Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Parallel Realities & god Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2014-10-29 3:32 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
2261
20001001002525
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by chirunner134 Far easier to remove temptation than it is to ask people to control it.

But it's a good thing to learn how to do.....yeah? 

How about we just teach our kids to use their good sense.......I'm up for that, and they can handle it just fine.

I have mixed feelings on the "temptation" stuff.  I'm mostly with you LB in that people need to learn to control themselves and have good sense in how they dress.

However, as you know I work with a lot of men (young and old) who struggle with sexual addiction issues and they have a lot less problems in the winter when everybody is bundled up (here in Nebraska anyways).  I ran a 12 steps group for several years and it's amazing what kind of addiction spiral I've seen people go down that was started as a reaction to "some scantily clad lady I saw at the mall" or whatever.

I in no way shape or form am suggesting that a woman wearing revealing clothing is responsible for anything that anybody does or thinks, so don't read me wrong.  I just know that clothing does effect how some people react and sometimes the reactions aren't always positive.

Bro - as you said, they don't have sexual addiction problems because of what women wear.  How you react to what I wear is your damn problem, not mine....and kids need to be taught that (it's not hard to teach kids.....it's REALLY hard to get stupid ideas out of their heads once they become adults). 

This idea that "someone did this so it caused me to do that" is wrong......you know that, and it causes unwarranted blame and shame.  You teach children to be responsible for their own thoughts and actions, and you guide them down a path that leads to them coming up with responsible and decent thoughts and actions. 

The teacher who "gets distracted" because some teenage girl wears yoga pants to his/her class needs to be fired.....THAT'S the improper behavior.

Yeeeep!



2014-10-29 3:39 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.




I agree with your first sentence 100%.

The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them.
That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code.

But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.
2014-10-29 4:16 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

 

 

 

2014-10-29 5:39 PM
in reply to: TriMike

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

2014-10-29 6:06 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

i am loving LB today...

2014-10-29 7:45 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

 



Edited by TriMike 2014-10-29 7:47 PM


2014-10-29 8:31 PM
in reply to: TriMike

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong.  (hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

2014-10-29 8:36 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Let me ask you, TriMike, who are the stupid people in this video?  It's safe to view anywhere.

Who's behavior should we be looking to change?  Who is wrong here? Which "bits" are exposed....besides the REALLY tiny bits of brains?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/living/hollaback-10-hours-walking-in-nyc/index.html 

 



Edited by Left Brain 2014-10-29 8:40 PM
2014-10-29 9:06 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

 

2014-10-29 9:18 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Let me ask you, TriMike, who are the stupid people in this video?  It's safe to view anywhere.

Who's behavior should we be looking to change?  Who is wrong here? Which "bits" are exposed....besides the REALLY tiny bits of brains?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/living/hollaback-10-hours-walking-in-nyc/index.html 

 

I've already seen the video....I've also heard there are some "experts" saying many of the comments were actually pretty vanilla and actually complimentary.

Regardless, if you're trying to draw a parallel between a woman walking the streets of NYC and hearing some catcalls to high school dress code policies that draw a line with how short a skirt can be etc., then nice try...

2014-10-29 9:32 PM
in reply to: TriMike

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

doing a clean response to get rid of all the nested quotes.

So, with blaming victims and not blaming victims it's not as simple as many would like it to be.  Similar to what Mike is saying I can run into an all African American bar and start yelling racial slurs because it's a behavior that I have a right to do (assuming there are no local hate crime laws), but when everyone in the bar proceeds to kick my behind I am now a victim of assault.  So, you can't blame me because I'm the victim, right?  Sure, the person who assaults me would be committing a crime, but any rational person would agree that I have a level of responsibility as well.

Obviously me yelling in a bar is nothing even close to somebody wearing yoga pants, but there are things that everyone does that increases their odds and decreases their odds of being a victim.  I feel as parents it is our responsibility to help our kids make smart decisions that are relevant to the real world to navigate it as safely as possible.

I read this study a while back on a different forum and it probably explains what I'm trying to say a little better:

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html

Now as for letting kids police themselves, I would recommend this book called Lord of the Flies.  Kids are not adults, and they need our guidance to keep them from doing stupid things.  Even adults have "dress code" laws in place that don't allow indecent attire in public settings, so it's silly to think kids shouldn't.

 



2014-10-29 10:12 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

Easy now......I never play chicken with my kids.  I've got 5 of them, 4 girls and a boy.....they are some pretty damn accomplished folks....and they don't worry much about how you think they should dress.  I raised them that way.  I also raised them not to care about who you (collective you) think they should love, or what color their friends are.  The other thing I taught them was to stick up for people who are being harassed, or assaulted, or ridiculed because of who they were, as long as they weren't hurting someone else.  It's hard to teach those lessons while you tell them you don't approve of what they are wearing, no? 

Here's my deal.  You say, "Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart? "  And I say it has nothing to do with a persons right to show off their bits or not.......it has everything to do with a person's right to not be harassed or attacked over how they chose to live as long as they aren't hurting anyone else..  You can say that you are just trying to protect your kids.....and I will tell you that I have no interest in protecting my kids from standing up for what is right.  Your comment about being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time is a throw away.....it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and doesn't help you make your point.

I've been really lucky (some may say unlucky) in my life that I have been in a position to interview a lot of people who have harassed/assaulted others and I have listened to their reasons and excuses........what it really boils down to is that these are fundamentally flawed and useless people.  I don't think I'm going to have my kids change how they dress or what they do based on what that small group of morons think.

