I must not have been a teenage boy, then. Weird, I could have sworn…
I’m confused. Stripper poles in class or not? Of course the boys will have to pretend not to see them. A handful of ones is right out.
Are you actually taking a pro-bullying position here? Are you seriously suggesting that the best way to determine dress code is to let girls mock, shame and harass girls who dress differently? You can’t see why the school would frown on that, particularly considering the hysteria surrounding bullying recently? That school would be in so much shit Paul Bunyan couldn’t dig them out.
Also …do you draw the line anywhere? You said you were ok with bikini’s…why not naked?
Was Paul Bunyan particularly well known for being a proficient digger?
Exactly! It’s the girls who are deliberately dressing in a sexually provocative manner who are objectifying and sexualizing themselves. What’s the point of a girl “expressing herself” in sexually provocative ways if the intent isn’t to appeal to boys’ prurient interests?
But then, of course, when those interests become problematic, it’s the boys who are at fault for “sexualizing and objectifying” women. :rolleyes:
Seeing as he’s a giant I think he’d be proficient at just about any physical task.
That was a response to kaylasdad99, obviously.
Can you not think of any better reasons to forbid wearing swimwear in school, or of why would it be ok to ban girls from wearing bikinis while not banning guys in thongs or speedos?
The problem isn’t the kind of clothes being banned - it’s the (lack of) reasoning.
A guy in a thong or speedo wouldn’t be distracting? I’m 99% sure guys are not allowed to wear thongs and speedos at most high schools unless they’re literally about to jump in the pool for the swim team.
Edit: And distracting isn’t just a sexual thing. Except for “spirit week” and halloween and the like where the rules are a bit different temporarily, people at my high school could be and absolutely were reprimanded for wearing goofy outfits, hairstyles, and costumes because they distracted people.
And none of my comments are to say that dress codes are always sane. They’re often far too strict. My high school had asinine rules about shirts with thin straps, or how you could be “reprimanded” if your bra strap was showing. This would technically fall outside the rules in many places and that’s just plain stupid. But even without taking into account horny teenage boys, wearing a bikini or whatever is disruptive in that it’s far outside the norm.
That and fashion bullying is part of “disruptive”. Obviously they’re not going to regulate all cattiness and forbid people with Miranda’s complexion from wearing cool colors in autumn. But if people are dressing in obviously outlandish or far-outside-the-norm manners, they’re going to get commented on. The girls ignoring school to gossip about (or even worse: confront and mock) the chick who wore a mini skirt so short you could see her panties is just as, if not more, disruptive than male lechers.
I will admit that you can use my argument to disallow, say, hijabs because they may lead to anti-Muslim bullying, but religious dress always has gotten a higher standard and I don’t see that changing.
Your OP is insanely childish. Adults and teachers in the real world have to deal with the relative lack of intellectual and emotional maturity and the behavioral envelope of both male and female adolescent and teenage children when thrown together in a group setting for hours a day. In that context clothing (or lack thereof) that accentuates sexuality beyond a certain point can be hugely disruptive and distracting. Where that “point” is can be open for debate but the need to do it is not.
Saying “Well the boys should be able to control themselves regardless of what girls wear” is just asinine. Sexuality and it’s expression has huge power and male and female teenagers are cunning, naive and hugely vulnerable all at once in managing that power and reactions to it. Acting like female teens are being oppressed by being told not to wear tights that outline their ass and camel toe “because it’s not the schools business” is beyond foolish. It is very specifically the schools business to manage behavior on their premises and have an atmosphere conducive to learning. A developing teenaged girl wearing extremely clinging tights as pants is going to be hugely focused on by teenaged boys as a sexual object of desire and she damned well knows it.
Saying that highly sexualized female outfits should not be corralled or prohibited at all in a school environment because boys should just control themselves like good little soldiers and it’s just not the school’s business is just ignorant nonsense when dealing with the real world interactions of teenagers. You need a better example for the “my daughter is sorely oppressed” manifesto you seem so eager to initiate.
Leggings? I used to wear leggings with long sweaters and tops in high school all the freaking time. Now that’s not allowed?
Seriously, LEGGINGS are somehow too sexual?
I don’t see how you can get any better than “it would be distracting to the learning environment.” It is Dangerosa who is jumping from that to the girls being made fun of as being sluts.
I don’t even like school dress codes, and think that the prohibition creates problems. But Dangerosa argument is almost a parody of feminist thought.
Yes, because it’s better to take away all individualism than just what is overly disruptive. It’s always better to choose one extreme rather than trying to strike a balance.
In school I actually argued that taking away kids little tiny “rebellions” of fashion made them more likely to rebel in other ways. I still think it’s the most compelling argument against having dress codes.
They’re no longer worn with long sweaters and tops.
“To keep a crime from happening, you must deprive perpetrator(s) of both opportunity and desire.”
“Thread derailed with stupid assertion.”
It’s not stupid. It’s police doctrine. Though we’re not talking about female students being raped but rather providing distractions to male students, the same reasoning holds.
And that is what really pisses me off. Leggings cover a body. They are tight, but teenage boys have been to the beach - they’ve seen a lot more. Yet, somehow when they go to the beach, they manage to function. And tight isn’t anything new (“Nothing comes between me and my Calvins” is thirty five years old"). Isn’t it time we got over a womans SHAPE being a cause for the vapors. Its the same logic that puts women in burquas.
And what set this off wasn’t those articles, but commentary on those articles from a high school teacher who said HE is so distracted his teaching suffers. An adult, professional male sexualizes his teenage students so much that he can’t do his job if an attractive girl wears revealing clothing. Which makes me wonder…is this because of the teenage boys?
Girls who dress DIFFERENTLY are mocked and shamed - if you don’t wear the right brand, for instance. Girls who dress in a revealing manner are not - because that is the current community standard in young women.
Is it your belief that boys at the beach don’t objectify and sexualize the women they see?