William Saletan believes that since extraneous metal pieces are voluntary, then those of us with said rings (be they nose, nipple, or bellybutton) have implicitly agreed to invasive procedures at airport security lines.
First off, it's unclear to me why a nipple ring would set off a metal detector. Women wear earrings through the security line, no problem. Wedding rings, ditto. But let's move on to the bigger question ...
Why does consent to a piercing equal consent to increased security procedures? Saletan points to a distinction between pacemakers (necessary) and nipple rings (unnecessary). OK. But earrings are also unnecessary, and if the reason for the removal of the nipple ring is the safety of other passengers (as Saletan suggests), then ladies, it's time to leave those diamond studs in the luggage.
Saletan sounds like a bitter old man, decrying "those kids" and their choices to get tattoos and listen to rock music and pierce their nipples. But when we're talking about airport security, whether an adornment is "necessary" is irrelevant. It's whether the piercing poses a security risk.
Nipple rings are no more dangerous than other kinds of jewelry we allow into the cabin. Passengers should not be forced to remove them -- a painful and embarassing process -- before they'll be allowed onboard.
No comments:
Post a Comment