And for the record......assaults on women have absolutely NOTHING to do with how they dress.  It has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men....again, fundamentally flawed and useless people. Who gives a rats arse what they think?



Edited by Left Brain 2014-10-29 10:16 PM
2014-10-29 10:31 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god
I still do not know how guys or girls looking at people dressing in a manner that excites them is a sex crime. Distracting yes. Potentiality disruptive yes if you got people whisper or even pointing to each other.

Of course I never understand cat calls or slut shaming either.

2014-10-29 11:05 PM
in reply to: TriMike

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Let me ask you, TriMike, who are the stupid people in this video?  It's safe to view anywhere.

Who's behavior should we be looking to change?  Who is wrong here? Which "bits" are exposed....besides the REALLY tiny bits of brains?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/living/hollaback-10-hours-walking-in-nyc/index.html 

 

I've already seen the video....I've also heard there are some "experts" saying many of the comments were actually pretty vanilla and actually complimentary.

Regardless, if you're trying to draw a parallel between a woman walking the streets of NYC and hearing some catcalls to high school dress code policies that draw a line with how short a skirt can be etc., then nice try...

Exactly!!  And I'm sure you also noticed some of the behavior was absolutely inappropriate, right?  The n you also surely realized it had little to nothing to with how she was dressed, yeah?  Again.....some men are just fundamentally broken.....It has NOTHING to do with how women dress.  To hell with those guys.  I'm not going to stick up for them by telling my daughters how to dress.  HOW WOMEN/GIRLS DRESS IS NOT THE PROBLEM!  The behavior of some men/boys is the problem.  That's all.  Really, really simple.

2014-10-30 6:57 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

Easy now......I never play chicken with my kids.  I've got 5 of them, 4 girls and a boy.....they are some pretty damn accomplished folks....and they don't worry much about how you think they should dress.  I raised them that way.  I also raised them not to care about who you (collective you) think they should love, or what color their friends are.  The other thing I taught them was to stick up for people who are being harassed, or assaulted, or ridiculed because of who they were, as long as they weren't hurting someone else.  It's hard to teach those lessons while you tell them you don't approve of what they are wearing, no? 

Here's my deal.  You say, "Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart? "  And I say it has nothing to do with a persons right to show off their bits or not.......it has everything to do with a person's right to not be harassed or attacked over how they chose to live as long as they aren't hurting anyone else..  You can say that you are just trying to protect your kids.....and I will tell you that I have no interest in protecting my kids from standing up for what is right.  Your comment about being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time is a throw away.....it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and doesn't help you make your point.

I've been really lucky (some may say unlucky) in my life that I have been in a position to interview a lot of people who have harassed/assaulted others and I have listened to their reasons and excuses........what it really boils down to is that these are fundamentally flawed and useless people.  I don't think I'm going to have my kids change how they dress or what they do based on what that small group of morons think.

And for the record......assaults on women have absolutely NOTHING to do with how they dress.  It has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men....again, fundamentally flawed and useless people. Who gives a rats arse what they think?

So you're saying assaults on women have nothing to do with how they dress yet it has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men?  Those numbers don't add up bro... You're talking about the stalkers, serial rapists etc but you leave out the guys who just lose control....   

I raise my kids the same way you described raising yours but only to a point.  I disagree when you say you can't teach your child about something like how they dress while disapproving of some of their choices or their friends' choices.  Your message appears to be:  Wear whatever you want, wherever you want because it's your right.  Everyone else is wrong, the bad guys who may try something, they guys who whistle, say "hey baby" etc.  My message is be cognizant of your surroundings, don't wear extremely revealing clothes (the kind of clothing HS dress codes prohibit) as it invites the wrong people, comments etc...

I think our fundamental difference of opinion (besides the fact you are a professional arguer and instigator) is you feel "the victim" has zero culpability regardless of what happened to them.  Whether it's how they dress or my party store at 2:00am exmaple or TUWOOD's example of a white guy in a black bar yelling slurs...

I'll agree that how a woman dresses shouldn't invite trouble but to deny it and to say schools are "stupid" and adults who make the dress code are "dumb" and kids should "police themselves" is flat out ignorant... And if you still think you're right, reach out to a dozen schools and engage in a conversation about their dress code, specifically around skirt length...

Don't forget to tell them how stupid they are, how you couldn't possibly care less about their opinions and that your five kids don't either... That always works..

2014-10-30 7:37 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Champion
7542
5000200050025
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn 

[Lots of nested discussion deleted]

But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

Several factors for why dress codes disproportionately affect girls.  

1)  Boys are more likely to act out or voice comments within earshot of the subject.  
Girls are generally more subtle oogling someone and may wait until later to discuss what they saw with their friends rather than whistle or comment within earshot of the subject.  

2)  The subject chooses whether attention is unwanted.  Given 1) girls may be more aware of the attention and therefore more likely to decide what is wanted and what is unwanted.  A subject feeling vulnerable receiving the attention is more likely to consider it unwanted.  Most boys don't feel vulnerable being oogled  by girls and enjoy the attention.  Girls are much more selective, enjoying the "admiration" from one person and rejecting it from another even if the words/tone/context is nearly identical.  

