I said this in another thread - the concept that some one might, under some situation(s) voluntarily show their panties in no mother fucking way gives some one else a right to lift their skirts/whatever.
Gee, she’s had sex before, so she shouldn’t complain about it this time. :rolleyes:
Voluntary vs. involuntary.
thong-related hijack:
Thong underwear does not always equal skanky underwear. Not everyone wears a thong hiked up out of their pants. The point of thong, in fact, is that you DON’T want your underwear to be noticed. I, as a high school girl, own several (decidedly not sexually provocative) thongs because in some pants or skirts I have, it is necessary to wear one to avoid underwear lines.
(If you are being facetious, shrew, then, uh, never mind!)
Now, really. Even if a hundred thong-wearing 15-year old girls do the “freak dance” every Friday (there’s a mental image… :p) , that is not an excuse to subject a single one to this. You kick out anyone doing something they should not, maybe ban him/her friom the next dance. OR ban the “freak dance” to begin with. Then if the kids want to “freak dance” they can do so at a private venue, no need for school officials to be concerned with underwear. If the adults cannot control the kids who behave badly, well, then maybe the problem goes a little bit beyond lewd dance moves…
And insofar as the thongs themselves are concerned, the news stories DO say that the school dress code DOES forbid visible underwear. So that should cover shrew’s concerns. It also explains why Wilson had to have the girls partly disrobe: the thongs were NOT visible going in [sub](stop snickering)[/sub].
BTW the story update RTFirefly quotes goes on to include a prolonged cry-me-a-fuckin’-river whine from Wilson as to how she has been demonized and her career ruined by the media and the parents. Well, DUUUHH!
wonder if anyone took pictures
I’m a high school senior with less experience than I would like on this topic. What’s wrong with 750 teenagers simulating sex? That’s not rhetorical. Who is being hurt by this? My impression was that the purpouse of dances was to allow Nervous Nellies and Nevilles to (gasp) touch each other in a societally accepted situation.
Oh, yeah, the O.P. Forget being fired, I say sue.
And the way to do this is by forcing them to show their underwear to their teachers?
Shrew, you’re probably going to want to beat me with a stick, for on Friday night I chaperoned at a pep rally and dance (as part of Saturday’s Dragon Boat Youth Race Festival), and guess what: lots of happy, well behaved kids, well dressed kids. Not a problem in the lot.
Time for you to move north. 
Oh the irony.
That’s IT? She’s now in a TEACHING position?
Fucking hell!
If I were in one of her classes this fall (and if I had the guts, which I probably wouldn’t) I would go in on the first day and say, “Oh, Mrs. Wilson…just wanted to show you I’m not wearing a thong!”
( | )
She’s been demoted.
Now she can only check bras.
Jumpin jeebiz. Where’s the logic here? “I don’t want anyone to see your underwear, so lift your dress in front of the boys so I can see your underwear”? As far as I am concerned, using one’s position as an authority figure to coerce young women into revealing their underwear choices sounds rather a lot like sexual harassment to me. If the authority figure in question HERSELF lifted the dresses to peek underneath, I’d call that sexual assault.
Good thing this bozo wasn’t at my prom. I wore a skintight red satin dress, cut halfway down to my navel and halfway up to my mussentuchit with NUTHIN’ underneath.
Well, this gives me an idea. For safety reasons, entry to all future NYC Dopefest venues will be contingent on a thorough Undergarment Check.
We need volunteers for the search duty. Anyone…? Anyone…?
LifeOnWry: I don’t think it constitutes sexual assault, but lewd and lascivious behaviour certainly seems to be the correct charge.
Gotta be careful about how your underwear fits, y’know-
you can’t have this happen!