NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html

4th-Grader Protests Miniskirt Dress Code
Girl, Mom Says Miniskirt OK

UPPER ST. CLAIR, Pa. -- A 10-year-old fourth-grader is protesting a rule by her school that bans miniskirts.

Zoe Hinkle and her mother, Leslie, said there is nothing wrong with the skirt, if there are shorts sewn underneath.

Steams Elementary in Upper St. Clair has a policy that said skirts that rise to mid-thigh level are just too short.

The school said the dress code imposes limits on clothes that disrupt the educational process or cause a safety hazard.

Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?

Actually, yes.

Watch Nickelodeon in the UK, at 7:30.
Look at commercials in which you do get some girl of about 10 kitted out like adult - and making that kind of face at the camera. It was a commercial for some kind of new make-up-ready barbydoll.

I think it is a problem.

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?

Though my wife teaches 6th grade, I would have to say from knowing of the students she deals with a resounding "YES!". A majority of her own students (at 12 years of age) are already sexually active; a concept mind-boggling to myself, as at 12 I was still playing with G.I. Joes....

Well just to have a pitch in here, i do not believe it to be that strange and yes it does happen, nearly everyone i know in my english class at school is sexually active bar 4 people. there are 22 in the class.so 18 are active and the oldest in the room is 16, the majority lost virginity at 12-14, me 16, i stuck to the law :) so yes and when i was 12 sexual instincts had definately kicked in.

Actually, yes.

Watch Nickelodeon in the UK, at 7:30.
Look at commercials in which you do get some girl of about 10 kitted out like adult - and making that kind of face at the camera. It was a commercial for some kind of new make-up-ready barbydoll.

I think it is a problem.I personally blame the little "Aw, they're so cute together!" mentality of mothers when the kids should be screaming "Cooties!" at eachother.

Are bare legs distracting to 10-year-olds? I seem to remember noticing legs for the first time around fourteen...

I personally blame the little "Aw, they're so cute together!" mentality of mothers when the kids should be screaming "Cooties!" at eachother.


But they are so cute when they're screaming 'Cooties!' together!

Actually, yes.

Watch Nickelodeon in the UK, at 7:30.
Look at commercials in which you do get some girl of about 10 kitted out like adult - and making that kind of face at the camera. It was a commercial for some kind of new make-up-ready barbydoll.

I think it is a problem.

How is it a problem? Because children are supposed to be innocent and ignorant and untainted?

'cuz they aren't, and shouldn't be.

Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?

Dunno ... she got titties?

Are bare legs distracting to 10-year-olds? I seem to remember noticing legs for the first time around fourteen...

You're discounting the effect it might have on the perverts who work for the school system.

Though my wife teaches 6th grade, I would have to say from knowing of the students she deals with a resounding "YES!". A majority of her own students (at 12 years of age) are already sexually active; a concept mind-boggling to myself, as at 12 I was still playing with G.I. Joes....

I don't buy it. Kids saying they are active and actually being active is quite different. To hear it out the mouths of my friends, everyone in the my highschool had sex before we started high school, at least all of the guys did. Quick question - In 1988, what percentage of kids in the average high school ACTUALLY were sexually active? I suspect it's much higher now, but it's not a majority at 12. No way. Sorry, but you'd have to show me some proof, because I'm calling BS.

Are bare legs distracting to 10-year-olds?

It's not the 10 year olds we need to worry about.

Is it just me or is some people trying to censor everything these days. First they tell us words that we can't say because they are offencive to other religions and races and now they are telling us what not to wear. I think Global PC has gone to far.

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?

As long as the codes are applied evenly, I think there should be nothing to say. Personally, I think a school could require pants if they like and no one really has anything to say about that. Public schools are permitted to have dress codes provided they aren't sexist. I, personally, was sent home a couple of times for having shorts that were too short. We were required to have a hem that was lower than where your fingers touch on your legs. I have long arms and had to change a couple of time. Even application = no reason to complain.

I think Global PC has gone to far.

Yes ... because we should allow 10 year olds to tart themselves up so dirty old men can oggle and offer candy ...

But they are so cute when they're screaming 'Cooties!' together!Not in those awful Aaron Carter music clips... *shudder*

Are bare legs distracting to 10-year-olds? I seem to remember noticing legs for the first time around fourteen...

Given that they are talking about a school dress code, you would have to consider the oldest students in the school. You wouldn't expect them to allow students in one grade to wear things that students in a later grade could not. The students would protest it that much more than if they had been under that restriction the whole way.

You're discounting the effect it might have on the perverts who work for the school system.

Unfortunately, that's probably what people are more worried about.

If a ten year old in a miniskirt is distracting to you maybe her clothing isn't the problem. Maybe you need some professional help. Or maybe we just need to start passing out Burqas.

Given that they are talking about a school dress code, you would have to consider the oldest students in the school. You wouldn't expect them to allow students in one grade to wear things that students in a later grade could not. The students would protest it that much more than if they had been under that restriction the whole way.

Not to mention, what's the age where the cutoff happens? I think setting an age limit makes it more about sexualization of our youth. Simply setting a dress code for the entire district makes it about just setting a standard of dress. Almost everyone has them. I don't know about anyone else (shut up, lifeguards) but I can't show up to work in a bathing suit. There are standards of dress. Why is that so controversial or about being 'too PC'?

A girl in a miniskirt might be too distracting for any male teachers anyways. Not to mention that the grades of all the students in that class would likely suffer as a result…well except for the girl in the miniskirt.

i dont know about the middle of the thigh thing...i sure would hate to be the male teacher required to take out a ruler to measure THAT. (my nephew was told to police the 8th grade girls wearing too short a top by having them raise their hands over their heads to see if it climbed to high. he refused)

but parents buy their little girls clothing so sleazy that it shouldnt be worn in the back yard much less to school. skirts that start below the pubic bone and end a few inches later. *shudder* SOMEONE has to let those poor girls know that there are standards of decency in the world. if they wear that at 10, what are they going to wear when they decide its time to start attracting male attention?

Dress code? Fine. If the school wants to say "business casual", or "no torn clothes", fine. But when you start legislating how high skirts can go, and how low tops can go, and how much belly must be covered, and how low pants may ride...

Of course, a nudist is probably not the best person to ask about this :cool:

Yes ... because we should allow 10 year olds to tart themselves up so dirty old men can oggle and offer candy ...

Did'nt think of that, but now you mention it I think it might be a good Idea to introduce Military errr... I mean School Uniforms and before you ask all thoses who don't wear them should be punished.

Why does a 10-year old need to wear a mini skirt? I'm not going to complain if the school doesn't let her. Schools have the right to put dress codes in place that they feel is necessary for education to be successful. Hell, my old high school just made uniforms mandatory throughout the entire district. Taking it too far in my opinion but it just shows that the school can take action where dress is concerned.

Blame Britney Spears! Thanks I think largely to her I've seen girls who must be no older than 8 wearing shorts that are barely underwear and shirts that have sexual matters written on it. I think it tells wonders for our society when parents feel perfectly fine letting their children wear crap like that.

6? THat's not bad!

http://www.cafepress.com/ghastly_twnow.6123649

Blame Britney Spears! Thanks I think largely to her I've seen girls who must be no older than 8 wearing shorts that are barely underwear and shirts that have sexual matters written on it. I think it tells wonders for our society when parents feel perfectly fine letting their children wear crap like that.Blame Aaron Carter. He was around earlier and attracted that young audience.

Why does a 10-year old need to wear a mini skirt? I'm not going to complain if the school doesn't let her. Schools have the right to put dress codes in place that they feel is necessary for education to be successful. Hell, my old high school just made uniforms mandatory throughout the entire district. Taking it too far in my opinion but it just shows that the school can take action where dress is concerned.

Blame Britney Spears! Thanks I think largely to her I've seen girls who must be no older than 8 wearing shorts that are barely underwear and shirts that have sexual matters written on it. I think it tells wonders for our society when parents feel perfectly fine letting their children wear crap like that.

I think that people forget that some 10-year-olds are well into puberty. It's rare, but it happens. What should they do? Single out the pubescent 10-year-old or just pass a general rule? When I was a kid I had a friend that outgrew her mother's bras at 7. Yeah, SEVEN! She was thin and looked like she constantly falling forward. I think most 7-year-olds could play in the sprinkler with no top on and there is no danger of anyone really noticing or caring, but this little girl definitely needed to keep her shirt on from the time she started school.

Dress code? Fine. If the school wants to say "business casual", or "no torn clothes", fine. But when you start legislating how high skirts can go, and how low tops can go, and how much belly must be covered, and how low pants may ride...

Of course, a nudist is probably not the best person to ask about this :cool:

Start legislating? When did they stop? I actually disagree with American standards on nudity, but asking that people cover a minimal part of their body while at work or school is completely reasonable.

Why does a 10-year old need to wear a mini skirt? I'm not going to complain if the school doesn't let her. Schools have the right to put dress codes in place that they feel is necessary for education to be successful. Hell, my old high school just made uniforms mandatory throughout the entire district. Taking it too far in my opinion but it just shows that the school can take action where dress is concerned.

Blame Britney Spears! Thanks I think largely to her I've seen girls who must be no older than 8 wearing shorts that are barely underwear and shirts that have sexual matters written on it. I think it tells wonders for our society when parents feel perfectly fine letting their children wear crap like that.

Parents are an endangered species in the United States.

Parents are an endangered species in the United States.

Don't you mean the ones that care?

I think that people forget that some 10-year-olds are well into puberty. It's rare, but it happens. What should they do? Single out the pubescent 10-year-old or just pass a general rule? When I was a kid I had a friend that outgrew her mother's bras at 7. Yeah, SEVEN! She was thin and looked like she constantly falling forward. I think most 7-year-olds could play in the sprinkler with no top on and there is no danger of anyone really noticing or caring, but this little girl definitely needed to keep her shirt on from the time she started school.

All the more reason to enforce some kind of modesty. When you turn 18 you can dress however you want but as a kid, especially one so young? That's why we have parents and schools right? I agree with the post above. Parents are endangered since they don't feel like actually parenting anymore. :(

You know, if everyone just accepted the wearing of short skirts and women going about topless, no one would give a shit eventually. Hell, in Europe they don't seem to care for the most part.

Also, if she's wearing skorts, then she might as well be wearing shorts, which for girls are generally well above the knee. We're not even discussing mini-skirts anymore.

I think that people forget that some 10-year-olds are well into puberty. It's rare, but it happens. What should they do? Single out the pubescent 10-year-old or just pass a general rule? When I was a kid I had a friend that outgrew her mother's bras at 7. Yeah, SEVEN! She was thin and looked like she constantly falling forward. I think most 7-year-olds could play in the sprinkler with no top on and there is no danger of anyone really noticing or caring, but this little girl definitely needed to keep her shirt on from the time she started school.
You know, shit like that is why my future kids will be eating organic meat, none of this hormone injected crap.

You know, if everyone just accepted the wearing of short skirts and women going about topless, no one would give a shit eventually. Hell, in Europe they don't seem to care for the most part.

Also, if she's wearing skorts, then she might as well be wearing shorts, which for girls are generally well above the knee. We're not even discussing mini-skirts anymore.

I totally agree, but do they allow children to be topless in school in Europe?

Is it just me or is some people trying to censor everything these days. First they tell us words that we can't say because they are offencive to other religions and races and now they are telling us what not to wear. I think Global PC has gone to far.
I do too, but PC has nothing to do with sexual activity or even short skirts.

You know, shit like that is why my future kids will be eating organic meat, none of this hormone injected crap.

That's what I think too. We inject cows with hormones to make them produce more milk, bigger udders. Why is it so surprising that suddenly all our kids have these giant boobs. I remember in high school there were a couple of girls with large breasts in the whole class of 300. Have you been to a high school lately? It's a poor neighborhood so they aren't all fake. That can't just a natural phenomena. I also notice how fat the boys have gotten. We had a couple of obese people in our class and now it's the majority of the class. Something has got to give or we're going to have a life expectancy in the US of like 30.

That's what I think too. We inject cows with hormones to make them produce more milk, bigger udders. Why is it so surprising that suddenly all our kids have these giant boobs. I remember in high school there were a couple of girls with large breasts in the whole class of 300. Have you been to a high school lately? It's a poor neighborhood so they aren't all fake. That can't just a natural phenomena. I also notice how fat the boys have gotten. We had a couple of obese people in our class and now it's the majority of the class. Something has got to give or we're going to have a life expectancy in the US of like 30.

I think the government tacitly encourages obesity in the hope that it'll act like smoking used to.

I do too, but PC has nothing to do with sexual activity or even short skirts.

Who wants to hurt their children's independence by telling them that wearing such clothing at such a young age is something they shouldn't do? You know they are supporting it, it's not like 10 year olds have indepenent sources of income. Parents are buying their kids this stuff! Perhaps parents need to actually teach their kids something instead of letting society teach them for them? Are parents too lazy to sit their kids down and talk to them?

Is it just me or is some people trying to censor everything these days. First they tell us words that we can't say because they are offencive to other religions and races and now they are telling us what not to wear. I think Global PC has gone to far.

It's called a dress code, by gosh. Places of business have them, they must be restricting their employees rights! My god! The horror.

Now, I'm a huge advocate of free speech, but come on. A dress code is meant for a reason(And infact most dress codes are extremely lenient as far as what you can wear-barring only sexual provocative clothing or offensive clothing).

And dress codes are meant for a reason as well-it helps keep order in class and remove distraction. There is no reason to have mini-skirts in school. Kids are there to learn, not pick chicks up.