3)  Girls are more inclined to report incidents to authorities.  Additionally, authorities are more likely to discount reports from boys.  (Years ago, when my boys were in elementary school, we were constantly discussing the aggressive behavior of girls--grabbing, kissing, etc. with the teachers and principal and it was always dismissed out-of-hand.  We even took in the coat they ripped to no avail..)  

So authorities observe directly and hear indirectly the boy-on-girl interactions and implement policies like dress codes to reduce the amount of time and effort they must expend on these issues.  



2014-10-30 9:46 AM
in reply to: TriMike

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

Easy now......I never play chicken with my kids.  I've got 5 of them, 4 girls and a boy.....they are some pretty damn accomplished folks....and they don't worry much about how you think they should dress.  I raised them that way.  I also raised them not to care about who you (collective you) think they should love, or what color their friends are.  The other thing I taught them was to stick up for people who are being harassed, or assaulted, or ridiculed because of who they were, as long as they weren't hurting someone else.  It's hard to teach those lessons while you tell them you don't approve of what they are wearing, no? 

Here's my deal.  You say, "Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart? "  And I say it has nothing to do with a persons right to show off their bits or not.......it has everything to do with a person's right to not be harassed or attacked over how they chose to live as long as they aren't hurting anyone else..  You can say that you are just trying to protect your kids.....and I will tell you that I have no interest in protecting my kids from standing up for what is right.  Your comment about being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time is a throw away.....it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and doesn't help you make your point.

I've been really lucky (some may say unlucky) in my life that I have been in a position to interview a lot of people who have harassed/assaulted others and I have listened to their reasons and excuses........what it really boils down to is that these are fundamentally flawed and useless people.  I don't think I'm going to have my kids change how they dress or what they do based on what that small group of morons think.

And for the record......assaults on women have absolutely NOTHING to do with how they dress.  It has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men....again, fundamentally flawed and useless people. Who gives a rats arse what they think?

So you're saying assaults on women have nothing to do with how they dress yet it has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men?  Those numbers don't add up bro... You're talking about the stalkers, serial rapists etc but you leave out the guys who just lose control....   

I raise my kids the same way you described raising yours but only to a point.  I disagree when you say you can't teach your child about something like how they dress while disapproving of some of their choices or their friends' choices.  Your message appears to be:  Wear whatever you want, wherever you want because it's your right.  Everyone else is wrong, the bad guys who may try something, they guys who whistle, say "hey baby" etc.  My message is be cognizant of your surroundings, don't wear extremely revealing clothes (the kind of clothing HS dress codes prohibit) as it invites the wrong people, comments etc...

I think our fundamental difference of opinion (besides the fact you are a professional arguer and instigator) is you feel "the victim" has zero culpability regardless of what happened to them.  Whether it's how they dress or my party store at 2:00am exmaple or TUWOOD's example of a white guy in a black bar yelling slurs...

I'll agree that how a woman dresses shouldn't invite trouble but to deny it and to say schools are "stupid" and adults who make the dress code are "dumb" and kids should "police themselves" is flat out ignorant... And if you still think you're right, reach out to a dozen schools and engage in a conversation about their dress code, specifically around skirt length...

Don't forget to tell them how stupid they are, how you couldn't possibly care less about their opinions and that your five kids don't either... That always works..

Victims are victims.  No, you don't blame victims.......it's a really easy concept.  It's irrational to say "you caused me to act this way" or "you deserved what you got because of.....".  That's blantantly ridiculous.  The fault always lies with the person who commits the wrong.  There are no reasons or excuses or fault or blame to pass on to the victim.  I see that tried time and again in my line of work.......it's laughable.

I don't worry about the clothes my kids wear......that's a REALLY insignificant part of raising them.  The flip side of that is if you raise them to be decent, resposible people you don't have to worry about what they wear.  And I'll go back to my origional point as well.......parents care about "appropriatness" of what a kid wears MUCH more then other kids do.  And for the very few times clothing may fall outside the lines of what is truly innaproriate (like Tony's example of the kid wearing the thong) you won't need to get involved in that either......the kids will handle it just fine.

2014-10-30 10:21 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

Easy now......I never play chicken with my kids.  I've got 5 of them, 4 girls and a boy.....they are some pretty damn accomplished folks....and they don't worry much about how you think they should dress.  I raised them that way.  I also raised them not to care about who you (collective you) think they should love, or what color their friends are.  The other thing I taught them was to stick up for people who are being harassed, or assaulted, or ridiculed because of who they were, as long as they weren't hurting someone else.  It's hard to teach those lessons while you tell them you don't approve of what they are wearing, no? 

Here's my deal.  You say, "Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart? "  And I say it has nothing to do with a persons right to show off their bits or not.......it has everything to do with a person's right to not be harassed or attacked over how they chose to live as long as they aren't hurting anyone else..  You can say that you are just trying to protect your kids.....and I will tell you that I have no interest in protecting my kids from standing up for what is right.  Your comment about being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time is a throw away.....it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and doesn't help you make your point.

I've been really lucky (some may say unlucky) in my life that I have been in a position to interview a lot of people who have harassed/assaulted others and I have listened to their reasons and excuses........what it really boils down to is that these are fundamentally flawed and useless people.  I don't think I'm going to have my kids change how they dress or what they do based on what that small group of morons think.

And for the record......assaults on women have absolutely NOTHING to do with how they dress.  It has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men....again, fundamentally flawed and useless people. Who gives a rats arse what they think?

