It's a special kind of underwear—with a strategically placed fig leaf design—and a Colorado man says it'll get you through the airport screeners with your dignity intact. Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. 

Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors. The men's design has the fig leaf, while the one for women comes in the shape of clasped hands. 

http://www.denverpost.com/watercooler/ci_16675324?source=skipframe-www.fark.com#ixzz16X54IyQu  Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

3,594 hits 3.0 (3 votes) Share Favorite | Flag 10 years ago by KikiPeepers

Would you use this special underwear to get you through a TSA scanner with your modesty intact?
It`s a special kind of underwear—with a strategically placed fig leaf design—and a Colorado man says it`ll get you through the airport screeners with your dignity intact. Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people`s privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings.

Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear`s inserts are thin and conform to the body`s contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors. The men`s design has the fig leaf, while the one for women comes in the shape of clasped hands.

http://www.denverpost.com/watercool...


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 27)

Bottom Last Post

10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Saturday 11/27/10 - 9:35:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, I wouldn't waste my money on this.
I've never had a problem with the scanners. Safety is far more important to me than 'modesty'. I really don't understand why people seem to be so upset by these scanners; they are a wonderful thing in my view.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Saturday 11/27/10 - 9:44:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
My guess is that if the scanner can't see your body, you'll end up with a pat-down, which is even worse for the modesty.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 10:43:49 AM EST (GMT-5)
Those are the men's? They don't look very comfortable, nor do they look like they do anything for your dignity.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 11:09:21 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 11/27/10 - 9:35:54 PM DeeDee17 wrote:
No, I wouldn't waste my money on this. I've never had a problem with the scanners. Safety is far more important to me than 'modesty'. I really don't understand why people seem to be so upset by these scanners; they are a wonderful thing in my view.


So you'd be happy to have a nude picture of you taken, leaked online and using basic image tecnology, inverted to show a full colour image of you standing there naked?
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 11:25:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
I hardly ride on planes so... why care?
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 11:29:47 AM EST (GMT-5)
If it means I can travel safely, I don't care if they make me run up and down the runway naked with a team of moped driving paparazzi following me.

In fact, I'll ask if I may do that anyway...
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 2:10:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
Brunnen - No, that wouldn't particularly make me happy.

I've said this before, but I don't think I've said it here yet. If I had a choice between getting on an airplane where everyone on board had gone through these scanners (including myself), or no one had, I'd get on the first. If other people want to choose the less safe option, that's fine.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 4:50:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
Nah, they can look at my junk all they want, what do I care?
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 4:55:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 11/28/10 - 2:10:30 PM DeeDee17 wrote:
Brunnen - No, that wouldn't particularly make me happy.


And yet that ship has already sailed. Google 'x ray scanner cinema for adult viewing' and you'll see how easy it is to revert an x ray to a full colour nude picture.

You're chasing shadows. Metal detectors and common sense are enough to keep people with guns and bombs off flights. This level of intrusion into your personal space is both unnecessary and useless.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 4:59:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
anyone could pretty much x-ray you at any time if they really wanted to and had the technology or whatever

i wouldn't call it cinema for adult viewing unless you were somehow x-rayed in your own home while having sexytimes
newsflash: everyone is naked under their clothes
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 5:30:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
should put a note down there saying "seen enough?"
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 5:59:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
Brunnen - Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I understand that you, and many other people, dislike these scanners. Fine, I have no problem with that. I personally like the extra security they provide, and will not let this impact my enjoyment of traveling by air.

If you're going to let this topic get to you, continue. I choose to accept it and move on.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 6:47:52 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 11/28/10 - 4:59:51 PM mysocks wrote:
i wouldn't call it cinema for adult viewing unless you were somehow x-rayed in your own home while having sexytimes newsflash: everyone is naked under their clothes


How comfortable would you feel with scans of children being reverted to full colour pictures?

They're not having "sexy times" but the images would give the pervs their jollies, I'm sure.

The simple fact is they have no right to photograph you naked without just cause. Whenever you submit to one of these scans, you're taking a sh*t on the bill of rights.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:02:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
Frankly, the need for them sort of pisses me off. I hate pat downs even more.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:03:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'd go naked.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:04:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
seeing kids in swimsuits playing in their sprinklers would make pervs happy
i mean that's kind of irrelevant. if the thought of random creeps ogling you is disturbing, maybe you should just stay inside and hide your kids

it probably shouldn't be legal but it's not THAT big a deal
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:06:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
privacy is kinda a big deal
you don't give them an inch
(uhh...so to speak)
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:11:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:04:50 PM mysocks wrote:
seeing kids in swimsuits playing in their sprinklers would make pervs happy i mean that's kind of irrelevant. if the thought of random creeps ogling you is disturbing, maybe you should just stay inside and hide your kids it probably shouldn't be legal but it's not THAT big a deal


Say that when you find naked pics of your kids online for some perv to wank off to. It hasn't happened yet (to my knowledge) but it's only a matter of time before sites are busted for having these sort of pics.

But hey, some perv jacking it to your naked kids is a small price to pay for the illusion of safety, right?
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 10:11:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
Those are hideous, and I wouldn't pay $1 for them.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 10:16:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 11/28/10 - 5:59:43 PM DeeDee17 wrote:
Brunnen - Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I understand that you, and many other people, dislike these scanners. Fine, I have no problem with that. I personally like the extra security they provide, and will not let this impact my enjoyment of traveling by air. If you're going to let this topic get to you, continue. I choose to accept it and move on.


Thing is, they don't provide extra security. They don't make planes safer and merely give the illusion of added security. They're wastes of money, invasions of privacy and provide no benefit.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 11/28/10 - 11:56:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 11/27/10 - 9:35:54 PM DeeDee17 wrote:
No, I wouldn't waste my money on this. I've never had a problem with the scanners. Safety is far more important to me than 'modesty'. I really don't understand why people seem to be so upset by these scanners; they are a wonderful thing in my view.
On Sunday 11/28/10 - 11:09:21 AM Brunnen_G wrote:
So you'd be happy to have a nude picture of you taken, leaked online and using basic image tecnology, inverted to show a full colour image of you standing there naked?

Hahaha! If people want to go to that much trouble to see me naked they can knock themselves out......it won't be worth it though, but bully for them. I'd rather fly safely.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 11/29/10 - 12:10:26 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 11/27/10 - 9:35:54 PM DeeDee17 wrote:
No, I wouldn't waste my money on this. I've never had a problem with the scanners. Safety is far more important to me than 'modesty'. I really don't understand why people seem to be so upset by these scanners; they are a wonderful thing in my view.

It's strange that you should feel that way, since the scanners have never actually detected anything dangerous, even though such items have been passed through them.
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 11/29/10 - 3:17:17 AM EST (GMT-5)
I want the scan and the "pat down"!!!
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 11/29/10 - 3:25:21 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Sunday 11/28/10 - 7:11:18 PM Brunnen_G wrote:
Say that when you find naked pics of your kids online for some perv to wank off to. It hasn't happened yet (to my knowledge) but it's only a matter of time before sites are busted for having these sort of pics. But hey, some perv jacking it to your naked kids is a small price to pay for the illusion of safety, right?

i just don't think that's going to happen

i mean why go through all that effort when it's not that hard to just take the kid and sell them to a child prostitution ring
plenty of kids get lost at airports
nobody ever suspects the TSA officer
10 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 11/29/10 - 4:19:56 AM EST (GMT-5)
i don't wear underwear, so no. i won't resort to making myself more uncomfortable with the whole situation.

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 27)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Friends
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
I-Am-Bored.com
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons
 
Edit