Bong hits for Jesus, anyone.
Almost all schools prohibit some activities which would be entirely permissible outside of the institution – their perennial struggle seems to be where to draw the line.
FWIW if I was 17 and American, I would probably want to wear a T-shirt to school that said “Bong Hits For Jesus” on the front, and “The Supreme Court Erred in Deciding Morse v. Frederick” on the back (which is political speech, and likely protected). Even though I am interested in neither bong hits nor Jesus.
When Israel was experiencing an epidemic of violent rapes and someone at a cabinet meeting suggested women be put under curfew until the rapists were caught, (Golda) Meir shot back, “Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.”
Maybe we should all read "The Naked Ape" again to remind us what we are and where we came from. It is quite illuminating to begin with the premise we are/were "animal" and we (humans) have developed tendencies to become "civilsed" rather than assume we are "civilised" and those who commit the darstardly crimes are "animals".
I've had a deeply frustrating time arguing with Tess in the past, and eventually had to dissect her arguments in grisly detail to get her to stop weaselling about. What she's doing here is pulling a sneaky conversion fallacy: in her world view, "sluts" TM wear short skirts, therefore anyone who wears a short skirt is a "slut" TM. All dressed up as "concern". Nice of her.
You're quite wrong. You're looking at my Catholicism and either not knowing or not taking into account my university social experiences. I don't think women who wear short skirts are "sluts" at all. Given my social history I'm quite comfortable hanging around people dressed up in fetish gear and I know that their clothing has no bearing on their sexual behavior. But these people are adults, not 14 year olds.
Clothing sends messages, see the GQ Glee photo shoot if you disagree. Does this mean Lea Michele is actually sexually promiscuous? No, absolutely not. But those photos were designed to titillate men and thus to sell magazines.
Just for interests' sake Tess- what is an adult?
By the time my mother was 24, she has 4 kids-
*25 is increasingly recognised as when the human brain matures.
Ross Mason: actually dont read "The Naked Ape" - it's not a good book. Instead, read some books on our hominoid cuzzies - chimpanzees & bonobos - and see that we are much closer to them, no matter how civilised we consider ourselves as a species...
Yes clothing sends a message, and short skirts can be worn to tittilate men. But why is this a bad thing? A teenager exploring sexuality and tittilation seems perfectly normal to me! Yes, school is not the appropriate forum for this (although there are worse out there!), and she broke the rules. I don't think we are arguing that though. Are you saying that no teenager should be tittilating ever? You do realise that if someone finds a young girl tittilating and does something that she does not agree to they are at fault not her, right?
"You do realise that if someone finds a young girl tittilating and does something that she does not agree to they are at fault not her, right?"
So what is your objection to young people in short skirts if you realise it is not harmful? Seriously, if you don't think that they are "asking for it" I don't grasp what your issue is. Because if it is just that sometimes teenagers act sexual, you won't win that battle. See: the youth of ALWAYS.
First of all, Jacqui, you aren't by any chance a Marsden girl, are you? Because that would be scary.
I very seldom wear long pants.
Oh, I can attest to that. And when I first met you, I remember thinking how very endearing your shorts were. Just like you.
And finally. Tess - I have very rarely dressed up to attract men, I certainly have never worn short skirts, nor leather of any sort. There may have been a few cleavagey outfits in my 20's but that was because I liked my tits. And I was a full-on, hard out slut.
If someone wears a short skirt to school, yes there should be some teacherly intervention if it contravenes the dress code. Normally, one expects, a Dean would write a letter home to Mum and/or Dad to remind them of skirt lengths. Instead, what happened to her, was appalling. Her teacher went against most of the Code of Ethics that all registered teachers must adhere to. As such, words should be had with her.
As for skirt length/sexual availabilty etc. Do not conflate your personal experience onto this child. Anyone of any age of any gender should be able to wear what they like, when they like, and not be abused for it. I don't like it when young women wear revealing clothing. But they aren't my daughters, they aren't me, and if anyone were to act inappropriately toward them, I would defend them.
As someone who has been in terrible situations, late at night, a number of times in my young womanhood - and I wasn't wearing revealing clothing - I would have to say to you that it really doesn't matter what message we want to send with our clothing. I can guarantee you that the message you will never be sending is "Rape me", or "Abuse me". Not when you're 14. Not ever.
I was easy, honey, and believe me, I never wore a dress or a skirt, let alone a short one.
"Anyone of any age of any gender should be able to wear what they like, when they like, and not be abused for it."
No one should be abused full stop.
"Her teacher went against most of the Code of Ethics that all registered teachers must adhere to."