So you're saying assaults on women have nothing to do with how they dress yet it has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men?  Those numbers don't add up bro... You're talking about the stalkers, serial rapists etc but you leave out the guys who just lose control....   

I raise my kids the same way you described raising yours but only to a point.  I disagree when you say you can't teach your child about something like how they dress while disapproving of some of their choices or their friends' choices.  Your message appears to be:  Wear whatever you want, wherever you want because it's your right.  Everyone else is wrong, the bad guys who may try something, they guys who whistle, say "hey baby" etc.  My message is be cognizant of your surroundings, don't wear extremely revealing clothes (the kind of clothing HS dress codes prohibit) as it invites the wrong people, comments etc...

I think our fundamental difference of opinion (besides the fact you are a professional arguer and instigator) is you feel "the victim" has zero culpability regardless of what happened to them.  Whether it's how they dress or my party store at 2:00am exmaple or TUWOOD's example of a white guy in a black bar yelling slurs...

I'll agree that how a woman dresses shouldn't invite trouble but to deny it and to say schools are "stupid" and adults who make the dress code are "dumb" and kids should "police themselves" is flat out ignorant... And if you still think you're right, reach out to a dozen schools and engage in a conversation about their dress code, specifically around skirt length...

Don't forget to tell them how stupid they are, how you couldn't possibly care less about their opinions and that your five kids don't either... That always works..

Victims are victims.  No, you don't blame victims.......it's a really easy concept.  It's irrational to say "you caused me to act this way" or "you deserved what you got because of.....".  That's blantantly ridiculous.  The fault always lies with the person who commits the wrong.  There are no reasons or excuses or fault or blame to pass on to the victim.  I see that tried time and again in my line of work.......it's laughable.

I don't worry about the clothes my kids wear......that's a REALLY insignificant part of raising them.  The flip side of that is if you raise them to be decent, resposible people you don't have to worry about what they wear.  And I'll go back to my origional point as well.......parents care about "appropriatness" of what a kid wears MUCH more then other kids do.  And for the very few times clothing may fall outside the lines of what is truly innaproriate (like Tony's example of the kid wearing the thong) you won't need to get involved in that either......the kids will handle it just fine.

Victims are victims yes... However in your mind victims are never responsible for their own actions, both before and after the bad event, NOPE...Blindly holding firm to "rights" despite the consequences is silly...You've chosen to hold firm on an imaginary argument that I haven't seen anyone make that a victim deserved what happened to them.  The finer point again that you choose to ignore is that there are situations in which a precautionary measure (or more) helps to avoid certain bad situations....

In case I wasn't clear enough in prior posts, I'm all for punishing the bad behavior, this has never been about which person is truly guilty....I'm trying to avoid the bad situation in the first place by taking precautionary measures...

Again, strange that a cop holds so firm to "rights" when the ones I know (and I've known some of them my entire life, we have beers) talk about reality too and what steps a person takes to avoid bad things happening to them or their loved ones... 

 

 

2014-10-30 10:29 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Victims are victims.  No, you don't blame victims.......it's a really easy concept.  It's irrational to say "you caused me to act this way" or "you deserved what you got because of.....".  That's blantantly ridiculous.  The fault always lies with the person who commits the wrong.  There are no reasons or excuses or fault or blame to pass on to the victim.  I see that tried time and again in my line of work.......it's laughable.

It's still not that cut and dry, even in the law enforcement community.
If a Husband beats his wife (which makes her a victim) and she finally gets to the point where she can't take it anymore and assaults him while he's sleeping.  He is now being victimized as a result of his behaviors.  If he hadn't assaulted his wife, she wouldn't have assaulted him so he (the victim) has a level of responsibility or blame for the assault.  So, You have two separate victim's with two separate "crimes" but they are absolutely tied together and our court system would likely rule in favor of the wife if the evidence supported it by blaming the "victim" her Husband for her actions.

2014-10-30 11:07 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

Easy now......I never play chicken with my kids.  I've got 5 of them, 4 girls and a boy.....they are some pretty damn accomplished folks....and they don't worry much about how you think they should dress.  I raised them that way.  I also raised them not to care about who you (collective you) think they should love, or what color their friends are.  The other thing I taught them was to stick up for people who are being harassed, or assaulted, or ridiculed because of who they were, as long as they weren't hurting someone else.  It's hard to teach those lessons while you tell them you don't approve of what they are wearing, no? 

Here's my deal.  You say, "Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart? "  And I say it has nothing to do with a persons right to show off their bits or not.......it has everything to do with a person's right to not be harassed or attacked over how they chose to live as long as they aren't hurting anyone else..  You can say that you are just trying to protect your kids.....and I will tell you that I have no interest in protecting my kids from standing up for what is right.  Your comment about being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time is a throw away.....it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and doesn't help you make your point.

I've been really lucky (some may say unlucky) in my life that I have been in a position to interview a lot of people who have harassed/assaulted others and I have listened to their reasons and excuses........what it really boils down to is that these are fundamentally flawed and useless people.  I don't think I'm going to have my kids change how they dress or what they do based on what that small group of morons think.

And for the record......assaults on women have absolutely NOTHING to do with how they dress.  It has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men....again, fundamentally flawed and useless people. Who gives a rats arse what they think?

So you're saying assaults on women have nothing to do with how they dress yet it has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men?  Those numbers don't add up bro... You're talking about the stalkers, serial rapists etc but you leave out the guys who just lose control....   