Kids are there to learn, not pick chicks up.

Now I know why high school was not my finest hour.

Now I know why high school was not my finest hour.

I actually find the social parts of school to be a very important part of education, including 'picking chicks up'. I think this is one of the issues with home schooling. We should learn to work through distractions and to deal with other people in all the situations that we might encounter in our future jobs. Team projects, competition, dating, etc. However, it should be relatively similar. There are very few jobs where your education matters where you can wear a mini-skirt of a tied-off Britney Spears shirt.

Who wants to hurt their children's independence by telling them that wearing such clothing at such a young age is something they shouldn't do? You know they are supporting it, it's not like 10 year olds have indepenent sources of income. Parents are buying their kids this stuff! Perhaps parents need to actually teach their kids something instead of letting society teach them for them? Are parents too lazy to sit their kids down and talk to them?

It's a growing movement among parents, from what I've seen, to be "friends" before being "parents". Parents want their kids to like them-regardless of the effects that it may pose. They don't punish their kids much any more, get them anything they want, let them do whatever they want. In a nutshell-spoil them rotten.

The other one, and this may sound sexist(which, mind you, is not the intention), is that it is becoming more and more popular for both parents to have jobs. This leaves children to be raised by baby-sitters and daycares. Parents these days just don't have the time for their kids. Kids need at least one parent at home, giving them attention. In the past that role went to wives generally. However, as more and more wives are having occupations of their own, children are not having the parental contact they need at earlier ages. So, without stay at home parents(Male or female-either one will indeed do), kids lack a lot of direction they are supposed to gain at this time.

So, in the end much of what is wrong with children these days is not TV's Fault, it's not Video Game's fault, it's not society's fault, its PARENTS fault. Of course, everybody likes to shuffle blame away from them, and like to enter a state of denial. "It's not my fault, I didn't raise em! I let society do that."

It's called a dress code, by gosh. Places of business have them, they must be restricting their employees rights! My god! The horror.

Now, I'm a huge advocate of free speech, but come on. A dress code is meant for a reason(And infact most dress codes are extremely lenient as far as what you can wear-barring only sexual provocative clothing or offensive clothing).

And dress codes are meant for a reason as well-it helps keep order in class and remove distraction. There is no reason to have mini-skirts in school. Kids are there to learn, not pick chicks up.

It just seems odd to me that the mayority of people can't accept that the human species is just very quickly turned on. And why is that so often considered a bad thing? It's just natural.

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?

Well skorts are a fashion trend and this was one such article then I have nothing wrong with it.

Upper St. Clair is a well to do neighborhood but I do not really know what side of Pittsburgh they are on.

Damn Quad A schools.

I actually find the social parts of school to be a very important part of education, including 'picking chicks up'. I think this is one of the issues with home schooling. We should learn to work through distractions and to deal with other people in all the situations that we might encounter in our future jobs. Team projects, competition, dating, etc. However, it should be relatively similar. There are very few jobs where your education matters where you can wear a mini-skirt of a tied-off Britney Spears shirt.

Oh definately. I didn't mean that it was to be a cold, desolate, learning-land. However, what I meant, was that schools these days seem to be ONLY for "picking up chicks" or "hanging out with friends"(at least in the eyes of students), and much of the "learning" aspect is ignored(Once again by students).

This is why I endorse at least a rough dress code(In other words, certain things you can't wear-such as sexually provocative clothing). You're primary for being at school is to learn and gain experience-certain types of clothing are meant solely to distract people from this. It's difficult to learn, work in groups, etc., when one of the students dresses in clothing that is meant to distract you(Which is what mini-skirts are for, distracting the male eye).

Off school grounds? Parents choice. On school grounds? Schools choice.

Simple as that.

It just seems odd to me that the mayority of people can't accept that the human species is just very quickly turned on. And why is that so often considered a bad thing? It's just natural.

So is hemlock.

I actually find the social parts of school to be a very important part of education, including 'picking chicks up'. I think this is one of the issues with home schooling.

Is this a wise crack against homeschooling?

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?
You'd be suprised. Almost everything has a sexual connotation these days. You should of read those articles about that one chick who got tossed in jail for pedophilia because she was giving her baby baths. Talk about witchhunts.

It just seems odd to me that the mayority of people can't accept that the human species is just very quickly turned on. And why is that so often considered a bad thing? It's just natural.

Gah... not the point I was trying to getting across. I'm not saying it's bad to be turned on or be attracted to people. However, in school, there are other priorities than trying to gain the attention of the opposite sex. Save it for you're own time(Such as lunch hour, between class periods, before/after school, etc-you can still be social in school). What I am saying is that certain types of clothing(Mini-skirts for example) are meant solely to distract the opposite sex, and thus disrupt the processes of school.

I don't know, maybe it's just me. I don't get hung up on "OMG! SHE IS HOT!" conversations, and staring at a girl's ass for ten minutes whilst zoning the world out, so maybe I find it more distracting than most?

Though my wife teaches 6th grade, I would have to say from knowing of the students she deals with a resounding "YES!". A majority of her own students (at 12 years of age) are already sexually active; a concept mind-boggling to myself, as at 12 I was still playing with G.I. Joes....
Holy Crap? You mean to say you was totally asexual and you abosolutely no feelings or thoughts toward members of the other gender? I started feeling it when I was about 12/13. As I am sure all the other normal people do.

It's not the 10 year olds we need to worry about.

as long as she stays away from the dept of homeland security it should all be ok

Is this a wise crack against homeschooling?

I don't think I was cracking wise. I think it's a definite problem with homeschooling. I have met several homeschooled adults and I think this is generally where they are lacking. In many cases, they had great book knowledge, much better than the average public school student for sure. But when I was in high school, I had to try to tame my raging hormones, balance sports, studies and a social life, all generally within the halls of my school. My social life affected my studies all day long. So did sports. I had to learn to balance the many aspects of my life and find a moderation and it's a skill I use every day to this day. Homeschooled children (the ones who generally study alone or only with their siblings) often have a more compartmentalized life and I think this does not as nearly emulate what is expected of us in life.

Are bare legs distracting to 10-year-olds? I seem to remember noticing legs for the first time around fourteen...
I began noticing them when I was 7. What the heck took you so long?

Holy Crap? You mean to say you was totally asexual and you abosolutely no feelings or thoughts toward members of the other gender? I started feeling it when I was about 12/13. As I am sure all the other normal people do.

Starting to like girls in high school is not abnormal. When you start to be attracted to others is very dependent on when your hormones start. There may be general ranges of when this usually happens, but suggesting that "all the other normal people" are doing something different than the poster you are replying to is incorrect. I personally didn't hit puberty until my first year of high school. Until that happened, at fourteen, I did not even consider being sexually active.

I don't think I was cracking wise. I think it's a definite problem with homeschooling. I have met several homeschooled adults and I think this is generally where they are lacking. In many cases, they had great book knowledge, much better than the average public school student for sure. But when I was in high school, I had to try to tame my raging hormones, balance sports, studies and a social life, all generally within the halls of my school. My social life affected my studies all day long. So did sports. I had to learn to balance the many aspects of my life and find a moderation and it's a skill I use every day to this day. Homeschooled children (the ones who generally study alone or only with their siblings) often have a more compartmentalized life and I think this does not as nearly emulate what is expected of us in life.

I was homeschooled who attended the highschool for 2 non-core classes and ran track and X Crountry. I was also in the school choir too. To tell you the truth, I never had any problems with controling "raging horomones" (a phrase over used) I never thought about it nor cared about it. Why? Because I was there to learn. I was there to get educated in what I couldn't get educated at home. Those who think about sex are the people that should be watched more closely. I never thought about it and treated all girls in school with the same respect as I was brought up to do. I told the guys on the Track team to shut their traps because of what they were saying about the girls on the track team. I was raised to be a gentleman.

Most of the homeschoolers I associated with never had this problem at all. We mingled with one another all the time for tests and meetings.

Is this a wise crack against homeschooling?

Actually it's a common criticism. Now, I haven't a single problem with Home-schooling, as long as the parent knows what he/she is doing, and is actually qualified enough to do so. Homeschoolers must be able to provide their child not only with knowledge needed, but also must be able to provide their children with many of the social aspect of public schools. I have met some pretty messed up homeschooled people(And some pretty normal ones) who could hardly deal with "the real world" because their parents never thought to provide them many of the experiences which are gained in public schools. Also, another problem which I have witnessed with SOME homeschooled people, is a complete lack of diversity. What I mean, is that these people cannot cope with diversity at all. They have their set view of how everything should be run, and any tangent is considered a personal attack towards them or their system, and many of these people just can't cope.

Note-I do know this may seem as pointing out only the bad, however that is the point of my post. I will be the first to admit that homeschooling can have significant advantages-if done be the right parents.

Yes ... because we should allow 10 year olds to tart themselves up so dirty old men can oggle and offer candy ...
nothing wrong with oggling. Free speech you know. But the offering candy part... a no no. Beside why would you want to give candy to some kid you don't know? It makes for a bad situation in both directions.

Unfortunately, that's probably what people are more worried about.
Except that its already a crime to hire pedis to work in a school.

I totally agree, but do they allow children to be topless in school in Europe?
I doubt it.

But still, we aren't even talking about a mini skirt, we're talking about shorts that look like they're a skirt.

Who wants to hurt their children's independence by telling them that wearing such clothing at such a young age is something they shouldn't do? You know they are supporting it, it's not like 10 year olds have indepenent sources of income. Parents are buying their kids this stuff! Perhaps parents need to actually teach their kids something instead of letting society teach them for them? Are parents too lazy to sit their kids down and talk to them?


Parents think nothing of putting their kids in a mini-skirt, halter top, thong underwear (teacher told that a girl was beign made fun of because she didn't have a thong and her mom wouldn't buy one. The girls were having "national thong day") and make-up worse than a street walker. Parents allow, or force, their kids to dress like adults and then expect them not to act like what they see. I recall watching a documentary on HBO called "Middle School Kids" and watching the naivity of the parents with disgust. While talking to the parents at night, the social worker asked a mother of a 12 yr old girl what appropriate sexual contact was for her child. She said she thinks "french" kissing would be the upper level of what she'd accept. Come to find out, byt the girl's own admission and the reports of her male classmates, she was performing oral sex on anyone smart enough to pull it out. Every single one of the parents was dead wrong when it came to their little angel. These kids don't have jobs to buy suggestive clothing, make-up, etc. so place the blame where it belongs.

"Don't blame me when little Eric jumps off of the terrace, you should've been watching him, apparently you ain't parents" -Eminem

"...two kids shot up a school because of something I wrote... I must have missed when they snuck in my basement, took all of my guns and both of my trench coats." -Eminem

I doubt it.

But still, we aren't even talking about a mini skirt, we're talking about shorts that look like they're a skirt.

I don't care if it's a skirt, shorts, or a skort. If it's too short, it's too short. On guys, on girls, on teenagers, and pre-teens, whatever. Set a standard for what's acceptable at school in your district and keep it. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a part of that standard that the clothing has to be above a certain point.

Except that its already a crime to hire pedis to work in a school.

Problem is, it's hard to tell if someone is a pedophile if they haven't been caught.

However, thing is, pedophiles don't really care if a child "sexes themselves up", so to speak. They are usually attracted regardless. Dressing provocatively may entice them more, but they will act regardless, really.

What I'm more worried about is trying to keep order and respect in schools, which is only problem regarding this kind of dressing. Pedophilia will likely occur no matter what(unfortunately).

I don't care if it's a skirt, shorts, or a skort. If it's too short, it's too short. On guys, on girls, on teenagers, and pre-teens, whatever. Set a standard for what's acceptable at school in your district and keep it. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a part of that standard that the clothing has to be below a certain point.

This i'll agree with.

I was homeschooled who attended the highschool for 2 non-core classes and ran track and X Crountry. I was also in the school choir too. To tell you the truth, I never had any problems with controling "raging horomones" (a phrase over used) I never thought about it nor cared about it. Why? Because I was there to learn. I was there to get educated in what I couldn't get educated at home. Those who think about sex are the people that should be watched more closely. I never thought about it and treated all girls in school with the same respect as I was brought up to do. I told the guys on the Track team to shut their traps because of what they were saying about the girls on the track team. I was raised to be a gentleman.

Most of the homeschoolers I associated with never had this problem at all. We mingled with one another all the time for tests and meetings.

I think it's fairly unusual for homeschoolers to get a good social education. As stated, it's a common criticism and, I believe, deserved. I have met few homeschoolers who were socially-balanced, and I'd call you the exception. I think the fact that you took classes at the high school helped. My friends who were homeschooled took no classes at a regular school and either learned everything at home or by going to tiny little classes with other parents. I'll tell you what, show me the company where you'll get that kind of individual attention. I know I've never worked for one.

Homeschoolers are getting much more of a specific education. They are less subject to opposing points of view, generally your parents get to decide exactly what views you are exposed to. They are less subject to meeting different kinds of families. They are less subject to 'alternative' lifestyles (here, I mean a mother than works and a father than doesn't, divorced parents, children of other races, other religions, etc.). There are a lot of limitations which while for some they are the attraction, for me, means that the education is less useful in a real world environment.

Problem is, it's hard to tell if someone is a pedophile if they haven't been caught.

However, thing is, pedophiles don't really care if a child "sexes themselves up", so to speak. They are usually attracted regardless. Dressing provocatively may entice them more, but they will act regardless, really.

