I just have to ask: do modern leggings meant as outerwear really have a camel toe problem? I figured the fabric around the crotch was insulated/thicker to prevent that from happening. I can’t say I spend a lot of time staring at peoples’ crotches, but I also can’t say I’ve ever noticed obvious camel toe from girls wearing leggings.
As far as schools are concerned it is very much a problem for females too, which is why dress codes apply to both sexes. That is the answer to the OP - it isn’t slut shaming and males are also restricted in their clothing choices. Furthermore dress codes usually aren’t limited to clothes that are sexually suggestive but also for example clothes that depict violence, drug and alcohol use, gang symbols, etc.
But behind the incorrect sentiments of the OP and others talking about the subject is a bigger, underlying trend in modern feminism that females should in no way be mindful of, or concerned about, or sympathetic toward any psychological effects males encounter as a result of sexual stimulus. “That’s their problem, not ours”
They say that it is encouraging a rape culture to caution females that revealing themselves to males may cause them to act in irrational and uncomfortable ways. It is slut shaming to imply that a woman’s bare shoulder is more distracting to a male student than a male’s bare shoulder is to a female student. It is misogynistic to imply that there is any difference whatsoever when in fact there is a difference. It isn’t promoting a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude about rape to suggest that boys do in fact respond, psychologically and physiologically differently to sexual stimulation and therefore females simply can’t fathom what impact their choice in dress or behavior may have.
In biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, there is no argument about this difference. The big argument is whether it is nature or nurture - is it an innate difference or did culture influence it? But in the mean time schools don’t have time to wait for science to hash it all out. They know that revealing clothing distracts students, they know that it distracts males in different and more disruptive ways than it does females, and they create dress codes based around the observed results of not having dress codes.
Let’s not pussyfoot around this subject, if a girl wants to she can give you a smile.
A and B. There’s a logical proposition there. “Be a whiny bitch” AND “expect me to take you seriously”. Learn to read dumbass.
OK. Keep minding the spittle please.
Oh, I know what you were trying to say. I was highlighting the parts that matter. What you think about it yourself doesn’t signify. Trolls never take anything seriously - I certainly didn’t expect you to do so, so I don’t know what you’re characterising as a “shit fit”
Took you a day to come up with that?
I think it depends on how broadly you define leggings. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned yoga pants. Workout pants and yoga pants are thicker than leggings, which are generally slightly thicker than tights/hosiery.
I believe creating and enforcing dress codes for students and teachers is in the best interest of society as a whole and is most certainly the domain of school administration (In fact, they should also be in charge of enforcing dress codes for parents who shop at Walmart). I agree the code should be as gender non-specific as possible, given the primary and secondary anatomical differences that apparently exist between sexes…or so I’ve been told. Unlike many of you, however, I believe an effective and gender non-specific dress code is not at all difficult to develop. Of the top of my head, it should go something like this:
[ul]
[li]No visible undergarments[/li][li]No attire that reveals, accentuates, or clings enticingly to nipples, genitals or buttocks[/li][li]No bare leg skin shall be visible above 6 inches below the pubic symphysis (sorry, I’m a leg man).[/li][li]No hairdos that allow students sitting behind you to hide from teachers site and smoke pot. [/li][li]No attire or accessories that are attractive to personal injury attorneys (e.g. 5-inch spike heels, untied shoelaces, spurs, machetes, etc.)[/li][li]No attire typically worn by professional clowns or game show hosts[/li][li]No Zoot Suit or Flapper attire (these are still a young persons thing, right?).[/li][/ul]
OK, maybe some facetiousness involved above, but my point is that fair gender non-specific dress codes are not difficult to develop, and they should be developed and enforced.
I disagree. Mandatory beehive hair for women.
Those boys were telling you what you wanted to hear. A female could not possibly understand what it is to experience the male sex drive. Most of us learn to control it, but that is far from easy. In Junior High, before I learned to fap, I spent countless hours sitting in class with a boner.
Everyone knows testosterone is responsible for the male sex drive. Long ago I read that the small amount of testosterone present in females is responsible for their sex drive. Perhaps this bit of trivia can help you understand how intense male sex drive is- it’s several times the female equivalent.
The kid who said it doesn’t matter what girls wear was not entirely correct. Boys will have some sexual fastasies no matter what a girl is wearing, but provocative dress does make the job of self-control more difficult.
You are overstating the case so much it’s ridiculous. Have I gotten sexually distracted before? Yes. Has it ever had an impact on my ability to do work? Yeah, sure. What you say may well be true for you, but I know that I in no way experience as ridiculously high of a libido as you describe here.
I should not have made my statement so broad as to have included all males. Sorry.
Men in our culture are allowed, or even encouraged to ogle women, objectify and sexualise them. Women are supposed to put up with being treated in this way, and furthermore, when men’s habit of indulging themselves becomes a negative for the men, women are supposed to fix it for them.
You really can’t say how much of men’s distractibility is due to biological factors when they are culturally encouraged to be distractible. The protests against slut-shaming are trying to change the culture of permission that men are given to ogle women.
As a followup to my previous post, I think school administrators have a strong and valid interest in discouraging sexual play in the classroom, because it is supposed to be a learning environment but this framing of ‘girls as temptresses, boys as victims’ is kinda gross.
Obviously you don’t, your pathetic attempts at mind reading and selective quoting not withstanding.
The use of my free time really doesn’t concern you.
Now that you seem to have calmed down a bit and backed off on the whole liar angle, I can see where my usage of the phrase “tough break” seemed dismissive. I’ll restate the point, more carefully this time:
a) Oogling and catcalling is misbehaving. I don’t think it’s a punishable offense, other than normal societal pressure not to be a creep, unless it becomes harassment.
b) When and if people present themselves ridiculously according to community norms, they can expect to be ridiculed.
OK, since you’re being less trollish, I’ll respond in kind.
I disagree. I think if boys are punished for harassment when young, they will be less likely to be harassers later in life. And it is harassment. What* is *harassment in your view - only physical contact?
And do you think oogling and catcalling would be A-OK in, say, a modern office setting? If not, what makes it A-OK at school? If it earns you a trip to HR (or should) if you do it to your secretary at Dewy, Cheatem and Howe, why does it not do so at Wolfwhistle High?
Why is it harassment in a professional setting, but not at school?
I doubt very much current community norms (i.e. the ones students set themselves) see tights as ridiculous clothing. It’s exactly the same clothing these girls wear outside of school (going by my anecdotal observations of what teens wear here, when they almost all wear uniforms in school)
Thanks for the measured response and sorry for jumping to sarcasm mode so quickly.
What I said really didn’t seem out of the ordinary to me until I went back just before and reread the “tough break” bit.
I’ll see if I can follow-up later.
I say let them wear what they want and let them deal with the real world. How about moving about in a developing country overrun with sex-starved orcs? How does one’s ward robe change?
If dress codes for girls are designed to keep the boys from being distracted, then what are dress codes for boys for? My sons weren’t allowed to wear baggy pants, hats or tank tops to school. There was a host of reasons why a boy could be sent home for inappropriate clothing and that is without displaying any sexual body parts. If a boy showed up at school with his junk plainly outlined by super tight pants, he wouldn’t be sent home, he would probably be arrested.
I don’t think anyone’s claimed that sexual distraction is the only reason for dress codes.
Thankfully, I’m out of school by now so I can advocate uniforms for all! Let the little buggers wear whatever they want, so long as its an approved school uniform! 