I raise my kids the same way you described raising yours but only to a point.  I disagree when you say you can't teach your child about something like how they dress while disapproving of some of their choices or their friends' choices.  Your message appears to be:  Wear whatever you want, wherever you want because it's your right.  Everyone else is wrong, the bad guys who may try something, they guys who whistle, say "hey baby" etc.  My message is be cognizant of your surroundings, don't wear extremely revealing clothes (the kind of clothing HS dress codes prohibit) as it invites the wrong people, comments etc...

I think our fundamental difference of opinion (besides the fact you are a professional arguer and instigator) is you feel "the victim" has zero culpability regardless of what happened to them.  Whether it's how they dress or my party store at 2:00am exmaple or TUWOOD's example of a white guy in a black bar yelling slurs...

I'll agree that how a woman dresses shouldn't invite trouble but to deny it and to say schools are "stupid" and adults who make the dress code are "dumb" and kids should "police themselves" is flat out ignorant... And if you still think you're right, reach out to a dozen schools and engage in a conversation about their dress code, specifically around skirt length...

Don't forget to tell them how stupid they are, how you couldn't possibly care less about their opinions and that your five kids don't either... That always works..

Victims are victims.  No, you don't blame victims.......it's a really easy concept.  It's irrational to say "you caused me to act this way" or "you deserved what you got because of.....".  That's blantantly ridiculous.  The fault always lies with the person who commits the wrong.  There are no reasons or excuses or fault or blame to pass on to the victim.  I see that tried time and again in my line of work.......it's laughable.

I don't worry about the clothes my kids wear......that's a REALLY insignificant part of raising them.  The flip side of that is if you raise them to be decent, resposible people you don't have to worry about what they wear.  And I'll go back to my origional point as well.......parents care about "appropriatness" of what a kid wears MUCH more then other kids do.  And for the very few times clothing may fall outside the lines of what is truly innaproriate (like Tony's example of the kid wearing the thong) you won't need to get involved in that either......the kids will handle it just fine.

Victims are victims yes... However in your mind victims are never responsible for their own actions, both before and after the bad event, NOPE...Blindly holding firm to "rights" despite the consequences is silly...You've chosen to hold firm on an imaginary argument that I haven't seen anyone make that a victim deserved what happened to them.  The finer point again that you choose to ignore is that there are situations in which a precautionary measure (or more) helps to avoid certain bad situations....

In case I wasn't clear enough in prior posts, I'm all for punishing the bad behavior, this has never been about which person is truly guilty....I'm trying to avoid the bad situation in the first place by taking precautionary measures...

Again, strange that a cop holds so firm to "rights" when the ones I know (and I've known some of them my entire life, we have beers) talk about reality too and what steps a person takes to avoid bad things happening to them or their loved ones... 

 

Everybody is responsible for their own actions.  Victims of crime are not responsible for crime being committed against them. 

Rape/sexual abuse victims ESPECIALLY (which is how this got started) are not one bit responsible or at fault due to the way they dress.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.  We know that sexual assault crimes don't have anything to due with sex......we're not going backwards on this in the law enforcement community....believe it.

Teachers who "get distracted" by how their students dress are weird.

 



Edited by Left Brain 2014-10-30 11:08 AM
2014-10-30 11:09 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Left Brain

Victims are victims.  No, you don't blame victims.......it's a really easy concept.  It's irrational to say "you caused me to act this way" or "you deserved what you got because of.....".  That's blantantly ridiculous.  The fault always lies with the person who commits the wrong.  There are no reasons or excuses or fault or blame to pass on to the victim.  I see that tried time and again in my line of work.......it's laughable.

It's still not that cut and dry, even in the law enforcement community.
If a Husband beats his wife (which makes her a victim) and she finally gets to the point where she can't take it anymore and assaults him while he's sleeping.  He is now being victimized as a result of his behaviors.  If he hadn't assaulted his wife, she wouldn't have assaulted him so he (the victim) has a level of responsibility or blame for the assault.  So, You have two separate victim's with two separate "crimes" but they are absolutely tied together and our court system would likely rule in favor of the wife if the evidence supported it by blaming the "victim" her Husband for her actions.

That husband in your example is not a victim.  Sorry.



2014-10-30 2:18 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
1234
100010010025
West Michigan
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Porfirio
Originally posted by TriMike

Originally posted by dmiller5

see i'm not so big on the virgins thing, they are kind of one time use right? and you spend eternity there. No sir, give me 12 of your finest prostitutes.

What do the female jihadist's get?  Is it clearly stated in the fine print that the virgins are male for the females?  Do they get to choose?  

 

They get the "honor" of serving men. So, I spent some time in the middle east & the witnessed a LOT of burqa. So as I understand, they have to cover up b/c they might entice men. Well, I was thinking, what if they were a certain body fat percentage, or age, that they would be "less enticing." Maybe they should get a pass on dressing like a desert ninja. OR, if enticement is the concern, why don't the men poke their eyes out? Perfect solution IMO. As ridiculous as all this sounds, it doesn't compare to the silliness of the founding idea. (A burqa... seriously!?)
You're right that it's absurd, but the idea that it's the women's responsibility to dress a certain way so as not to inflame the passions of men isn't confined to just adherants of Islam or even to the middle east. http://myfox8.com/2014/10/01/high-school-bans-yoga-pants-skinny-jea... There's also that famous (in NYC at least) photo from the situation room at the White House during the Osama Bin Laden raid where all of the women in the photo (including Hillary Clinton) had been photoshopped out. The ultra-orthodox Jewish paper that ran it won't print pictures of women at all, again, so it won't be viewed as pornography. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/HillaryClinton-Obama-binLaden/20...