What I'm more worried about is trying to keep order and respect in schools, which is only problem regarding this kind of dressing. Pedophilia will likely occur no matter what(unfortunately).

Actually, I think pedophiles prefer children to look innocent and like children, not the other way around. If they were attracted to people who looked like adults, why not simply be with adults?

I think it's fairly unusual for homeschoolers to get a good social education. As stated, it's a common criticism and, I believe, deserved.

then you know nothing about homeschoolers or home schooling in general.

I have met few homeschoolers who were socially-balanced, and I'd call you the exception. I think the fact that you took classes at the high school helped.

The school board allowed us to do so because we pay their salaries. Now I believe it is statewide now here in the state of Pennsylvania.

Homeschoolers are getting much more of a specific education. They are less subject to opposing points of view, generally your parents get to decide exactly what views you are exposed to.

My education was more geared to be being a meteorologist. Though meteorology didn't pan out for me :(, I still was prepared mostly for college life.

They are less subject to meeting different kinds of families. They are less subject to 'alternative' lifestyles (here, I mean a mother than works and a father than doesn't, divorced parents, children of other races, other religions, etc.). There are a lot of limitations which while for some they are the attraction, for me, means that the education is less useful in a real world environment.

Actually, there are a ton of opportunities for homeschoolers that you never hear about.

Parents think nothing of putting their kids in a mini-skirt, halter top, thong underwear (teacher told that a girl was beign made fun of because she didn't have a thong and her mom wouldn't buy one. The girls were having "national thong day") and make-up worse than a street walker. Parents allow, or force, their kids to dress like adults and then expect them not to act like what they see. I recall watching a documentary on HBO called "Middle School Kids" and watching the naivity of the parents with disgust. While talking to the parents at night, the social worker asked a mother of a 12 yr old girl what appropriate sexual contact was for her child. She said she thinks "french" kissing would be the upper level of what she'd accept. Come to find out, byt the girl's own admission and the reports of her male classmates, she was performing oral sex on anyone smart enough to pull it out. Every single one of the parents was dead wrong when it came to their little angel. These kids don't have jobs to buy suggestive clothing, make-up, etc. so place the blame where it belongs.

Parents don't like to blame themselves. Nobody does, really. Also, everybody likes to believe their child is a "perfect angel". It's easier to deal with. Perfect Angels don't cause problems.

The other thing is, as I pointed out before, is that parents want to be "friends" with their kids. It's easier to be a friend than a parent. My dad was a hard-ass while I was growing up(and some of it was a bit ridiculous, won't go into details here though), and at the time I hated him for it. Looking back, I see that he was trying to protect my best interests, and that I am a better person for it. I'd rather have a father than a friend.


"Don't blame me when little Eric jumps off of the terrace, you should've been watching him, apparently you ain't parents" -Eminem

"...two kids shot up a school because of something I wrote... I must have missed when they snuck in my basement, took all of my guns and both of my trench coats." -Eminem

Exactly that. With regards to columbine, blame is put on alot of people(For the actual shooting-the two shooters obviously, but others need to accept responsibility for parts of it). For instance, they were building the bombs in their rooms. How the hell do parents not pick up on this? Do they never go in thier kids rooms? Do they not take any interest in their kid's lives at all to even suspect that there may be something wrong(not necessarily homicidal maniac, but perhaps mental issues associated with shutout)? They used their backyards to practice shooting. Did their parents not grow a bit of concern at this point? I mean seriously, there must have been warning signs.

Actually, I think pedophiles prefer children to look innocent and like children, not the other way around. If they were attracted to people who looked like adults, why not simply be with adults?

That's a good point. However, I'm not going to go further on this, as I am hardly an expert on the mind of pedophiles, and how they work, and thus cannot make a truly informed comment on this issue. Anything I say would be complete conjecture on this particular issue. That, and I have class now, so I can't really put my insight on it.

whoa shit...thats not cool man. Thats jsut f*ed up ya'know. I know some people in my class (ages 15-16) are dating like 22 year olds. Illegal and shit so this should become more noticed. the society it f*ing up everything now man. At 12 I wasn't thinking of that, of course at 12 I was also manicly depressed and in therapy or somthin like that...cant remember right now.

whoa shit...thats not cool man. Thats jsut f*ed up ya'know. I know some people in my class (ages 15-16) are dating like 22 year olds. Illegal and shit so this should become more noticed. the society it f*ing up everything now man. At 12 I wasn't thinking of that, of course at 12 I was also manicly depressed and in therapy or somthin like that...cant remember right now.

care to say this without all the unintelligable use of language?

then you know nothing about homeschoolers or home schooling in general.

Yes, because your experience is exactly like every other homeschooler. I guess my friends were lying when they said they were homeschooling. Defensive much?

The school board allowed us to do so because we pay their salaries. Now I believe it is statewide now here in the state of Pennsylvania.

I'm aware that it is available. I think that given that many parents do not want to expose their children to public schools it's not unusual for parents to not take advantage of the opportunity.

My education was more geared to be being a meteorologist. Though meteorology didn't pan out for me :(, I still was prepared mostly for college life.

I agree that in terms of knowledge, homeschooling is frequently superior, particularly if you fall outside of the middle of the bell curve. My mother was a teacher and I had older siblings so when I showed up to my first day of school already skilled in reading, writing and basic math, the school's response was to have me spend the day with a book of puzzles, filling them out. Public schools suffer because they must be general enough to meet the needs of the general public. Homeschools often suffer from being to specialized.

Actually, there are a ton of opportunities for homeschoolers that you never hear about.
I agree there are a ton of opportunities for homeschoolers. I think it is very possible to do it very well and very much meet then needs of the child. I simply think that it is often poorly executed. You gave an example in yourself of what is possible. I don't think homeschooling itself is inherently flawed. I do think that it gives some parents an almost scary ability to limit the exposure of their children.

Problem is, it's hard to tell if someone is a pedophile if they haven't been caught.

I need to ask if you're talking about pedophiles, or child molesters? There is a difference. Neither category is rerequisite for the other, and I hate the two terms being used interchangably.

However, thing is, pedophiles don't really care if a child "sexes themselves up", so to speak. They are usually attracted regardless. Dressing provocatively may entice them more, but they will act regardless, really.

Your ignorance on these matters is annoying, if not entirely surprising.

1) A child "sexing themselves up" is actually a turn off for some pedophiles. (Me for example.)

2) I find "they will act regardless" to be offensive. Unless you believe that any normal heterosexual man will rape someone if denied sex long enough, you have zero right to make an analogous statement about pedophiles.

What I'm more worried about is trying to keep order and respect in schools, which is only problem regarding this kind of dressing.

I absolutely agree with you on this point. Dress codes (annoying as they are) are in place to provide a guideline for what is and is not appropriate in polite society, even if their parents don't understand what is and isn't appropriate in polite society. Just because your kids aren't being propositioned because they dress like a whore at 10, don't think that the "fassion sense" you're teaching them now won't carry over to when they're more developed.

Pedophilia will likely occur no matter what(unfortunately).
Completely beside the point, but I agree. It's not likely to go anywhere, and it is unfortunate that some of us are cursed with a sexual orientation that cannot be acted on in good consience.

I need to ask if you're talking about pedophiles, or child molesters? There is a difference. Neither category is rerequisite for the other, and I hate the two terms being used interchangably.

Your ignorance on these matters is annoying, if not entirely surprising.

1) A child "sexing themselves up" is actually a turn off for some pedophiles. (Me for example.)

2) I find "they will act regardless" to be offensive. Unless you believe that any normal heterosexual man will rape someone if denied sex long enough, you have zero right to make an analogous statement about pedophiles.

I absolutely agree with you on this point. Dress codes (annoying as they are) are in place to provide a guideline for what is and is not appropriate in polite society, even if their parents don't understand what is and isn't appropriate in polite society. Just because your kids aren't being propositioned because they dress like a whore at 10, don't think that the "fassion sense" you're teaching them now won't carry over to when they're more developed.

Completely beside the point, but I agree. It's not likely to go anywhere, and it is unfortunate that some of us are cursed with a sexual orientation that cannot be acted on in good consience.

I believe he is talking about child molestors and not people who are pedophiles but do not act on their predilictions. In that context, his/her statements make much more sense. His/her point is mostly that suggesting 'sexing up' a child does not change the blame from child molestors to the parents. It's much the same as suggesting a woman in a low-cut top was asking for it.

The problem here is that society in general is too sexually active, expecially now that we have AIDS. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 year olds were having sex. Heck, the record to the youngest mother was 5 years. Maybe it was 3 or 4. The point is, society is too sexually active and the problem's source is Mr. and Mrs. We-want-to-be-Junior's-friends,-not-parents. I have heard std's being bragged about. There's nothing great about having a fungus-filled dick or having the potentially fatal HIV virus. Society is all about sex, booze, and drugs now. I have seen seven year olds wearing shirts that talked about blow jobs. Listen, if you can't even take care of yourself, don't have sex. If you don't know the person, don't have sex. If you know the person has AIDS, you definitely shouldn't have sex.

I'm almost 17 years old. While I know younger people who are already pimps and prostitutes, I'm a virgin. Although I have had strong urges, I'm a virgin. I know about AIDS. I know about STDs. I know that if I have sex, I'll probably get stuck with child support as the bitch gets humped by twenty other boys.

STDs aren't honorable. AIDS isn't something to be joyous about. Teenage sex isn't good. Having sex when your future is secure and you have a secure paycheck large enough to support another mouth is. Get a future before you blow it away in a single night. Trust me. If you wait until you have a good enough life, with a secure job, a nice home, and a full stomach every night to have sex, you won't be one of those welfare parents.

The problem here is that society in general is too sexually active, expecially now that we have AIDS. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 year olds were having sex. Heck, the record to the youngest mother was 5 years. Maybe it was 3 or 4. The point is, society is too sexually active and the problem's source is Mr. and Mrs. We-want-to-be-Junior's-friends,-not-parents. I have heard std's being bragged about. There's nothing great about having a fungus-filled dick or having the potentially fatal HIV virus. Society is all about sex, booze, and drugs now. I have seen seven year olds wearing shirts that talked about blow jobs. Listen, if you can't even take care of yourself, don't have sex. If you don't know the person, don't have sex. If you know the person has AIDS, you definitely shouldn't have sex.

I'm almost 17 years old. While I know younger people who are already pimps and prostitutes, I'm a virgin. Although I have had strong urges, I'm a virgin. I know about AIDS. I know about STDs. I know that if I have sex, I'll probably get stuck with child support as the bitch gets humped by twenty other boys.

STDs aren't honorable. AIDS isn't something to be joyous about. Teenage sex isn't good. Having sex when your future is secure and you have a secure paycheck large enough to support another mouth is. Get a future before you blow it away in a single night. Trust me. If you wait until you have a good enough life, with a secure job, a nice home, and a full stomach every night to have sex, you won't be one of those welfare parents.

I'm having a difficult time replying to this with no vitriol, but I want to try.

You could do without the hyperbolous language, it destroys your point. Your attacks on the 'bitch that gets humped by twenty other boys' and 'those welfare parents' display your agenda and don't help your point, which in absense of these things would have been pretty good.

You do take all the risks you noted when having sex. It's important to be aware of them and I think it's is incredibly admirable to treat sex as if it always has the possibility of a child and making sure you can responsibily deal with that child in the event that one comes into being. Kudos.

However, I doubt there are even a reasonable percentage of girls out there just looking to trap your teenaged butt into paying not enough for them to live while they 'get humped by twenty other boys'. Getting pregnant as a teenager sucks for both parties. There is no way around that. You make it sound like it's a wonderful outcome for women to get pregnant and have to rely on the pittance they get from child support. It's simply not true.

Normaly I would be against these sort of things but
Zoe Hinkle and her mother, Leslie, said there is nothing wrong with the skirt, if there are shorts sewn underneath.


I mean the were essentialy shorts ... they just had a flap of cloth to make them look like a skirt

Normaly I would be against these sort of things but


I mean the were essentialy shorts ... they just had a flap of cloth to make them look like a skirt

That's not the point. The point is that the school considers them too short. I don't think being shorts makes them being so short acceptable. If your butt is going to stick out of a skirt, it's still going to stick out of shorts, too.

Holy Crap? You mean to say you was totally asexual and you abosolutely no feelings or thoughts toward members of the other gender? I started feeling it when I was about 12/13. As I am sure all the other normal people do.

Yes, and I was not in the minority.... This was likely quite a few years before you... I was about 14 before any sexual instincts began surfacing... The 12 year olds in my wife's classes however, are more sexually active than my HS graduating class...

That's not the point. The point is that the school considers them too short. I don't think being shorts makes them being so short acceptable. If your butt is going to stick out of a skirt, it's still going to stick out of shorts, too.
They were not talking about to that level ... Somehow I have a feeling if they were shorts they would have been dubed acceptable its just the skirt part that got them upset

They were not talking about to that level ... Somehow I have a feeling if they were shorts they would have been dubed acceptable its just the skirt part that got them upset

I doubt it. It seems she tried that argument, so I find it unlikely.

Is it me or are shorts and skirts on girls getting shorter? With boys, if you are wearing shorts that are a bit short, with the exception of swimming trunks, you will probably be called homo. Not that there's anything wrong with homosexuals. It's just similar to calling a boy a girl in his face. It's insulting. I guess a gay being called straight might get insulted.

