As part of our ongoing coverage of people stuffing meat down their pants, here’s the latest incident out of Texas: an employee spotted a man stuffing steak down his pants in the meat department. The suspect took off on foot, and police caught up with him not far away. He was charged with theft and with evading arrest. [KOSA]
A long-running fight between British Airways and cabin crew staff has come to an end today with the decision that recently hired female flight attendants are no longer forced to wear skirts on the job.
As we prepared to share yet another news story about someone shoving beef down their pants, we got the heartening news: Consumerist is not alone in our fixation on the meat pants dance. It’s part of a nationwide trend due to increasing beef prices, which is also the reason why cattle rustling is on the rise.
Two men in
Texas California were sort of shuffling around a supermarket without purchasing anything. One of the men was wearing very baggy pants, and store employees later told police that it was obvious something had been shoved inside his trousers. When the staff confronted him, his pants fell down, revealing ill-gotten hamburgers. [More]
If any athletic wear company knows about the importance of paying attention to their customers’ genitals, it’s Lululemon. The company lost much of its leadership and annoyed a lot of people over a 2013 fiasco involving pants that were inexplicably translucent in the crotch area. Now the company has found success by explicitly marketing a new line of pants for men for their non-testicle-crushing properties. [More]
A 53-year-old man in Arkansas was arrested last week for shoplifting. His crime was one that has long fascinated us here at Consumerist: he is accused of trying to steal steaks from a Food Giant grocery store by shoving them down his pants. While this might seem like a logical and delicious enough crime, it’s also kind of a noticeable one. Also, no one will want to eat the meat. [More]
If you’re like most Americans, you’ve never heard of Alibaba or Taobao, even though they’re the biggest e-commerce sites in the world. That was the case for Bloomberg’s Sam Grobart, who was curious about the site because of its upcoming initial public stock offering, which experts think will be the biggest ever. So Grobart did what all business reporters do to learn about an unfamiliar company: he hired a factory in Pakistan to make $2,500 worth of hideous pants. [More]
Our long translucent-hindquarters nightmare is over. Earlier today, the judge in a federal class-action lawsuit brought by Lululemon shareholders released her final opinion, which dismisses both lawsuits brought against the company and its executives for allowing see-through pants to be sold in stores, not warning shareholders about the issue, and also not telling shareholders about the imminent firing of the company’s CEO over the issue. [More]
Normally, we find tales of merchandise crammed down shoplifters’ pants hilarious. We were all ready to laugh at the story of a man who used similar methods to steal frozen steak and lobster from a Safeway…until we learned that he fled the scene by carjacking a vehicle with an elderly man and a 13-year-old girl inside, resulting in an Amber Alert. [More]
Always dress for the task at hand. If you’re going on a long hike, wear layers. Going to the beach? Put on some sunscreen. Suspicious clouds in the sky? Pack an umbrella. And if you’re going shoplifting, for gosh sakes, make sure your clothes fit properly. And put on some underpants. [More]
Here’s the problem with Lululemon’s now-infamous see-through yoga pants: they look and feel pretty much the same as pants that aren’t see-through. There’s really only one way to tell whether they’re truly see-through. You have to bend over and see whether anyone can see your business. Fans of the brand online report that some cashiers took this problem to its logical conclusion, and asked customers to bend over for butt inspections before they could return their pants. [More]
It doesn’t matter where you tell Target to send your online orders: if your account has a “default address,” your packages will go there no matter what. Diana didn’t realize this. She thought that if she updated her billing address, then ticked the box that said her billing and shipping addresses were the same, her package would end up where she currently lives. Not so fast! Now the person living in her old apartment has her new jeans, and Target just blames Diana. [More]
If you go shopping on Black Friday at a clothing store, you should take the time to brave the fitting rooms, no matter how long the lines are. Nick learned this the hard way, buying three pairs of jeans for $15 each. He made it out of the store unscathed, but when he got home, found that the jeans didn’t fit. Boo. Oh, well, he can just take them back to the store and swap them for the correct size, right? Not so fast!
Andrea is very fond of Right Fit jeans from Lane Bryant. She likes them so much that she wears them until they literally wear out,then goes and buys another pair. Only that’s a more expensive plan than it was a few years ago, because Andrea has noticed the quality of the pants that she buys deteriorating over time. She reached a breaking point recently when her jeans, too, reached a breaking point–wearing out this week after being purchased in July. $50 is a lot to pay for pants that only last two months.
If you’re going to shoplift two lobster tails, two bags of shrimp, and a pork loin from a grocery store, what’s the least obvious way to do so? Shove them in your shorts, of course. A MIssissippi man is accused of shoplifting after allegedly doing just that.
Your pants are lying to you. An Esquire investigation found that different clothing stores have greatly varying definitions of waistline size. Old Navy was the worst offender. Their “36 inch” pants measured actually at 41 inches. At the GAP, 36 inches actually means 39. Guess we need to start going to stores with conversion charts in hand.
A Bronx judge has ruled that saggy pants are not, in fact, illegal and do not constitute “Disorderly Conduct.” The ruling comes in a case where a gentleman was issued a summons because he was wearing “his pants down below his buttocks exposing underwear [and] potentially showing private parts,” says Gothamist.