"Do not conflate your personal experience onto this child."
I've tried to not talk specifically about this girl. The attitudes I have read about her really disturb me. I have tried to talk about teenagers generally.
"I don’t like it when young women wear revealing clothing."
"I would defend them."
As would I. I would expect any decent human being to do so.
"I would have to say to you that it really doesn’t matter what message we want to send with our clothing. I can guarantee you that the message you will never be sending is “Rape me”, or “Abuse me”."
I completely agree.
Then, your point would be?
Tess thinks that promiscuity leads to an inability to form long-lasting monogamous relationships (quoting her blog here, which normally I would avoid, but since she linked to it upthread...). I'm not sure how we get from 'short skirt' to 'promiscuous', though, and since several people have already asked that question to no avail, I presume we're SOL.
"So what is your objection to young people in short skirts if you realise it is not harmful? Seriously, if you don’t think that they are “asking for it” I don’t grasp what your issue is. Because if it is just that sometimes teenagers act sexual, you won’t win that battle. See: the youth of ALWAYS."
I don't think anyone ever "asks" for rape, no matter how anyone ever dresses. Rape is always the fault of the rapist.
I don't agree with schools allowing kids to dress in a sexually provocative way. I think adults have a duty to tamp down raging hormones until kids grow up and their rational brains kick in. Well at least until 18, although as someone said the brain fully matures later.
We won't win the battle about a lot of things, doesn't mean we should agree with them.
So Tess, when parents don't have issues with the way their kids dress, teachers should step in and tell the kids how to dress for them? What about when parents don't want their kids informed about how to keep themselves safe from sexually transmitted diseases?
"I’m not sure how we get from ‘short skirt’ to ‘promiscuous’, though..."
Short skirts highlight the upper thighs. They skim just below the buttocks. As a woman walks in a short skirt her hip movement is accentuated and her thighs can be seen rubbing one another.
None of this causes promiscuity.
However it does send a sexual signal. I'm saying we should reign in teenagers from giving out sexual signals. If you disagree with me, fine.
Tess thinks that promiscuity leads to an inability to form long-lasting monogamous relationships
Hang on. I’ll just tell my husband of 18 years that one. Yep. Thought so. He’s laughing like a drain. And may I just add, to anyone who may think similarly, my former promiscuity may very well have saved my marriage. Because when someone goes through intense chemo and radio, and it ravages the body, let's just say you're left with your memories. Apparently, I had enough promiscuous sex to last me a lifetime. Just as well, really.
"So Tess, when parents don’t have issues with the way their kids dress, teachers should step in and tell the kids how to dress for them?"
No, unless it is breaking school rules. Teachers only have domain over the uniform rules when it comes to how kids dress.
"What about when parents don’t want their kids informed about how to keep themselves safe from sexually transmitted diseases?"
I don't have a problem with teenagers and sex education. Personally I think it's a parent's job to teach their kids moral values about sexuality. Factual information is just that, factual. Disease vectors are just science.
The someone was me Tess - because when society calls a person 'adult' has varied enormously over the years, and the expectations of what - for instance, teenage people of the gamut of sexes were capable of in Victorian times, is extremely different to expectations today.
It was wholly normal in the late 1940s/beginning of the 1950s, for subadult females
(in one understanding of the term 'adult') to have several children.
One of my ancestors had a child at 15, and was a grandmother in her very early 30s.
None of the - thoroughly normal sexual behaviour from the beginning of our kind of humanity- really has fuckall to do with adulthood or "provocative" dress.
Your friendly local asexual who really doesnt give a fuck-
Islander - I think we need to take it on how we view adulthood in our society now. I agree adulthood has changed and I dare say will change again. I dare say some are fully mature earlier than others. Right now society has determined 18 to be adult. Whether it will stay at that age or not is up for grabs really.
Right now society has determined 16 to be the age of consent. 18 is for alcohol and voting.
We deem children criminally responsible way lower than sexually responsible-
I’m saying we should reign in teenagers from giving out sexual signals.
Catholicism, raging against biology for 2000 years.
And also, really? How in god's name are you going to stop kids from giving out sexual signals? They have hormones, and pheromones, and let's face it, biologically speaking they are hardwired and supposed to give out sexual signals. From about the age of 12 or so, actually.
Catholicism, raging against biology for 2000 years.
Then when you do get married, they want you to have sex only for procreation. Just as well nobody listens to Pope Dorothy really.
(Fun fact: the country with the lowest natality rate in the world is - drumroll please - Italy.)
Come on Kyle, it's not like you to play the player not the ball.