Pretty soon, girls will probably be going out in shorts so short, you'd swear they were bikinis. It's sickening. It's also taking away the point of nudist colonies. Some people like seeing vaginas and dicks while others don't want to see those out of the bedroom/bathroom. It's society getting more and more sexual when you have one of the worst std's being spread by druggies, bleeding people, and people who didn't check before they went to "bed", hint hint. If more restraint doesn't get used, we might see half the population die of minor cuts because AIDS destroyed their immune system's ability to prevent infection. STDs aren't cool. They aren't bragging rights. Keep the sexually suggestive in the bedroom and Las Vegas, where drugs are banned because they harm the town's prostitutes and illegally underaged gamblers. I would know. I live there.:)

Is it me or are shorts and skirts on girls getting shorter? With boys, if you are wearing shorts that are a bit short, with the exception of swimming trunks, you will probably be called homo. Not that there's anything wrong with homosexuals. It's just similar to calling a boy a girl in his face. It's insulting. I guess a gay being called straight might get insulted.

Pretty soon, girls will probably be going out in shorts so short, you'd swear they were bikinis. It's sickening. It's also taking away the point of nudist colonies. Some people like seeing vaginas and dicks while others don't want to see those out of the bedroom/bathroom. It's society getting more and more sexual when you have one of the worst std's being spread by druggies, bleeding people, and people who didn't check before they went to "bed", hint hint. If more restraint doesn't get used, we might see half the population die of minor cuts because AIDS destroyed their immune system's ability to prevent infection. STDs aren't cool. They aren't bragging rights. Keep the sexually suggestive in the bedroom and Las Vegas, where drugs are banned because they harm the town's prostitutes and illegally underaged gamblers. I would know. I live there.:)

Seriously, are you unable to make a point without insulting everyone you can think of?

Is it me or are shorts and skirts on girls getting shorter? With boys, if you are wearing shorts that are a bit short, with the exception of swimming trunks, you will probably be called homo. Not that there's anything wrong with homosexuals. It's just similar to calling a boy a girl in his face. It's insulting. I guess a gay being called straight might get insulted.

Pretty soon, girls will probably be going out in shorts so short, you'd swear they were bikinis. It's sickening. It's also taking away the point of nudist colonies. Some people like seeing vaginas and dicks while others don't want to see those out of the bedroom/bathroom. It's society getting more and more sexual when you have one of the worst std's being spread by druggies, bleeding people, and people who didn't check before they went to "bed", hint hint. If more restraint doesn't get used, we might see half the population die of minor cuts because AIDS destroyed their immune system's ability to prevent infection. STDs aren't cool. They aren't bragging rights. Keep the sexually suggestive in the bedroom and Las Vegas, where drugs are banned because they harm the town's prostitutes and illegally underaged gamblers. I would know. I live there.:)


Because of course choice in clothing = sleeping around

How could I have missed that link

Seriously, are you unable to make a point without insulting everyone you can think of?Hi Jocabia.. welcome back to General.

I missed you. :fluffle:

Hi Jocabia.. welcome back to General.

I missed you. :fluffle:

I said I would be around the rest of the week. I guess you missed that gem. Oddly, I do rather enjoy talking to you when you're being friendly.

Because of course choice in clothing = sleeping around

How could I have missed that link

You didn't know? You must be a homo, or a bitch who sleeps with 20 guys, or a welfare monkey or whatever other insulting terms he used.

You didn't know? You must be a homo, or a bitch who sleeps with 20 guys, or a welfare monkey or whatever other insulting terms he used.
Its so obvious now!


Why cant people understand that sexualy loose individuals may cause them to want to dress imodestly

But dressing imodestly does not nessisarly cause them to be sexualy loose

Just because A may cause B does not mean B causes A

Dressing provocatively is almost the same as advertisement.

Dressing provocatively is almost the same as advertisement.
Only if you are coming from the flawed perspective that sexually reveling clothing = slut

The rest of us know better

Hey, even if she doesn't take slutty clothes as advertisement, some pervert will.

Hey, even if she doesn't take slutty clothes as advertisement, some pervert will.
Some perverts think diapers are an advertisement ... does that mean we should ban babies from wearing them?

Hey, even if she doesn't take slutty clothes as advertisement, some pervert will.

So she should be responsible for the illegal/immoral actions of others?

So she should be responsible for the illegal/immoral actions of others?
Hey, if you have a large group that has been using slutty clothing to advertise for a long time, you shouldn't be surprised if you get unwanted attention with revealing clothing.

I said I would be around the rest of the week. I guess you missed that gem. I guess I did..

BTW.. I was going to post something like this in your "I-am-leaving" thread...

http://www2.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~b87109/xenium/special/Simpsons_Borg.jpg
resistance is futile.. We(NS) pwn you :cool:

Hey, if you have a large group that has been using slutty clothing to advertise for a long time, you shouldn't be surprised if you get unwanted attention with revealing clothing.

So that would be a "Yes, I think they are responsible for being molested." ?

1) Kids are sexual beings. Kids are curious. Kids play sex games. It's normal. We shouldn't freak out about childhood sexuality, assuming that is the issue behind the controversy.

2) The people who work in schools have (or should have at least) gone through rigorous background checks. And the 10 year old who wears the short skirt isnt any more likely to be molested by the creepy janitor than the one in overalls. It's going to be whoever is doddling in the bathroom. Are we trying to apply the "women who are sexually assulted deserve it for dressing a certain way" to children now? Kids who are molested deserve it for wearing short skorts?

3) Maybe she doesn't like wearing pants! I hated wearing pants (or clothes for that matter) when I was a kid. I was the kid who immediately took her pants off as soon as she got home and when playing on the weekends. I wore skorts ALL OF THE TIME. And considering that I was growing rapidly, they probably were on the shortish side.

I see this entire controversy as a society reacting to their own sexualization of their children. They think that children are being sexualized because they are sexualizing them themselves.

1) Kids are sexual beings. Kids are curious. Kids play sex games. It's normal. We shouldn't freak out about childhood sexuality, assuming that is the issue behind the controversy.

2) The people who work in schools have (or should have at least) gone through rigorous background checks. And the 10 year old who wears the short skirt isnt any more likely to be molested by the creepy janitor than the one in overalls. It's going to be whoever is doddling in the bathroom. Are we trying to apply the "women who are sexually assulted deserve it for dressing a certain way" to children now? Kids who are molested deserve it for wearing short skorts?

3) Maybe she doesn't like wearing pants! I hated wearing pants (or clothes for that matter) when I was a kid. I was the kid who immediately took her pants off as soon as she got home and when playing on the weekends. I wore skorts ALL OF THE TIME. And considering that I was growing rapidly, they probably were on the shortish side.

I see this entire controversy as a society reacting to their own sexualization of their children. They think that children are being sexualized because they are sexualizing them themselves.

It's not about sexualization, it's about treating people equally. At what point is it appropriate to start having dress codes. I have them. Most high schools have them. What is the magic age where we should begin to worry about shorts or skirts that are too short?

This is ridiculous. She's breaking the dress code and should be punished accordingly. It's only because she's breaking it with a 'mini-skirt' that this has even become an issue.

And really, why does she need a mini-skirt/shorts in school? If she doesn't like wearing pants she can just wear a longer skirt. If she's trying to pull guys, then she can wait till after school to dress up.

Actually, I think I'm gonna go off on this tangent. If she did dress fairly normally then the guys would take far more notice when she did wear the mini skirt.

We have to wear uniforms, and despite what porn may have led you to believe, they aren't all that hot. However once in a while we have 'civies' days where we can wear our own clothes. And all the girls look damn good, and they're only wearing what they would on a normal day, but after seeing them in the boring uniform all the time it's quite an improvement.

Japan has been down this road.....if you don't like Japan...you'll hate America in 50 years if this continues. ^-^

Hey, if you have a large group that has been using slutty clothing to advertise for a long time, you shouldn't be surprised if you get unwanted attention with revealing clothing.

Can you cite the studies on which you base this little gem? What's the percentage of people who were molested who were wearing 'slutty' clothing? I'm pretty sure my babysitter didn't molest me because of what I was wearing, but maybe I'm the exception. Can you tell me on what actual information you base your assertions? Or is it just more sweeping and unfounded generalizations that can be found in just about every post in this thread?

Hey, even if she doesn't take slutty clothes as advertisement, some pervert will.

Some pervert could take earrings as an advertisement. Lets outlaw all piercings.

Some pervert could take a watch as an advertisement. Lets ban all watches.


:rolleyes:

Some pervert could take earrings as an advertisement. Lets outlaw all piercings.

Some pervert could take a watch as an advertisement. Lets ban all watches.


:rolleyes:

More importantly most perverts who assault children sexually do so because they look like children not little adults. His assertion goes counter to what we know about child molestors.

Look, it really doesn't matter much if a 10 year old girl is more likely to be raped depending on what she is wearing. I'm sure a child molester is a child molester no matter what.

BUT... I have a two year old daughter. And it'll be a cold day on the equater before I let her run around looking like a slut at 10 years old! The way people let their kids dress these days is compleatly awful! Yes, I know that children have sexuality. I know that around that age they start (or continue) to explore their bodies and notice certain desires. And while we shouldn't give the impression that those feelings are dirty or bad, we also shouldn't encourage sexual behavour at that age either.

A 10 year old CAN NOT handle the concequences of sex! Plain and simple! Children at that age (and for the next ten years or so) think they are invincable. Nothing bad will happen to them. They think they won't get pregnant, they won't get AIDS, they won't get any of the several other STI's. Well, they can and they do. Who want's to ruin their life at 10?

And while I can't control what someone may or may not think about my child. I certainly won't let her dress in a way that encourages sexual thoughts when she is a minor.

And that is still NOT the point. Nearly every school has certain dress codes these days and I don't think that's a bad thing. In my school (when I was there), clothing couldn't have any referance to drugs, drinking or sex. And it couldn't be too revealing (I forget the exact specifications, but it was never a problem for me). Like it or not, places have rules and everyone has to follow them. Deal.

They to are exceptions....but you don't want kids running around naked! Need I remind you that 8 girls were raped by one boy? 8-12 year old girls by one 13 year old boy? Hmm....innocent...I think not.

And that is still NOT the point. Nearly every school has certain dress codes these days and I don't think that's a bad thing. In my school (when I was there), clothing couldn't have any referance to drugs, drinking or sex. And it couldn't be too revealing (I forget the exact specifications, but it was never a problem for me). Like it or not, places have rules and everyone has to follow them. Deal.

And this girl and mother are protesting this rule. The rule is for skirts, not skorts.

Are you saying we should just blindly follow whatever rules there are?

They to are exceptions....but you don't want kids running around naked! Need I remind you that 8 girls were raped by one boy? 8-12 year old girls by one 13 year old boy? Hmm....innocent...I think not.

When the feck did that happen?!

In any case, I doubt highly what the girls were wearing had anything to do with them getting raped at all. Also, the misdeeds of one boy does not eliminate the innocence of children.

They to are exceptions....but you don't want kids running around naked! Need I remind you that 8 girls were raped by one boy? 8-12 year old girls by one 13 year old boy? Hmm....innocent...I think not.

What does that have to do with anything? Seriously? Need I remind you that once there was a man with a stick and he could balance it on his nose?

And this girl and mother are protesting this rule. The rule is for skirts, not skorts.

Are you saying we should just blindly follow whatever rules there are?

The rules are for showing too much leg. Again, if shorts are okay, why? If showing that much leg is okay at ten then should we protest the rules they have about what I can and can't wear to protest my traffic ticket? When does it become not okay? What benefit is there to removing dress codes at schools?

When the feck did that happen?!

In any case, I doubt highly what the girls were wearing had anything to do with them getting raped at all. Also, the misdeeds of one boy does not eliminate the innocence of children.

I'm just saying children aren't as innocent as most adults think....and I'll find the link.

And this girl and mother are protesting this rule. The rule is for skirts, not skorts.

Are you saying we should just blindly follow whatever rules there are?

How does calling it a 'skort' make any difference? Surely the school has rules on the length of shorts also.

Nobody is saying we blindly follow the rules. We, on the most part, are saying that a dress code makes perfect sense, and allowing children to wear overly sexual clothes in school does not.

How does calling it a 'skort' make any difference? Surely the school has rules on the length of shorts also.

Nobody is saying we blindly follow the rules. We, on the most part, are saying that a dress code makes perfect sense, and allowing children to wear overly sexual clothes in school does not.

And if you read the article, it says nothing about the length of shorts, only skirts, which, apparently, the school feels skorts fall under. They are actually more covering than either skirts or shorts.

I'm also not opposed to a dress code. However there are limits. The girl and her mother do not feel that skorts are "overly sexual" and are protesting the rule.

The rules are for showing too much leg. Again, if shorts are okay, why? If showing that much leg is okay at ten then should we protest the rules they have about what I can and can't wear to protest my traffic ticket? When does it become not okay? What benefit is there to removing dress codes at schools?

Not according to the article:

"A 10-year-old fourth-grader is protesting a rule by her school that bans miniskirts."

I'm just saying children aren't as innocent as most adults think....and I'll find the link.

The kid was 13, not 10, first of all. Second, how does showing that one child is ill show that children in general are not innocent? What does it have to do with anything at all? Relate it to the topic instead of just making absurd announcements.

Not according to the article:

"A 10-year-old fourth-grader is protesting a rule by her school that bans miniskirts."

And? That doesn't mean there is no shorts rule. In fact, I'll bet you your allowance that they do have a rule about the length of shorts and the length of skirts and that the lengths of both are not different.

And if you read the article, it says nothing about the length of shorts, only skirts, which, apparently, the school feels skorts fall under. They are actually more covering than either skirts or shorts.

I'm also not opposed to a dress code. However there are limits. The girl and her mother do not feel that skorts are "overly sexual" and are protesting the rule.

Indeed, it does not mention whether or not the school has rules regarding shorts or not. So neither of us really know if there are any or not. But it is reasonable to assume there is, at least I think so.

A 'skort' shows exactly the same amount of leg as a skirt or a pair of shorts of the same length would. Also, I don't see how they are more covering that shorts, they cover the same amount as shorts.

Not according to the article:

"A 10-year-old fourth-grader is protesting a rule by her school that bans miniskirts."

And these skorts are just as short as the mini skirts.
Steams Elementary in Upper St. Clair has a policy that said skirts that rise to mid-thigh level are just too short.
Miniskirts are banned because of their shortness, skorts are just as short, skorts are banned also. Simple.

Indeed, it does not mention whether or not the school has rules regarding shorts or not. So neither of us really know if there are any or not. But it is reasonable to assume there is, at least I think so.

I don't assume any beurocracy is "reasonable". Either way, it also does not say that the girl is going around breaking the rules, just protesting against one she and her mother find unreasonable.

A 'skort' shows exactly the same amount of leg as a skirt or a pair of shorts of the same length would. Also, I don't see how they are more covering that shorts, they cover the same amount as shorts.

They're not as revealing/form fitting.

And these skorts are just as short as the mini skirts.

Miniskirts are banned because of their shortness, skorts are just as short, skorts are banned also. Simple.

You really can't see the difference between wearing a miniskirt and a skort?

Howabout when they bend over? or cross their legs?

Until the rule on shorts is shown, the protest is reasonable.

The kid was 13, not 10, first of all. Second, how does showing that one child is ill show that children in general are not innocent? What does it have to do with anything at all? Relate it to the topic instead of just making absurd announcements.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471478
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468195
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467864

BTW...I hate the search function. I know it exists here though.

I said children aren't as innocent as you think they are.....my point still stands.

I'm sure Roy Mustang would find nothing wrong with a miniskirt :D

You really can't see the difference between wearing a miniskirt and a skort?

Howabout when they bend over? or cross their legs?

Until the rule on shorts is shown, the protest is reasonable.

It's not a skort by the way. If you watch the video it's a skirt with a small pair of shorts sewn in that are not visible. I doubt either the pair of shorts inside or the skirt would be within the rules to wear, I don't see why they would be together.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471478
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468195
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467864

BTW...I hate the search function. I know it exists here though.

I said children aren't as innocent as you think they are.....my point still stands.

It doesn't demonstrate your point. It would be like saying that I said men generally don't rape women and you showed me one exception. Are all Christians affected by Pat Robertson? Nope. So showing me that PR is a lunatic say nothing about Christians in general. You may have had a point but your 'evidence' is not related to your point.

Seriously, how does a thread about a 6-year-old who kissed a girl on the cheek even show an exception to the innocence of children? I think it demonstrates the innocence of children.

I'm sure Roy Mustang would find nothing wrong with a miniskirt :D

Of course not! He supports MANDATORY miniskirts!

It doesn't demonstrate your point. It would be like saying that I said men generally don't rape women and you showed me one exception. Are all Christians affected by Pat Robertson? Nope. So showing me that PR is a lunatic say nothing about Christians in general. You may have had a point but your 'evidence' is not related to your point.

Seriously, how does a thread about a 6-year-old who kissed a girl on the cheek even show an exception to the innocence of children? I think it demonstrates the innocence of children.

Huh? Did I include that thread?
What about the 10 year old handing out the drugs on the bus?
Or the 2 girls expelled for their dirty movie?
THESE ARE CHILDREN! You think they are innocent? NO!

Huh? Did I include that thread?
What about the 10 year old handing out the drugs on the bus?
Or the 2 girls expelled for their dirty movie?
THESE ARE CHILDREN! You think they are innocent? NO!

Do I think they are exceptions? Yes. Again, how does listing an unbelievably small portion of children who break the law and engage in illicit activities make a general point about children? I can list several rather idiotic white people, does that say anything about the general intelligence of white people, or just tell me something about those specific white people? Hint: Your evidence doesn't match your point.

You really can't see the difference between wearing a miniskirt and a skort?

Howabout when they bend over? or cross their legs?

Until the rule on shorts is shown, the protest is reasonable.

The protest isn't reasonable. There is no good reason for a girl to wear a mini skirt in school, whether it has shorts underneath or not. If she wants to attract the boys she can wear it outside school hours where there is no dress code.

Huh? Did I include that thread?
What about the 10 year old handing out the drugs on the bus?
Or the 2 girls expelled for their dirty movie?
THESE ARE CHILDREN! You think they are innocent? NO!

These ones appear not to be. But the vast majority are.

Do I think they are exceptions? Yes. Again, how does listing an unbelievably small portion of children who break the law and engage in illicit activities make a general point about children? I can list several rather idiotic white people, does that say anything about the general intelligence of white people, or just tell me something about those specific white people? Hint: Your evidence doesn't match your point.

I was citing things. The fact is, children are not as innocent as we think they are!

Children know about sex, know about fighting, know much much more then they let on. Its a KNOWN fact that children today are more exposed to such things and are not the unknowing helpless kids we think they are.

I can cite all day long, but you won't believe me!

The protest isn't reasonable. There is no good reason for a girl to wear a mini skirt in school, whether it has shorts underneath or not. If she wants to attract the boys she can wear it outside school hours where there is no dress code.

What about this then? The way people dress now is just pathetically revealing. Our school has the same problems. Most of the girls then cry and say, "There is nothing else to wear, they don't sell clothes that meet the dress code!" I've heard it before. Though when a girl of 13 shows up with a thong and a string bra and a white shirt....its to attract boys attention.

Its natural to want to attract attention, but sexual attention is something that should be avoided, and many girls are doing it.

I was citing things. The fact is, children are not as innocent as we think they are!

Children know about sex, know about fighting, know much much more then they let on. Its a KNOWN fact that children today are more exposed to such things and are not the unknowing helpless kids we think they are.

I can cite all day long, but you won't believe me!

You can cite exceptions. Average kids don't get into the news. Know why? Cos they don't do anything newsworthy. Yes, some kids are violent, and some are sexually active, and yes, they are becoming more so. But most children are still innocent. It wasn't until I was about 13 that I realised a blow job had nothing to do with blowing.

I was citing things. The fact is, children are not as innocent as we think they are!

Children know about sex, know about fighting, know much much more then they let on. Its a KNOWN fact that children today are more exposed to such things and are not the unknowing helpless kids we think they are.

I can cite all day long, but you won't believe me!

Okay, how about I show you a picture of some midgets. Adults aren't as tall as we think they are.

You give us three children. There are billions, depending on the ages you define as childhood. What's 3 out of a billion again? .00000003? Here's a shocker for you. People are diffferent. There's very few standards we can apply to any group of people, but if it fits a vast majority, it'll work.

You can cite exceptions. Average kids don't get into the news. Know why? Cos they don't do anything newsworthy. Yes, some kids are violent, and some are sexually active, and yes, they are becoming more so. But most children are still innocent. It wasn't until I was about 13 that I realised a blow job had nothing to do with blowing.

That is my point....children on a whole know about sex and other things far earlier then we think they do.

I was 10 before I knew what anal, blowjob was...though by that standard....I was not really as innocent and clean-minded as most would expect from a child. :)

What about this then? The way people dress now is just pathetically revealing. Our school has the same problems. Most of the girls then cry and say, "There is nothing else to wear, they don't sell clothes that meet the dress code!" I've heard it before. Though when a girl of 13 shows up with a thong and a string bra and a white shirt....its to attract boys attention.

Its natural to want to attract attention, but sexual attention is something that should be avoided, and many girls are doing it.

What is your point? I honestly don't see what this has to do with my post.

I was citing things. The fact is, children are not as innocent as we think they are!

Then cite something that evidences your point! You didn't. Citing evidence remotely related to your point doesn't mean the evidence supports the point.

I'll give you an example.

Christians aren't good people like you people say.

"[Gays seek] to destroy all Christians." - Pat Robertson, People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1994, p.9.

Then you respond with a quote from MLK, then I do Falwell and so on. It solves nothing because individuals do not evidence generalities. AT ALL.


Children know about sex, know about fighting, know much much more then they let on. Its a KNOWN fact that children today are more exposed to such things and are not the unknowing helpless kids we think they are.

I can cite all day long, but you won't believe me!
You can cite all day long and I won't view individuals as evidence. You don't understand evidence. There are 360,000,000 people in the US. You've talked about four. Four in a group of 10? Four in a group of 100? Four in all of America? We don't know, because it's not a study, it's anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence does not support your point.

In the past 50 years children have become far more liberal and open. That's my point. (Aka Lose their innocence earlier)

...
Five bucks says that girl is going to be the slut of Upper St. Clair High School by freshman year.

That is my point....children on a whole know about sex and other things far earlier then we think they do.

I was 10 before I knew what anal, blowjob was...though by that standard....I was not really as innocent and clean-minded as most would expect from a child. :)

And that is still only anecdotal evidence. It does nothing for the point. You've shown exceptions as if they are the rule. Certainly you're not suggesting the majority of children are raping other kids or filming porn, are you? If not, then why does there actions have ANYTHING to do with the population in general? It doesn't. Evidence is studies, discussions of large groups of children, trends. Pointing out a couple of examples is not evidence. I could provide you a mountain of children who have no idea what these things are. It still wouldn't be evidence until I showed what percentage of the children I look through these children represent.

That is my point....children on a whole know about sex and other things far earlier then we think they do.

I was 10 before I knew what anal, blowjob was...though by that standard....I was not really as innocent and clean-minded as most would expect from a child. :)

Did you even read my post? I said that some children aren't innocent, but most are. You seem to have read it the other way around.
http://atom.smasher.org/error/xp.png.php?icon=Attention&style=xp&title=Asshat+Error&text=Error%2C+what+you+are+saying+makes+no+sense.+Please+take+your+head+out+of+your+ass+and+try+agai n.&b1=&b2=&b3=

In the past 50 years children have become far more liberal and open. That's my point. (Aka Lose their innocence earlier)

Okay and since none of your current evidence actually proves this or is even suggestive of this, what evidence do you have for this claim?

In the past 50 years children have become far more liberal and open. That's my point. (Aka Lose their innocence earlier)

Then why didn't you say that instead of claiming all children are not innocent?

Then why didn't you say that instead of claiming all children are not innocent?

I didn't say 'Not innocent' I said that they aren't as innocent as we think they are. I noted that several posts back.

And this girl and mother are protesting this rule. The rule is for skirts, not skorts.

Are you saying we should just blindly follow whatever rules there are?

Having a reasonable dress code is blindly following the rules? Especially when it is concerning kids this young?

...
Five bucks says that girl is going to be the slut of Upper St. Clair High School by freshman year.

I wouldn't go anywhere near that bet. :)

I didn't say 'Not innocent' I said that they aren't as innocent as we think they are. I noted that several posts back.

How'dya even figure how innocent we think kids are?

Then why didn't you say that instead of claiming all children are not innocent?

Actually what he said was -

"Need I remind you that 8 girls were raped by one boy? 8-12 year old girls by one 13 year old boy? Hmm....innocent...I think not."

Having a reasonable dress code is blindly following the rules? Especially when it is concerning kids this young?

I am really in favor of a national dress code for students. With variations of course, but uniforms would prevent these sort of things from happening. It'd be even better to have boys and girl only schools to. ^-^

I didn't say 'Not innocent' I said that they aren't as innocent as we think they are. I noted that several posts back.

You said 'Innocent... I think not!'

I am really in favor of a national dress code for students. With variations of course, but uniforms would prevent these sort of things from happening. It'd be even better to have boys and girl only schools to. ^-^

Why? To what end? Aren't there also gay boys and girls? Where do they go? You can't protect children from sexuality. You can however not make it a part of their life at ten years old.

I am really in favor of a national dress code for students. With variations of course, but uniforms would prevent these sort of things from happening. It'd be even better to have boys and girl only schools to. ^-^

Fascist. :p

*cough* uumm....Yeah...Screw uniforms...and somehow, segregated schools by gender doesn't seem like a good idea.

I am really in favor of a national dress code for students. With variations of course, but uniforms would prevent these sort of things from happening. It'd be even better to have boys and girl only schools to. ^-^

Uniforms make sense. No mixed sex schools does not. The result of that would be a well educated workforce that has never worked with a member of the opposite sex before.

I am really in favor of a national dress code for students. With variations of course, but uniforms would prevent these sort of things from happening. It'd be even better to have boys and girl only schools to. ^-^
Eww. Tech schools are bad enough. You obviously don't know what a lack of chicks does to a guy.

Are bare legs distracting to 10-year-olds? I seem to remember noticing legs for the first time around fourteen...

at 10 they never distracted me.. except sometimes in the halls when we'd make jokes about it. really, the dress code has caused more issues because people go around telling people about someone violating the dress code, which never happened untill it was made that year.

Why? To what end? Aren't there also gay boys and girls? Where do they go? You can't protect children from sexuality. You can however not make it a part of their life at ten years old.

Not just for sexuality...for many other factors.
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/dresscode.html
http://www.singlesexschools.org/

Just check it out. ^-^

I am really in favor of a national dress code for students. With variations of course, but uniforms would prevent these sort of things from happening. It'd be even better to have boys and girl only schools to. ^-^

I know many parents would love that. There only being one outfit to give their kids? Save them TONS of time in the morning! Despite this girl's mother there must be plenty of parents who find what kids are wearing these days to be awful. If I had a daughter there would be no way in hell I'd let her out wearing the stuff this kid wants to wear.

Let's not touch the possibility of single sex classrooms however. Trying to do it would cause all sorts of headaches.

http://www.singlesexschools.org/

Just check it out. ^-^

Feh, I don't imagine they keep track of how the kids function after the schools?

Not just for sexuality...for many other factors.
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/dresscode.html
http://www.singlesexschools.org/

Just check it out. ^-^
I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Studying, COOL? What the hell?




Honestly, if there was every a reason to become an assassin, it would be to kill the man who brought that bill to congress.

Really, think what you would have been like if you hadn't gone to school with girls. Think about it.


EDIT: Now, I don't have a problem with private schools that are single sex. Thats cool with me. I mean, ever heard the song "Catholic School Girls Rule" by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers? :D

I know many parents would love that. There only being one outfit to give their kids? Save them TONS of time in the morning! Despite this girl's mother there must be plenty of parents who find what kids are wearing these days to be awful. If I had a daughter there would be no way in hell I'd let her out wearing the stuff this kid wants to wear.

It also reduces the amount of problems kids get into. Since they are no longer allowed to express their outlook or beliefs (some not meant for school in the first place) less conflicts will arise.

By expression of feelings....I mean wearing tampons tacked onto shirts or drawn on along with sexist comments like "Men are afraid of the almighty Uterus" or those stupid dick joke shirts or the crude ones.

I wear a solid blue shirt and a black formal jacket to school. The three years before that I wore a blue/grey/azure solid shirt under a matching plaid shirt. With just some nice blue jeans, no low fit, no sagging or logos. It was comfortable and nice and no one ever stared at me like I was a freak. (They would stare at the kid with the blood red hair in a giant spike with 'Satan loves you' for a t-shirt with chains dangling from patchwork faded black jeans with a ripped off piece around the knee. Is this a good example for a learning environment?)

Not just for sexuality...for many other factors.
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/dresscode.html
http://www.singlesexschools.org/

Just check it out. ^-^

Excuse me, sexuality and gender identity. Male and female brains ARE generally different. I can list for you a few dozen ways this is true. However, only generally. Our brains have a spectrum of gendrification that occurs during gestation and as a result of epigenetic traits. Male/female can't be represented by a bit in terms of the operation of the brain. It's much more of a spectrum with women more likely to be on one end and men more likely to be on another. It was believed this spectrum affects sexuality and gender identity but it's now believed that sexuality is not necessarily directly related to this spectrum.

This means that you'd do better seperating children by testing how they learn than by specific sex. You'd also do better by seperating children by intelligence as this tends to be more intricately involved in what children need.

More importantly, children benefit from being around other children who learn differently than they do. Know why? Because we don't get seperated out by how we learn, our intelligence or what kind of winky we have at work. School does more than just teach you. It prepares you for the world.

Really, think what you would have been like if you hadn't gone to school with girls. Think about it.

Peaceful.

Peaceful.
HA HA HA HA HA!
So right, so right.

I guess I forgot I escaped the drama of my old school when I went to a tech school. Actually, besides football, thats WHY I went.

How could I forget that?

It also reduces the amount of problems kids get into. Since they are no longer allowed to express their outlook or beliefs (some not meant for school in the first place) less conflicts will arise.

By expression of feelings....I mean wearing tampons tacked onto shirts or drawn on along with sexist comments like "Men are afraid of the almighty Uterus" or those stupid dick joke shirts or the crude ones.

I wear a solid blue shirt and a black formal jacket to school. The three years before that I wore a blue/grey/azure solid shirt under a matching plaid shirt. With just some nice blue jeans, no low fit, no sagging or logos. It was comfortable and nice and no one ever stared at me like I was a freak. (They would stare at the kid with the blood red hair in a giant spike with 'Satan loves you' for a t-shirt with chains dangling from patchwork faded black jeans with a ripped off piece around the knee. Is this a good example for a learning environment?)

Or they could just have a dress code that says that clothes cannot have writing on them other than brand of the clothes and that they must cover a certain parts of your body and that they cannot be designed to make a political statement. That was the dress code at my school and it worked while still allowing students to dress themselves.

You could make the same claims about work environments but uniforms are rarely necessary in jobs where your clothes are no in danger of being destroyed.

Excuse me, sexuality and gender identity. Male and female brains ARE generally different. I can list for you a few dozen ways this is true. However, only generally. Our brains have a spectrum of gendrification that occurs during gestation and as a result of epigenetic traits. Male/female can't be represented by a bit in terms of the operation of the brain. It's much more of a spectrum with women more likely to be on one end and men more likely to be on another. It was believed this spectrum affects sexuality and gender identity but it's now believed that sexuality is not necessarily directly related to this spectrum.

This means that you'd do better seperating children by testing how they learn than by specific sex. You'd also do better by seperating children by intelligence as this tends to be more intricately involved in what children need.

More importantly, children benefit from being around other children who learn differently than they do. Know why? Because we don't get seperated out by how we learn, our intelligence or what kind of winky we have at work. School does more than just teach you. It prepares you for the world.

I do not see a problem with those schools and I am not talking outside the school. There is evidence to support that their is less distractions and better grades from these schools when the opposite sex is eliminated from the picture.

Homosexuals do not exactly fit into this picture, but I doubt 10% would really be a big deal. Since the schools still have homosexuals in them and the difference is significant....I'll still stick with all boy and girl schools. Could use a lot less PDA and drama in school anyways.

I just hate how girls and guys react, they basically hump each other at school and they french (even the lesbians..) and then they have huge issues and cry and cry and act out in class and yell. Without all the sexual nature added into it.

*snip*

I swear...there's gotta be a way to make Montessori work widespread...

I just hate how girls and guys react, they basically hump each other at school and they french (even the lesbians..) and then they have huge issues and cry and cry and act out in class and yell. Without all the sexual nature added into it.

Think maybe you're just shy and/or antisocial, and this is only the way things look to you?

Or they could just have a dress code that says that clothes cannot have writing on them other than brand of the clothes and that they must cover a certain parts of your body and that they cannot be designed to make a political statement. That was the dress code at my school and it worked while still allowing students to dress themselves.

You could make the same claims about work environments but uniforms are rarely necessary in jobs where your clothes are no in danger of being destroyed.

I said learning environment. I am talking about K-12 here.
I support uniforms because of the advantages of it. School uniforms are amazingly effective and add a sense of class to the school.

Think maybe you're just shy and/or antisocial, and this is only the way things look to you?

Me antisocial! Don't get me started. I just am tired of all the stuff I have to see and put up with in school. Every day its the same people crying about their BFs and yelling and fighting and its just annoying. Every day is worse then Maury or Jerry's shows.

I just hate how girls and guys react, they basically hump each other at school and they french (even the lesbians..) and then they have huge issues and cry and cry and act out in class and yell. Without all the sexual nature added into it.

Jealous?

I always just laugh about all that crap anyways. I see a girl crying her eyes out as she runs out of the locker room, I chuckle and ask what the hell happened.

Shallow? Yes. Do I care? No.

Besides, drama is a part of life. You got to learn how to deal with it sometime. Trust me, its a lot more depressing to see grown adults crying and yelling at each other than it is high school kids. And that would happen a hell of a lot more often if we had seperate schools, based on the fact they wouldn't know how to deal.

Me antisocial! Don't get me started. I just am tired of all the stuff I have to see and put up with in school. Every day its the same people crying about their BFs and yelling and fighting and its just annoying. Every day is worse then Maury or Jerry's shows.

Then....I dunno....Ignore them? Or maybe why don't you go to a single sex school, and leave us alone, eh?

Actually they do know how to deal with it, just why does it have to happen in school and everyone has to be a witness to the girl and guy getting back at each other.

One example....a guy dumping a load of salad dressing on a girl for rejecting him. I personally witnessed this and it was shocking. Though I see most of it as just crying and people skipping class or break-ups in class (when they read or note or texted it) then they cry and go all to tears. Or if its personal it ends up into a swearing contest and makes a HUGE scene.

Pull that at college and I wonder what will happen. Most of the high schoolers in the school are like BABIES. They fuss and fight and curse worse then a sailor, and I admit the usual most I say is 'Stupid" or "Damn", but to hear someone say, "You are mother---- you sick cheating ---- I -------- hate ---- your ----- guts you piece of -------- shit, just die you sick -----....." Fill in the blanks...but thats what a girl said after her BF broke up with him. Big scene....yes, also stupid how they keep going off on each other.

We had around 10 girls in are school get pregnant and leave to. (Pretty high for a school of 1000) and many more leave for awhile because of their boyfriends/girlfriend problems (causing them to miss days of class and set them far back in studies). I don't like it, its disruptive and constant every day.

It seems today that virtually every aspect of American life is filled with commercialism, smut, and filth. These appalling conditions have come to the point where children who have not yet reached puberty, want to display themselves in ways that even they no not fully understand. They think that they are attractive and pretty, and most of all, normal; as this is the message that is so adamantly displayed for them. However, they do not realize in which way they are trying to be attractive.

The creators of movies, television programs, and advertisements, look only to make a profit on their wares. They do this without concern for the coming generation, and create whatever they think will draw people in. Money included.

This post, however, is not really about the media, though it served as a fitting introduction to the problem. It is about protecting the innocence of childhood. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that children should be children, and not parading around in miniskirts and similar items.

Then....I dunno....Ignore them? Or maybe why don't you go to a single sex school, and leave us alone, eh?

I'm not in your school. :D
I am saying that it has its advantages and although I doubt it will be done widespread, I think school uniforms should be implemented as soon as possible.

Actually they do know how to deal with it, just why does it have to happen in school and everyone has to be a witness to the girl and guy getting back at each other.

One example....a guy dumping a load of salad dressing on a girl for rejecting him. I personally witnessed this and it was shocking. Though I see most of it as just crying and people skipping class or break-ups in class (when they read or note or texted it) then they cry and go all to tears. Or if its personal it ends up into a swearing contest and makes a HUGE scene.

Pull that at college and I wonder what will happen. Most of the high schoolers in the school are like BABIES. They fuss and fight and curse worse then a sailor, and I admit the usual most I say is 'Stupid" or "Damn", but to hear someone say, "You are mother---- you sick cheating ---- I -------- hate ---- your ----- guts you piece of -------- shit, just die you sick -----....." Fill in the blanks...but thats what a girl said after her BF broke up with him. Big scene....yes, also stupid how they keep going off on each other.

We had around 10 girls in are school get pregnant and leave to. (Pretty high for a school of 1000) and many more leave for awhile because of their boyfriends/girlfriend problems (causing them to miss days of class and set them far back in studies). I don't like it, its disruptive and constant every day.

Ah I get it....Okay, few things. One, if'n these people bother you so much I mantain my suggestion of a single sex private school for you. Two, People a re Stupid. Teenagers excessively so, these are just normal. Far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with you, screw them.

It seems today that virtually every aspect of American life is filled with commercialism, smut, and filth. These appalling conditions have come to the point where children who have not yet reached puberty, want to display themselves in ways that even they no not fully understand. They think that they are attractive and pretty, and most of all, normal; as this is the message that is so adamantly displayed for them. However, they do not realize in which way they are trying to be attractive.

The creators of movies, television programs, and advertisements, look only to make a profit on their wares. They do this without concern for the coming generation, and create whatever they think will draw people in. Money included.

This post, however, is not really about the media. It is about protecting the innocence of childhood. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that children should be children, and not parading around in miniskirts and similar items.

A very good first post. I support you fully on this. (P.S. Welcome to General)

Actually they do know how to deal with it, just why does it have to happen in school and everyone has to be a witness to the girl and guy getting back at each other.

One example....a guy dumping a load of salad dressing on a girl for rejecting him. I personally witnessed this and it was shocking. Though I see most of it as just crying and people skipping class or break-ups in class (when they read or note or texted it) then they cry and go all to tears. Or if its personal it ends up into a swearing contest and makes a HUGE scene.

Pull that at college and I wonder what will happen. Most of the high schoolers in the school are like BABIES. They fuss and fight and curse worse then a sailor, and I admit the usual most I say is 'Stupid" or "Damn", but to hear someone say, "You are mother---- you sick cheating ---- I -------- hate ---- your ----- guts you piece of -------- shit, just die you sick -----....." Fill in the blanks...but thats what a girl said after her BF broke up with him. Big scene....yes, also stupid how they keep going off on each other.

We had around 10 girls in are school get pregnant and leave to. (Pretty high for a school of 1000) and many more leave for awhile because of their boyfriends/girlfriend problems (causing them to miss days of class and set them far back in studies). I don't like it, its disruptive and constant every day.
HA! That probably the funniest thing I've seen all day. Of course, the second funniest was me slipping on a pogo stick, but thats besides the point.

I always thought that was what high school was for, to look back on and realize what an idiot you were.

LOL! Sounds like Windham High!
I actually heard they got pregnant because it was better for them with the way the system is. They get free day care, get out of a bad home, money, everything. Pretty sweet deal.

Except the fact you're pregnant at 15. That sucks.

I'm not in your school. :D
I am saying that it has its advantages and although I doubt it will be done widespread, I think school uniforms should be implemented as soon as possible.

Why? You really think the people that care that much about clothing would be stopped by uniforms? The benefits of choosing what you wear out-weight supposed costs, if'n you ask me.

Ah I get it....Okay, few things. One, if'n these people bother you so much I mantain my suggestion of a single sex private school for you. Two, People a re Stupid. Teenagers excessively so, these are just normal. Far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with you, screw them.

Its not just about me, but as a member of the school and as a student I am allowed to express my distaste of the learning environment that has been cultivated by our society and suggest a change which will help prevent America as a whole from heading towards complete ruination of our education and morality. The longer we tolerate it the more acceptable it becomes and the harder it is to make a stand against it, and I for one do not like things like this. So this is my stance and I am sticking to it.

Its not just about me, but as a member of the school and as a student I am allowed to express my distaste of the learning environment that has been cultivated by our society and suggest a change which will help prevent America as a whole from heading towards complete ruination of our education and morality. The longer we tolerate it the more acceptable it becomes and the harder it is to make a stand against it, and I for one do not like things like this. So this is my stance and I am sticking to it.

Uh-huh....Trust me, most everyone has a stance against people being stupid, and most know that's not about to happen.

Why? You really think the people that care that much about clothing would be stopped by uniforms? The benefits of choosing what you wear out-weight supposed costs, if'n you ask me.

Since 12% of schools have school uniforms....I think people are starting to care. (Was up from 5%) Also as dress codes become stricter in schools they are pushing towards it slowly.

Uh-huh....Trust me, most everyone has a stance against people being stupid, and most know that's not about to happen.

Though it is happening now.

Since 12% of schools have school uniforms....I think people are starting to care. (Was up from 5%) Also as dress codes become stricter in schools they are pushing towards it slowly.

....Did that have anything to do with benefits or costs?

....Did that have anything to do with benefits or costs?

I already stated benefits of it. Do I need to say them again just because you didn't bother to read or check the website?

Though it is happening now.

No, not really...Stop people being stupid in highschool? Now they're stupid in college. Stop it there? Now we've adults going out into the world with little or no experience with the oppisite sex. You're just bothered by what goes on in higschool, and looking for a way to stop it. It don't[sic] stop.

I already stated benefits of it. Do I need to say them again just because you didn't bother to read or check the website?

Because people get jumped for what they wear, and if the all wear the same thing, no one is agressive anymore, Riiiight.

No, not really...Stop people being stupid in highschool? Now they're stupid in college. Stop it there? Now we've adults going out into the world with little or no experience with the oppisite sex. You're just bothered by what goes on in higschool, and looking for a way to stop it. It don't[sic] stop.

No...That is not the case. Experience with the opposite sex is easily learned and taught and should be taken seriously. Let people be themselves, but when they are mature enough they will not need it. Maturity is the biggest factor of your arguement, which is quiet easily learned and taught of without distractions.

Because people get jumped for what they wear, and if the all wear the same thing, no one is agressive anymore, Riiiight.

I said nothing about aggressive behavior, though the reduction of it would be another benefit. Though just by how much is hard to say.

I said nothing about aggressive behavior, though the reduction of it would be another benefit. Though just by how much is hard to say.

How about a reduction in BET and MTV or "Gangsta" culture in general. That's got more to do with it than being yourself.

No...That is not the case. Experience with the opposite sex is easily learned and taught and should be taken seriously. Let people be themselves, but when they are mature enough they will not need it. Maturity is the biggest factor of your arguement, which is quiet easily learned and taught of without distractions.

Yeah...The experience is part of maturity. I don't want the education system processing adults at the "You have cooties!" stage.

How about a reduction in BET and MTV or "Gangsta" culture in general. That's got more to do with it than being yourself.

I also support it, but the issue is broader then that and I don't want to seem like a racist (cause I am not), but the whole 'Gangsta' culture is glorification of behavior suitable to total scum.

Yeah...The experience is part of maturity. I don't want the education system processing adults at the "You have cooties!" stage.

Maturity and experience are two seperate things.

Just because A is part of B does not make B part of A.

C'mon, it's a dress code. It's nothing to do with restricting free speech, it's a dress code.

I also support it, but the issue is broader then that and I don't want to seem like a racist (cause I am not), but the whole 'Gangsta' culture is glorification of behavior suitable to total scum.

Dude, be racist. Me, black, I can tell you, it's almost entirely the african american races fault. That and chaeldean males, also chronic trouble makers. You're little site even says boys and girls aren't equal, there's some truth to sexism, racism, not so different.

Maturity and experience are two seperate things.

Just because A is part of B does not make B part of A.

....Those two statments don't even go together, first you say they're mutually exclusive, then you imply one is a subset of the other.

Experience is a subset of Maturity, losing experience will harm maturity. K?

C'mon, it's a dress code. It's nothing to do with restricting free speech, it's a dress code.

Free speech is limited by what is deemed acceptable. Last I checked drug shirts and gang colors are not free speech under our dress code. Even symbolic things are restricted. Like the black bands for Vietnam.

Free speech is limited by what is deemed acceptable. Last I checked drug shirts and gang colors are not free speech under our dress code. Even symbolic things are restricted. Like the black bands for Vietnam.

I'm pretty sure they ruled in favor of the students wearing black armbands.

And yeah, it's limited, by things like obscenity, time, place and manner, fighting words. etc. but, assuming clothes fall under something like fighting words, uniforms are not a reasonable answer.

Dude, be racist. Me, black, I can tell you, it's almost entirely the african american races fault. That and chaeldean males, also chronic trouble makers. You're little site even says boys and girls aren't equal, there's some truth to sexism, racism, not so different.

Truth yes, though it is not a be all end all. I have nothing wrong with black people, because a long list of inventers, scholars, public speakers, doctors and other heads of their field are black. I'm not going to go pull Martin Luther King Jr out of my ass or Mohammad Ali, but Marshall was an amazing man. Its the way people act is the way I have problems with, which is not limited to race or class.

Yes I absolutely hate rap and what it glorifies, but its only a fad which is already dying out slowly.

....Those two statments don't even go together, first you say they're mutually exclusive, then you imply one is a subset of the other.

Experience is a subset of Maturity, losing experience will harm maturity. K?

True they are a subset, but being mature is possible for even a child. It means rationally understanding, identifying and acting on things as they come.

Experience helps maturity, but is not exclusive (and I know that, I said that maturity is seperate from experience.) If you are very mature you can deal with new things sensibly....like explosives, you don't NEED experience to know how to handle them. Also a person who has been living for 20+ years and is about as mature as a five year old does not exactly help them in either aspect.

My point, being mature is taught and does not need to come from experience. Experience is a good way to learn first-hand, but does not mean someone is mature. Maturity and experience put together make for a whole more knowledgable person, a proper adult.

Truth yes, though it is not a be all end all. I have nothing wrong with black people, because a long list of inventers, scholars, public speakers, doctors and other heads of their field are black. I'm not going to go pull Martin Luther King Jr out of my ass or Mohammad Ali, but Marshall was an amazing man. Its the way people act is the way I have problems with, which is not limited to race or class.

Yes I absolutely hate rap and what it glorifies, but its only a fad which is already dying out slowly.

Aye, just saying, racism tain't complete evil, it's got truth.


True they are a subset, but being mature is possible for even a child. It means rationally understanding, identifying and acting on things as they come.

Yes, it is, but it's less common, than it is in those with more experience.

Experience helps maturity, but is not exclusive (and I know that, I said that maturity is seperate from experience.)

Aye.....

If you are very mature you can deal with new things sensibly....like explosives, you don't NEED experience to know how to handle them.

Experience is not necessarily hands on, you need to at least understand explosives and such.

Also a person who has been living for 20+ years and is about as mature as a five year old does not exactly help them in either aspect.

Huh?

My point, being mature is taught and does not need to come from experience. Experience is a good way to learn first-hand, but does not mean someone is mature. Maturity and experience put together make for a whole more knowledgable person, a proper adult.

Experience != Maturity. Experience + Maturity = Higher level of maturity.

The maturity necessary to function in the real world would be better learned in a situation that closely resmbles the real world.

I'm pretty sure they ruled in favor of the students wearing black armbands.

And yeah, it's limited, by things like obscenity, time, place and manner, fighting words. etc. but, assuming clothes fall under something like fighting words, uniforms are not a reasonable answer.


When the students wore the black armbands to school, they were suspended. The Supreme Court ruled that school officials may not censor student speech unless school officials reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or collide with the rights of others. Mere apprehension of disturbance or an offense given is not enough

http://firstamendment.jideas.org/first/timeline.php

If they pushed and did study they could have done it legally. Though it ended there.

http://firstamendment.jideas.org/first/timeline.php

If they pushed and did study they could have done it legally. Though it ended there.

And yet, symbolic speech is in fact protected, near as I can tell, barring it being clearly disruptive to the mission of the school. Armbands weren't...and how they should use this precedent is not remove all variation in clothing, but bar clothing that is specifically disruptive.

Yes, I guess the explosives one was textual experience and nots hands-on.
Alright...when experiencing new things like new people and new places being mature is a way to get ahead and help act properly even when you lack experience.

Though I think I made my point that they aren't exactly alike and can be taught seperately and when put together make for a proper adult.

And yet, symbolic speech is in fact protected, near as I can tell, barring it being clearly disruptive to the mission of the school. Armbands weren't...and how they should use this precedent is not remove all variation in clothing, but bar clothing that is specifically disruptive.

I did cite specific ones, and did say that school uniforms help cut down on problems, combined with case studies I doubt that it would be too hard to pass such standards on public schools if they had a wealth of information and are able to cite sources.

I did cite specific ones, and did say that school uniforms help cut down on problems, combined with case studies I doubt that it would be too hard to pass such standards on public schools if they had a wealth of information and are able to cite sources.

"There's some specific things that cause problems, let's ban everything.", Is not good.

Though I think I made my point that they aren't exactly alike and can be taught seperately and when put together make for a proper adult.

And I'd like to think I made my point that they're meant to and do come naturally, by socializing with others (not that there isn't giudance involved, prferably by parents though), but I can't be too sure here.

"There's some specific things that cause problems, let's ban everything.", Is not good.
I didn't say that. Its going too far!

I didn't say that. Its going too far!

You cite specific examples, then say we should use uniforms. It's exactly what you said.

And I'd like to think I made my point that they're meant to and do come naturally, by socializing with others (not that there isn't giudance involved, prferably by parents though), but I can't be too sure here.

Yep that they do, though they would come largely from parents and not the school. Social issues closely are that of the father and mother and the way they act (or don't act) with a problem themselves. As a result lax or negligant parenting often leads to troubled kids. However even with good parents and positive force at home, there is still some exceptions, but the general trend is that loving compassionate and open parents set better models for their children to follow.

There is even a new method of treating bad babies....you act like them, you whine and moan and cry all you want right infront of them and usually they will stop and look at you and know that they won't get anything or get any good attention from it.

Its an amazing new science. Sociology. :)

You cite specific examples, then say we should use uniforms. It's exactly what you said.

Uniforms would help and at the cost of individual expression. I think that its fair enough, people should do the talking themselves and not their clothes. Too much of that exists in our society. Its always the clothes you wear that set people apart! With uniforms people are all alike and its the person themself you really have to get to know before forming an opinion about the person. Its a good ideology for me, don't judge till you know someone!

Uniforms would help and at the cost of individual expression. I think that its fair enough, people should do the talking themselves and not their clothes. Too much of that exists in our society. Its always the clothes you wear that set people apart! With uniforms people are all alike and its the person themself you really have to get to know before forming an opinion about the person. Its a good ideology for me, don't judge till you know someone!

You really think people that don't care about the person now will care with uniforms? I don't know what you think about these kids, but the clothes aren't the issue, They like messing with the person, whether they know them or not. What would you know of clothes setting people apart?

For new students I say it would help, as schools with uniforms encounter less behavior problems.

I need to ask if you're talking about pedophiles, or child molesters? There is a difference. Neither category is rerequisite for the other, and I hate the two terms being used interchangably.


Huh. I always thought molestors were a sort of sub-category of pedophiles. Guess I was wrong. Sorry for that.


Your ignorance on these matters is annoying, if not entirely surprising.

I am going to admit a great deal of ignorance. I really don't know much.


1) A child "sexing themselves up" is actually a turn off for some pedophiles. (Me for example.)

I do know this, actually. What I was meant to mean was that some may be more enticed(those who may not seem like they will commit).


2) I find "they will act regardless" to be offensive. Unless you believe that any normal heterosexual man will rape someone if denied sex long enough, you have zero right to make an analogous statement about pedophiles.

That was not what I was trying to get across, so I am sorry. I meant to say, is that most (violent) criminals will act regardless of whatever seemingly minor details entail in the situation of what they were caught. I would assume(correct me if I'm wrong here, please) that (some)pedophiles may act regardless of what is being worn by the child.

So, thank you for pointing out my mistakes. It's always good to learn more.

And this girl and mother are protesting this rule. The rule is for skirts, not skorts.

Are you saying we should just blindly follow whatever rules there are?

skort/skirt, same thing... The school imposes the rule for a reason, and the retarded mother thinks fashion is more important that education.

Freedom of expression? This is a 10 year old girl in public school, THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

I don't assume any beurocracy is "reasonable". Either way, it also does not say that the girl is going around breaking the rules, just protesting against one she and her mother find unreasonable.

They are absolutely free to protest, and make themselves look like the idiots they are doing... We have no plans on changing the rules however for them...

School is designed for learning.... It is to foster a learning enviroment... The mother of this child, is an idiot.

There is a problem when 10 year olds are protesting against schools so they can wear mini-skirts.

Even if there were shorts underneath, they'd be so small they might as well be "boy shorts" made for little children. Five years from now we're going to read about how the same girl is petitioning to go naked in High School.