I could have done without reading what the morons in N. Dakota did. LOL  Serously, one of the main concerns with yoga pants and skinny jeans is distracting teachers??  They actually said that?  You just can't make this stuff up. 

My favorite lines from the article are: "The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character … who is a prostitute." And: "The assistant principal said that this new policy is not meant to objectify girls, but to stop boys from focusing on something other than class work." Hey, if you want to stop boys from focusing on something other than classwork, how about you focus on the boys' behavior, rather than on what the girls are wearing? I can't believe that in the USA in the 21st century that we're even talking about this. It's kind of mind-blowing. And making the girls watch a movie and then comparing them to prostitutes? I don't have a daughter, but if some school administrator openly suggested that my daughter was a prostitute simply because she chooses to wear leggings to school, I would have a big, BIG problem with that.

Sounds like they need to come up with a better way to communicate their dress code to the kids.

Pretty much every school has a dress code and I don't think they allow yoga pants or tights to be worn at my kids' school.  However, it seems like the whole Pretty Woman thing is just weird.

Just for giggles I looked up the dress code at my kids' school and there's a lot of stuff in there they can't wear.  They can't even wear hats. lolHere's the section about revealing clothes that I believe the yoga pants and such get rolled into:
Any clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process is not to be worn in the building. Examples include, spaghetti straps, bare backs or shoulders, halter-tops, tube tops, etc. Any shirt or blouse worn to school should completely cover the back, front, and stomach. The garment should also have sleeves that cover the shoulders on both sides
.
Shirt straps must be approximately 2 inches wide or wider. Excessively short skirts and shorts are not permitted. Skirts and shorts should be fingertip length  or longer when arms are fully extended at the sides.

They're in a pretty good sized High School with almost 3000 kids.

JMK, do you feel that schools shouldn't have dress codes at all and the kids be able to wear whatever they want because it's the 21st century?

From what I see, the kids (at the high school level) are pretty good about policing themselves when it comes to stuff like this.  It's usually better if the "adults" just stay out of it.  The kids spend a lot of time together in all sorts of situations and at all kinds of places.......pools, parties, blah,blah,blah.....how they dress at school isn't nearly the problem that "adults" think it is IMO.

If you think about it, it's NEVER a kid who comes to the school and says it's a problem, it's some wacked out parent who sees a kid wearing something they don't agree with who makes an issue out of it.  Dumb.

Tony, I"ll answer your question by quoting LB, because I agree with him that in general, the kids are pretty good at policing themselves, and that it's usually the adults with the problem, not the kids. The whole idea that girls should be restricted in what they can wear because it might inflame the passions of the boys and, more disturbingly, the male teachers, is insulting to both the girls and the boys. For one thing, I can tell you from experience, since I used to be one, that the passions of teenaged boys are pretty much always inflamed, no matter whether the girl is wearing tight jeans or a haz-mat suit. I think that, unless a school wants to implement a uniform, kids should be allowed to wear pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't openly violate the schools rules against swearing, making racist or bigoted statements, sexually explicit material, etc. Other than that, I'd need a better reason than "distracting the male teachers" for why an article of clothing should be banned. I also think it's a safe bet that the "clothing found to be revealing and/or disruptive to the educational process" standard gets applied overwhelmingly to girls' clothing rather than boys, which makes the policy inherently discriminatory.

For the record, I don't think I'm that far away from you on this and am mostly playing devils advocate.

I think the interesting issue is what defines "sexually explicit" can be vastly different to many people.  For example as discussed above in some cultures women need to be completely covered and for others a string bikini isn't considered sexually explicit.
Dress is such a subjective thing that no matter where the standards are there will be people that think they're not far enough and others that think they're too far.  I do agree that the dress code effects girls far more than boys, but I think it's more because of where the fashion for each sex is more than it is a blatant discrimination against girls.   Boys rarely ware anything more risque than T-shirts and I don't recall seeing too many boys wearing plunging V-neck T-shirts or short shorts on the High School campus.  I do know the boys are effected by the tank top and hat ban more than girls.

I agree with your first sentence 100%. The thing is, boys don't have a monoply on being turned on to the point of distraction by the opposite sex. Obviously, the girls are as well--it's High School. Just because the boys aren't wearing cycling shorts and running tights to school isn't preventing the girls from being turned on by them. That should be evidence that what the kids are wearing really doesn't matter, and that kids are going to get distracted by members of the opposite sex regardless of the dress code. But, for some reason, when trying to prevent these kinds of "distractions", most schools choose only to legislate around what the girls are wearing. There are two problems with that approach: A) It's not ultimately going to have any effect whatsoever on the raging hormones of their male classmates, and B) It's based on the incorrect presumption that only the boys are getting distracted.

The problem we're discussing isn't what girls with raging hormones are doing to boys who dress scantily...

And to say putting limits on how much leg the guys (and girls who like other girls) see won't have any effect whatsoever is ridiculous... 

Victim blaming?  hardly, it's just fact...

I have 21 year old twin daughters who have heard earfuls from me over the years about how I feel about some of their outfit choices... I'm more interested in protecting them than I am about whether they have the right to show off their bodies...

 

Hmmmmm.....what's a fact?  The idea that women ask for stupid behavior from men or boys because of how they dress?  Does that reasoning string out to the idea that women ask to be sexually assaulted because of how they dress?  It's the same line, right? (I'm not accusing you of that thinking, just pointing out that it's the same line of reasoning)  I think you're on pretty shaky ground with that one.

Who said anything about it ever being acceptable for a guy to act negatively (physically or verbally) towards a woman for any reason?  Who said it's the woman's fault?

I've argued that in a high school setting where you have 14-18 year olds, some of which are in the body of an adult with the comprehension of a child showing way more of their body than is appropriate isn't worth the risk...

I'm curious how people would comment if the situation were a guy getting mugged in a rough part of town because he stopped at a party store at 2:00am and he obviously wasn't "from around here."  Are we victim blaming if we said he probably shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Is using some judgement ahead of time to lessen the odds of something bad happening giving up on what's right?  That being he should be able to shop for gum at any store he wants?  Why do people mug people, they shouldn't act on their impulse to steal.

Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart?

 

What risk, exactly?

What judgement, exactly?  Wearing yoga pants? Wearing a top with spaghetti straps? Showing your belly button? That kind of dress increases the odds of something bad happening?  Why?  If it truly does, that's wrong, and you deal with THAT behavior.....THAT'S what's wrong(hint: it has NOTHING to do with how a person is dressed)

I think you have it exactly backwards.

Risk = something bad happening to a girl based on what she's wearing or not wearing enough of.

Judgement = thinking ahead of potential consequences.  In the example I gave about the guy getting mugged where you turned it back to yoga pants and spaghetti straps, I was referring to not being in the wrong part of town in the middle of the night.

(Good) judgement from my perspective on the dress code argument is where the school has a dress code and does NOT allow the kids to "police themselves."  That one was a beauty by the way...

If something bad happens "that's wrong and you deal with that behavior"?  Well no $hit but why put kids in bad situations??  From a cop this one really does surprise me.  Maybe you just want to argue because that's what you do but the cops I know all say reduce your exposure to or risk of a problem (ANY KIND OF PROBLEM) and you're better off...

Play a game of chicken with your kids, i'll use my voice in my school to have rules that make sense...

 

Easy now......I never play chicken with my kids.  I've got 5 of them, 4 girls and a boy.....they are some pretty damn accomplished folks....and they don't worry much about how you think they should dress.  I raised them that way.  I also raised them not to care about who you (collective you) think they should love, or what color their friends are.  The other thing I taught them was to stick up for people who are being harassed, or assaulted, or ridiculed because of who they were, as long as they weren't hurting someone else.  It's hard to teach those lessons while you tell them you don't approve of what they are wearing, no? 

Here's my deal.  You say, "Why is it we have to debate a person's right to show off their bits doesn't mean it's always smart? "  And I say it has nothing to do with a persons right to show off their bits or not.......it has everything to do with a person's right to not be harassed or attacked over how they chose to live as long as they aren't hurting anyone else..  You can say that you are just trying to protect your kids.....and I will tell you that I have no interest in protecting my kids from standing up for what is right.  Your comment about being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time is a throw away.....it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and doesn't help you make your point.

I've been really lucky (some may say unlucky) in my life that I have been in a position to interview a lot of people who have harassed/assaulted others and I have listened to their reasons and excuses........what it really boils down to is that these are fundamentally flawed and useless people.  I don't think I'm going to have my kids change how they dress or what they do based on what that small group of morons think.

And for the record......assaults on women have absolutely NOTHING to do with how they dress.  It has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men....again, fundamentally flawed and useless people. Who gives a rats arse what they think?

So you're saying assaults on women have nothing to do with how they dress yet it has everything to do with a percentage of control freak men?  Those numbers don't add up bro... You're talking about the stalkers, serial rapists etc but you leave out the guys who just lose control....   

I raise my kids the same way you described raising yours but only to a point.  I disagree when you say you can't teach your child about something like how they dress while disapproving of some of their choices or their friends' choices.  Your message appears to be:  Wear whatever you want, wherever you want because it's your right.  Everyone else is wrong, the bad guys who may try something, they guys who whistle, say "hey baby" etc.  My message is be cognizant of your surroundings, don't wear extremely revealing clothes (the kind of clothing HS dress codes prohibit) as it invites the wrong people, comments etc...

I think our fundamental difference of opinion (besides the fact you are a professional arguer and instigator) is you feel "the victim" has zero culpability regardless of what happened to them.  Whether it's how they dress or my party store at 2:00am exmaple or TUWOOD's example of a white guy in a black bar yelling slurs...

I'll agree that how a woman dresses shouldn't invite trouble but to deny it and to say schools are "stupid" and adults who make the dress code are "dumb" and kids should "police themselves" is flat out ignorant... And if you still think you're right, reach out to a dozen schools and engage in a conversation about their dress code, specifically around skirt length...

Don't forget to tell them how stupid they are, how you couldn't possibly care less about their opinions and that your five kids don't either... That always works..

Victims are victims.  No, you don't blame victims.......it's a really easy concept.  It's irrational to say "you caused me to act this way" or "you deserved what you got because of.....".  That's blantantly ridiculous.  The fault always lies with the person who commits the wrong.  There are no reasons or excuses or fault or blame to pass on to the victim.  I see that tried time and again in my line of work.......it's laughable.

