looking like bags glued onto flat earth, to hanging bags of water (kinda like if you filled a Ziploc baggie 3/4 full of water, closed it tight, then dangled it from the top edge – GROSS).
Besides that, the risks of the surgery include loss of sensation in the nipple area; and if a woman intends on breast feeding her children later in life, implant surgery may cause her to not be able to lactate.
Now that I am older, I’d much rather something natural, that just barely passes the “pencil test” than something fake.
-Wanderlust
Wanderlust on September 8, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »