This thread is very upsetting. I can’t believe that everyone is siding with the man who is watching inappropriate content in full view of everyone. Maybe the mom’s attitude was bad, but I don’t blame her for getting mad. What happened to “It takes a village?”

They were both wrong, but I suspect that Mom was not very polite when she talked to the guy, given how obnoxious she was about the whole thing. I always carry a wrap or shawl of some kind when I fly, so I would just hang it across the back of the seat. Or ask politely if he could tilt his screen a bit because my kid could see.

Don't need to read any of the replies. Team Man 100% (and I am a mom to ES aged kids who fly regularly.)

Anonymous wrote:The airline is wrong. There shouldn’t be nudity on airline entertainment. Difficult situation for mom but the guy is not obligated to change what he’s watching for her sake.

God forbid someone see a breast.

Prude.

The airline is wrong. There shouldn’t be nudity on airline entertainment. Difficult situation for mom but the guy is not obligated to change what he’s watching for her sake.

I'm a woman and I wouldn't have turned The Sopranos off at that mom's request, because I don't negotiate with terrorists.

Hey not as funny as the gay guy browsing Grindr on his laptop that ALL of us could see lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m team mom. Kids should not be exposed to scary, violent, or sexually inappropriate scenes on the plane. You can’t control who sits next to or in front of you so be thoughtful and aware of who is around you. This guy can watch something else.

Or the parents can just not take their kids on planes. Unless the kid was flying to a hospital for life saving medical procedure, he did not NEED to be on a plane. Parents could have driven to their destination, or they could have skipped the trip altogether.

x1000000

dp wow there are a lot of hate on children. Do you not think children are humans and also have need to travel? Were you not children? If you wanted to visit relatives in California your parents would always drive even if you only had a few days to visit? And I thought the anti-pit bull haters were bad...you anti children are even worst!

What are you talking about?
I am not "anti-child." I love children! I have children (and nieces and nephews who are children.) I was even once a child myself.

This is about parents rights to CHOOSE what their children are exposed to. If mom doesn't want her child exposed to stranger's (perfectly legal) actions, she shouldn't CHOOSE to bring them to a confined space where they will be in view of stranger's actions. She can CHOOSE to drive or forgo the trip.

As to my childhood--we didn't have relatives in California, but we lived in California ourselves. And no we DIDN'T visit relatives on the east coast. It's not impossible to survive childhood without cross country flights.

You are talking about keeping children from planes and you know I wasn't actually directing my question to you (regarding the hypothetical trip to California) It was an example to get you to think of other people's needs and actions.

The mom was wrong in how she handled it but, the adult man could have been the better person for the kids and turned it off.

No, I'm not talking about keeping children from planes. No one "needs" to travel by plane. This mom made the CHOICE to put her child in a place that she felt was inappropriate. Mom was wrong period.

No adult man "needs" to watch a violent movie on the plane either! What's wrong with reading?

Maybe he didn't have a book. Maybe he has a disability that makes it difficult for him to read. It's none of your business why he isn't reading.

And right, he doesn't "need" to watch the movie, just like mom didn't "need" to travel with the kids on a plane. Both situations were "wants" and not needs. Why should mom's "want" infringe on the man's "want?"

Anonymous wrote:I don't know that I'm on a particular side here.

Delta shouldn't provide content that wouldn't be shown on network television.

The man wasn't obligated to turn off the show, but it would have been the kind thing to do.

The mom probably overreacted, and I wouldn't have done what she did, but she's not wrong to think WTF.

But that's not the standard thats used - and with streaming the guy might be watching something not provided by Delta anyway.

Yeah, think WTF! That's a fine reaction. It's fine to wonder what's wrong with people that they are willing to watch old-school HBO shows of the "sjhow me some boobs" variety in a public place. But that doesn't mean she gets to legislate her preference.

Anonymous wrote:Up to the parent to figure out a way for the kid to not see the tv, but also: my kid remembers a very violent movie of a nearby person in front of us from about 4 years ago (10 now) on a plane (he randomly brings it up when we travel: “I hope I don’t see that again, it was scary”). I get people watch what’s offered, but it would be nice if in a public situation where people don’t have that many options to move around, the airline could edit them slightly for content. This was on a long flight and my kid didn’t tell us until we got off the plane, otherwise would have moved my kid, distracted him, or discussed in real time. I wouldn’t be the mom that asked another passenger to change his behavior, but I also wouldn’t want to be the passenger that is affecting a kid negatively.

Aw, your poor kid (I am not being sarcastic!). If someone told me that my movie was scaring their kid, of course I would change it. If they called the FA and started yelling, I might not.

A problem is that it's not always possible to predict what's going to scare a kid. My parents took me to Disney when I was like five, and we went on Mission to Mars - and I was so scared by it that they had to stop the ride to let me off. It's for kids! I was also terrified by the Muppets Take Manhattan.

You can try to be a generally decent person, and a decent person to the individuals around you, and also it doesn't give that mom the right to demand some guy four rows up stop watching The Sopranos.

This was in some ways much easier when there was only one movie playing on the flight (course then if it scared someone, there was no way to get it turned off - also they were hard to see from many seats, and if you didn't want to see that movie too bad.)

^^ United. United doesn't seem to edit content.

Went from DC to Cali last week. I watched a funny film about gay men and a bbc production which included nude women.

No editing. I did bock the 3 yr old across the isle from me seeing my screen (just tilted in this case) and checked for kids behind me. None.

that said, I have two kids under 13 so..did that golden rule thing.

I don't know that I'm on a particular side here.

Delta shouldn't provide content that wouldn't be shown on network television.

The man wasn't obligated to turn off the show, but it would have been the kind thing to do.

The mom probably overreacted, and I wouldn't have done what she did, but she's not wrong to think WTF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m team mom. Kids should not be exposed to scary, violent, or sexually inappropriate scenes on the plane. You can’t control who sits next to or in front of you so be thoughtful and aware of who is around you. This guy can watch something else.

Or the parents can just not take their kids on planes. Unless the kid was flying to a hospital for life saving medical procedure, he did not NEED to be on a plane. Parents could have driven to their destination, or they could have skipped the trip altogether.

x1000000

dp wow there are a lot of hate on children. Do you not think children are humans and also have need to travel? Were you not children? If you wanted to visit relatives in California your parents would always drive even if you only had a few days to visit? And I thought the anti-pit bull haters were bad...you anti children are even worst!

What are you talking about?
I am not "anti-child." I love children! I have children (and nieces and nephews who are children.) I was even once a child myself.

This is about parents rights to CHOOSE what their children are exposed to. If mom doesn't want her child exposed to stranger's (perfectly legal) actions, she shouldn't CHOOSE to bring them to a confined space where they will be in view of stranger's actions. She can CHOOSE to drive or forgo the trip.

As to my childhood--we didn't have relatives in California, but we lived in California ourselves. And no we DIDN'T visit relatives on the east coast. It's not impossible to survive childhood without cross country flights.

You are talking about keeping children from planes and you know I wasn't actually directing my question to you (regarding the hypothetical trip to California) It was an example to get you to think of other people's needs and actions.

The mom was wrong in how she handled it but, the adult man could have been the better person for the kids and turned it off.

No, I'm not talking about keeping children from planes. No one "needs" to travel by plane. This mom made the CHOICE to put her child in a place that she felt was inappropriate. Mom was wrong period.

No adult man "needs" to watch a violent movie on the plane either! What's wrong with reading?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m team mom. Kids should not be exposed to scary, violent, or sexually inappropriate scenes on the plane. You can’t control who sits next to or in front of you so be thoughtful and aware of who is around you. This guy can watch something else.

Or the parents can just not take their kids on planes. Unless the kid was flying to a hospital for life saving medical procedure, he did not NEED to be on a plane. Parents could have driven to their destination, or they could have skipped the trip altogether.

x1000000

dp wow there are a lot of hate on children. Do you not think children are humans and also have need to travel? Were you not children? If you wanted to visit relatives in California your parents would always drive even if you only had a few days to visit? And I thought the anti-pit bull haters were bad...you anti children are even worst!

What are you talking about?
I am not "anti-child." I love children! I have children (and nieces and nephews who are children.) I was even once a child myself.

This is about parents rights to CHOOSE what their children are exposed to. If mom doesn't want her child exposed to stranger's (perfectly legal) actions, she shouldn't CHOOSE to bring them to a confined space where they will be in view of stranger's actions. She can CHOOSE to drive or forgo the trip.

As to my childhood--we didn't have relatives in California, but we lived in California ourselves. And no we DIDN'T visit relatives on the east coast. It's not impossible to survive childhood without cross country flights.

You are talking about keeping children from planes and you know I wasn't actually directing my question to you (regarding the hypothetical trip to California) It was an example to get you to think of other people's needs and actions.

The mom was wrong in how she handled it but, the adult man could have been the better person for the kids and turned it off.

No, I'm not talking about keeping children from planes. No one "needs" to travel by plane. This mom made the CHOICE to put her child in a place that she felt was inappropriate. Mom was wrong period.