I don't worry about the clothes my kids wear......that's a REALLY insignificant part of raising them.  The flip side of that is if you raise them to be decent, resposible people you don't have to worry about what they wear.  And I'll go back to my origional point as well.......parents care about "appropriatness" of what a kid wears MUCH more then other kids do.  And for the very few times clothing may fall outside the lines of what is truly innaproriate (like Tony's example of the kid wearing the thong) you won't need to get involved in that either......the kids will handle it just fine.

Victims are victims yes... However in your mind victims are never responsible for their own actions, both before and after the bad event, NOPE...Blindly holding firm to "rights" despite the consequences is silly...You've chosen to hold firm on an imaginary argument that I haven't seen anyone make that a victim deserved what happened to them.  The finer point again that you choose to ignore is that there are situations in which a precautionary measure (or more) helps to avoid certain bad situations....

In case I wasn't clear enough in prior posts, I'm all for punishing the bad behavior, this has never been about which person is truly guilty....I'm trying to avoid the bad situation in the first place by taking precautionary measures...

Again, strange that a cop holds so firm to "rights" when the ones I know (and I've known some of them my entire life, we have beers) talk about reality too and what steps a person takes to avoid bad things happening to them or their loved ones... 

 

Everybody is responsible for their own actions.  Victims of crime are not responsible for crime being committed against them. 

Rape/sexual abuse victims ESPECIALLY (which is how this got started) are not one bit responsible or at fault due to the way they dress.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.  We know that sexual assault crimes don't have anything to due with sex......we're not going backwards on this in the law enforcement community....believe it.

Teachers who "get distracted" by how their students dress are weird.

 

Nobody has said otherwise, only you.

Na, teachers who ACT on it are weird... To say a 23 year old male teacher doesn't or wouldn't notice a mature girl dressed inappropriately is playing pretend again... Back to rights vs. reality...

2014-10-30 3:04 PM
in reply to: TriMike

Veteran
458
1001001001002525
Minnesota
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god
I see school dress codes a few ways. First, schools and most public and work places operate under "middle class norms". Asking students to meet certain expectations when it comes to how they dress is part of the life-learning experience. Second, a dress code is in place to help create a better learning environment. Obviously, certain attire can distract from learning. Third, having a dress codes provides a standard that helps teachers/administration deal with related issues. School staff already has enough to do without having to deal additional problems.

I can't go along with the idea that students can police themselves. Bullying and other related issues are such a huge problems because students cannot police themselves. While many students come to school well adjusted and able to handle pretty much anything that comes their way, there are many students who don't have the upbringing, skills, support, experience, etc. that enables them to be successful with aspects of the school experience.
2014-10-30 3:31 PM
in reply to: TriJedi

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god

Originally posted by TriJedi I see school dress codes a few ways. First, schools and most public and work places operate under "middle class norms". Asking students to meet certain expectations when it comes to how they dress is part of the life-learning experience. Second, a dress code is in place to help create a better learning environment. Obviously, certain attire can distract from learning. Third, having a dress codes provides a standard that helps teachers/administration deal with related issues. School staff already has enough to do without having to deal additional problems. I can't go along with the idea that students can police themselves. Bullying and other related issues are such a huge problems because students cannot police themselves. While many students come to school well adjusted and able to handle pretty much anything that comes their way, there are many students who don't have the upbringing, skills, support, experience, etc. that enables them to be successful with aspects of the school experience.

Within my responsibilities is the supervision of 8 school resource officers who police 9 schools, both Middle and High School, public and private.  One has a very strict dress code, the others are split pretty evenly between a dress code that is enforced regularly and a dress code that is barely enforced at all.....of it even exists.  It has been my experience that there is not a measurable difference in calls to those schools.  There is vitrually no statistical difference in the number of calls to those schools.  I'm willing to bet the graduation rates are really close, along with future college attendence. 

What a kid wears to school really is a small deal......the kids don't care, the adults make the issues. 

I remember our parents going crazy in the late 60's and 70's because we wanted to grow our hair long......what a waste of time and energy by everybody who worried about something that simple.  Kind of like worrying whether or not a girls blouse straps are 1/4 inch or 2 inches, or if her shoulders are bare.....or if the boys wear tank tops.  No thanks.

2014-10-30 4:02 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: Parallel Realities & god
Everyone should be taught that the way they present themselves has a part in how people treat them and (though spoken of much less) how a person feels about themselves. I'm not referring to rape or any other illegal behavior. There is a reason most CEO's wear suits or similar, and it isn't because they are comfortable.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Parallel Realities & god Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Reality Check needed Pages: 1 2 3

Started by Marvarnett
Views: 2494 Posts: 66

2006-09-29 8:26 AM Lara

Iron man reality show idea Pages: 1 2

Started by TimmyMay
Views: 1345 Posts: 30

2006-08-04 6:21 AM the bear

Marathon Reality Show?

Started by the bear
Views: 1069 Posts: 21

2006-05-18 12:23 PM max

Reality Check (WAY OFF TOPIC)

Started by soopergirl
Views: 1444 Posts: 25

2005-07-07 4:19 PM nliedel

reality tv...i got sucked in.

Started by Ron
Views: 728 Posts: 3

2007-10-19 10:53 AM BellinghamSpence
RELATED ARTICLES
date : April 17, 2005
author : Daniel Clout
comments : 5
I was humbled last year. My body shut down on me just before two World Championship events. I was originally in top form to medal in both, but my strength was sapped from me.