I can take a 4 ounce tube of KY but not a 1/2 oz tube of Neosporin?

Zero rash cream, that's going to be fun for anyone with a rash and a 18 hr nonstop to SIN.

My current favorite: I cannot carry a bottle of wine, but am thrilled I can carry-on a corkscrew. ^

Not worth the trouble-deleted.

I think that a main use of this product is for women who experience
(?) menopausal dryness.

My new question is: would it work as lotion? That would be kind of
funny: everyone on FT buys a tube of astroglide/KY and uses it as
hand/eye cream.

--LG

As far as I'm concerned, my (hotel-sized) sunscreen, and shampoo are now "personal lubricants" (the sunscreen resembles hand lotion and so does the shampoo, sort of) and my neosporin is now an allowed "essential nonperscription medication" (given my various hobbies, I usually have at least one cut/scrape for which I am trying to prevent infection). If TSA meant something more embarassing by "personal lubricant," they should have been more specific in their idiocy.

The only key items I now can't justify as legit (if detected, which seems highly unlikely at present) are my toothpaste and mouthwash. And of course bottled water, which they seem good at detecting at checkpoints by terrible at detecting at the gate. (Although the FAs are doing plenty of damage by sending flights back to the gate when they see contraband water.)

The great thing about all these exceptions is that even if a screener disagrees with the interpretation, they still can't accuse you of concealment or other "crimes." Of course the negative will be the random bannings of what are clearly allowed items.

Couldn't this mean Preparation H and products of this type?

Bring this (each under 4oz) as your only carryon and tell the TSO "Going to Vegas..."

Any relief from the current rules would make a big difference for those of us who don't check bags. I could survive just fine if TSA permitted even limited travel size quantities of basic items like toothpaste and shaving cream.

But please, keep the perfume ban. ^ In fact, I think you should require perfume removal at the metal detector.

Such a substance would be most useful were one to bump into Comrade Hawley or Comrade Chertoff at the airport, not that either has the courage to use common carrier transportation.

4 oz might not be enough for either of these... people, however.

Sexual lubricants are often used by older heterosexual females (and obviously their partners) also.

KY jelly, huh? Now I do know that couples have been seen having sex in flight, but do we really need to make it easy for them?

Gel-filled bras? So every woman wearing a gel filled bra is now wearing a prostethic - is that what that means?

Has anyone noticed what this part of the thread has done to the ads at the bottom of the page?

This thread is veering off into OMNI territory with all the comments about "personal lubricants". Let's save some bandwidth for folks who are concerned about other items as well.
Thanks for your cooperation.

______________________________

Cholula

Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

Bart, I'm a TSO at PHL. Earlier this week, our AFSD-Screening sent out a directive that stated that TSO's were not allowed to bring any beverages from home and were also not allowed to drink any beverages that were bought in the terminal, unless were are in the food court. Are they doing anything like this at your airport or any other airports that you know of? What are your thoughts on this? One of our LTSO's confronted him on this on Wednesday, but he would not budge. We feel powerless because our FSD flew out on Monday so we can't confront him on the issue. He was actually a selectee , which we found quite funny when he walked through the WTMD.

I was replying to a post you made in which you seemed to imply that specifically banned items were being allowed to pass through, as in from msg #175:

I take this to mean that you are spotting prohibited items but letting them through?

What I was getting at was that (lighters for instance) the only way they were getting through was because people had them squirrled away in non-spottable locations.

That is why I tossed in at the end of the post that perhaps this 'allowing' was in the 'look the other way' mindset.

The point I was trying to make, and I thought I clarified this, was that a prohibited item is prohibited no matter the actual threat. Thus I was questioning the blanket assertion that prohibited items were being allowed.

Deleted