Wow, everything that's happening here is making national news. First the grandma bank robber, then the guy with the pellet gun who shut downtown down for a couple hours, and now we're the skank capital of the world. :(

Peaceful.
Booring ... some of my best friends still are girls that I meet in highschool (and that was 6 years ago)

I do not see a problem with those schools and I am not talking outside the school. There is evidence to support that their is less distractions and better grades from these schools when the opposite sex is eliminated from the picture.

Except, they are taking away one of the purposes of school. To prepare you for the workplace. If they made the school environment just you, you'd be less distracted as well, better grades, better education. You'd be less prepared for ACTUAL life, but hey, who cares about preparing children for life, right?

Homosexuals do not exactly fit into this picture, but I doubt 10% would really be a big deal. Since the schools still have homosexuals in them and the difference is significant....I'll still stick with all boy and girl schools. Could use a lot less PDA and drama in school anyways.

Who cares what you want? There are better ways to deal with it. Schools aren't there to cater to your every whim and desire. They are there to help you be prepared for life. In life there is drama and there are PDA.

I just hate how girls and guys react, they basically hump each other at school and they french (even the lesbians..) and then they have huge issues and cry and cry and act out in class and yell. Without all the sexual nature added into it.
I'm going to have to assume you're just basing this on your personal experience and you've actually done very little research into the subject based on your arguments. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but I'm not going to take the arguments of someone who apparently feels like an outcast in hgh school *gasp, that's hardly anyone* and treat that like it's a reason to change the school.

I swear...there's gotta be a way to make Montessori work widespread...



Think maybe you're just shy and/or antisocial, and this is only the way things look to you?

I agree. I'm very impressed with Montessori work. My brother's girlfriend is a teacher and I've sat in a bit. I wouldn't mind working for one, assuming I stop caring about every having any money ;)

I said learning environment. I am talking about K-12 here.
I support uniforms because of the advantages of it. School uniforms are amazingly effective and add a sense of class to the school.

Work is a learning environment, generally. But that's not the point. The point is that there are better ways to deal with the problem. If concentration required uniforms, trust me, it would be equally necessary in work environments. I don't buy it and you've offered no evidence for it.

Except, they are taking away one of the purposes of school. To prepare you for the workplace. If they made the school environment just you, you'd be less distracted as well, better grades, better education. You'd be less prepared for ACTUAL life, but hey, who cares about preparing children for life, right?
That is just bullshit, sorry but that is. Its a violation of the dress code for one and many people are behind the stricter dress codes. You give them an inch it will keep going till they take a mile (which has happened). In life I know of very few people who walk around in miniskirts in crowded area, and they are sluts. You don't need to prep people for that.



Who cares what you want? There are better ways to deal with it. Schools aren't there to cater to your every whim and desire. They are there to help you be prepared for life. In life there is drama and there are PDA.
When this is also punishable in school for drama and PDA I doubt its just what I care about. Its in our handbook for school policy. You also cannot discriminate against homosexuals, its against the law to do so.


I'm going to have to assume you're just basing this on your personal experience and you've actually done very little research into the subject based on your arguments. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but I'm not going to take the arguments of someone who apparently feels like an outcast in hgh school *gasp, that's hardly anyone* and treat that like it's a reason to change the school.
I'm no outcast, I do hate stupidity and immaturity to the point of acting like monkeys in the schools. Its a place to learn, not to makeout with your girl of the week or cause class distractions. Behavior in schools is vastly different from what it was 50 years ago. Even in my parents day such a thing was unimaginable. The proof of this is in every facet of the education system.

Work is a learning environment, generally. But that's not the point. The point is that there are better ways to deal with the problem. If concentration required uniforms, trust me, it would be equally necessary in work environments. I don't buy it and you've offered no evidence for it.

Work environments do require a dress code and often enough a uniform of sorts. When you work in a casino you are required to wear your uniform. When you work in a lab you are required to wear your uniform. If you work at a grocery store you are required to wear your uniform. When you work at pizzeria you are required to wear your uniform. When you work at a store you are required to wear a uniform......etc etc. With the exception being your own small business ventures in which you are just too lazy to look like a businessman.

I don't need to state the obvious, I am not the obvious police.

That is just bullshit, sorry but that is. Its a violation of the dress code for one and many people are behind the stricter dress codes. You give them an inch it will keep going till they take a mile (which has happened). In life I know of very few people who walk around in miniskirts in crowded area, and they are sluts. You don't need to prep people for that.

It isn't what happened. They haven't taken a mile. Many schools used to have much less strict policies. Some have gotten less strict, some have gotten more strict. Quit acting like your experience is the only experience. That's the same argument that people make against giving people in general personal rights. Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, particularly when it's so clear that the slippery slope has not occurred.

When this is also punishable in school for drama and PDA I doubt its just what I care about. Its in our handbook for school policy. You also cannot discriminate against homosexuals, its against the law to do so.

So your problem is with the rules being followed by the administration, not the students. They have a responsiblity to enfource the rules.

I'm no outcast, I do hate stupidity and immaturity to the point of acting like monkeys in the schools. Its a place to learn, not to makeout with your girl of the week or cause class distractions. Behavior in schools is vastly different from what it was 50 years ago. Even in my parents day such a thing was unimaginable. The proof of this is in every facet of the education system.
Yet, you've failed to show all these mountains of proof. How wonderful. My father would tell you slightly different stories. So would my grandfather. So would I.

Work environments do require a dress code and often enough a uniform of sorts. When you work in a casino you are required to wear your uniform. When you work in a lab you are required to wear your uniform. If you work at a grocery store you are required to wear your uniform. When you work at pizzeria you are required to wear your uniform. When you work at a store you are required to wear a uniform......etc etc. With the exception being your own small business ventures in which you are just too lazy to look like a businessman.

I don't need to state the obvious, I am not the obvious police.

Most of the time, professional jobs do not require a uniform unless there is a danger of destroying your clothes, as I mentioned before. The lab coat isn't a uniform, it's to protect your regular clothes, same with working a pizzaria or as a butcher or as a waiter, etc. Working at Best Buy is hardly an example of a professional. I have yet to meet anyone who is going through school looking forward to the day they're trained well enough to work at Best Buy.

Most of the time, professional jobs do not require a uniform unless there is a danger of destroying your clothes, as I mentioned before.But they do have a dress code of sorts. How many lawyers would show up for court in an AC/DC teeshirt? How many college professors would show up for class in a string bikini? Would the CEO of Best Buy meet with stock holders wearing shorts? Does a police officer wear a uniform because his clothes might get destroyed, or because people expect him to look a certain way?

People are expected to dress in a certain way in the professional world. Requiring the same thing from children (who, by definition, have not reached the age of majority and thus don't have the same rights as adults; making this whole thing academic) is hardly unreasonable.

Huh. I always thought molestors were a sort of sub-category of pedophiles. Guess I was wrong. Sorry for that.

I know it's weird that you get child molesters that aren't attracted to children, but there you are. I've heard it claimed that pedophiles are actually a minority of offenders. Police term the rest, "situational offenders". It's hard to wrap the brain around, but apparently true.

I guess it makes sense in the context of the whole "rape is about power, not sex" arguement.

I am going to admit a great deal of ignorance. I really don't know much.

Not a lot of people do, and I think that leads to some dangerous steriotyping. People need to work with facts rather than prejudices if they want to accomplish anything positive.

I do know this, actually. What I was meant to mean was that some may be more enticed(those who may not seem like they will commit).

I really have no idea what you were trying to say here. I mean I'm sure some might be more enticed, but you're going to get that with any style of dress. Personally, I'm more enticed when the school has uniforms.

Still, since you already knew what I was trying to tell you, I think we can drop the point.

That was not what I was trying to get across, so I am sorry. I meant to say, is that most (violent) criminals will act regardless of whatever seemingly minor details entail in the situation of what they were caught.

In that case, I agree. Dangerous criminals are going to be dangerous criminals, and changing minor details of our appearence isn't going to do a damn thing to detter them. Bullys will still beat up other kids, even if they can't say it was because of their shabby clothes, and child molesters aren't going to be stopped by a miniskirt ban.

It's just that it seems to be a widely believed "fact" that pedophiles always molest given the oportunity. I feel it's important, if I'm ever to live anything resembling a normal life, that I challenge this "fact" as often as I can.

I would assume(correct me if I'm wrong here, please) that (some)pedophiles may act regardless of what is being worn by the child.

No question. Have you ever seen one of those sick 20/20 stories where they get some child molester in prison to walk you through the thought process? One of them suggested that he targeted kids wearing shabbyer clothes, because he found it easier to exploit their self-esteem issues, with promises of buying them new clothes (a twist on the offering candy steriotype).

So, thank you for pointing out my mistakes. It's always good to learn more.
You're welcome.

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?
Yes.
I over heard a friend of my ten year old daughter use the phrase (excuse me mods) "Sucking Cock" in the proper context.

I almost puked.

My childs babysitter(who is the nicest person) and has just turned 14.
Confessed to her mother that she needed to be test for STDs because at a party she was at she allowed heerself to become the party favor....for every guy there.

I almost puked.


I believe the problem comes from the tabboo we place open sexuality here.
Most parents will let their kids watch a movie where the body count nears three figures but will cover their eyes at first sign of a bare breast.....backwards.

I can sum this whole thing up in a few words:

Y halo thar Brave New World.

:headbang:

Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?
Er, considering we're living in a country that is currently obsessing over the bust size of an 11 year old girl in a bikini and her effect on the relationship between China and Japan...

But they do have a dress code of sorts. How many lawyers would show up for court in an AC/DC teeshirt? How many college professors would show up for class in a string bikini? Would the CEO of Best Buy meet with stock holders wearing shorts? Does a police officer wear a uniform because his clothes might get destroyed, or because people expect him to look a certain way?

People are expected to dress in a certain way in the professional world. Requiring the same thing from children (who, by definition, have not reached the age of majority and thus don't have the same rights as adults; making this whole thing academic) is hardly unreasonable.

That's actually the point I made. I think that a dress code should be made and enforced, just not necessarily uniforms. If you look at some of my older posts, you'll see that point. I pointing to the need for balance. People seem to think it's all or nothing.

I don't buy it. Kids saying they are active and actually being active is quite different. To hear it out the mouths of my friends, everyone in the my highschool had sex before we started high school, at least all of the guys did. Quick question - In 1988, what percentage of kids in the average high school ACTUALLY were sexually active? I suspect it's much higher now, but it's not a majority at 12. No way. Sorry, but you'd have to show me some proof, because I'm calling BS.
HA! I am in Year ten (14 year olds) and I am pretty sure only about two people in my class have lost their virginity, and one of them was this weekend.

Yes.
I over heard a friend of my ten year old daughter use the phrase (excuse me mods) "Sucking Cock" in the proper context.

I almost puked.

My childs babysitter(who is the nicest person) and has just turned 14.
Confessed to her mother that she needed to be test for STDs because at a party she was at she allowed heerself to become the party favor....for every guy there.

I almost puked.


I believe the problem comes from the tabboo we place open sexuality here.
Most parents will let their kids watch a movie where the body count nears three figures but will cover their eyes at first sign of a bare breast.....backwards.

A few years ago this would have shocked me. Then I started paying attention to what the 7th and 8th graders were talking about. Then I was horrified. Then disgusted. Then disappointed.

Ever hear of the game "Smiles"? I hadn't until I talked to a SEVENTH GRADER. The jist is, girls try anything they can to make the guys "smile". You can fill in the blanks.

Or another instance I found a note on the ground in one of my classes, made by an eigth grader, in which it was revealed to the recipient that she had cheated on her boyfriend when she was in FIFTH GRADE. I'm not talking about the cute little "I held hands with another boy", she was saying that she had sex with another person. A fifth grader here. Saying that she cheated on her boyfriend(whom it was implied she was active with throughout the past few years).

Goddamn. Parents need to start caring a bit more what their kids do.

"Video Game's fault"

What's this one magical video game that's causing kids to act like whores?

LEARN YOUR PLURALS, DAMMIT! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Freedom of expression? This is a 10 year old girl in public school, THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
"Students do not leave their rights behind at the school gate" - Supreme Court of the United States of America.

School uniforms are amazingly effective and add a sense of class to the school.
*snirk* You really think... *snort* That uniforms stop problems?
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

You're funny.

I teach in a system with uniforms, Japan's famous for it *seifukurorikon* after all. But believe you me when I say that many of the same issues are here at my school, it just LOOKS much more ridiciolus when my male students attempt to make their uniform pants baggy. And kids will find ways to assert their individuality, even in uniform.

I find this to be a classic example of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Clearly, some people just want to be more "liberal", more "independent", which has become an oxymoron when the "individuals" are just conforming to a seperate society of baggy pants and anti-authorityism. Clearly, sexualism, hetero or otherwise, has become too much of a societal icon. It's a phenomenon that contradicts our societies' anti-stdism. Boys are getting more partners. Girls are getting looser and easier. It's a sign that we need to really set stricter bounderies because there will be people who will step outside them, no matter where they are.

Some girls need to realise: if you look like a stripper, act somewhat like a stripper, and talk like a stripper, expect to have people think you are a stripper. After all, we, as a species, tend to believe in the "if it quacks like a duck" rule. It's like the episode of King of the Hill where the Oklahoma prostitute moves in with the hills and gets Peggy and Hank to dress like prostitute and pimp. Suddenly, everyone thought they were prostitute and pimp. Were they? They're Bush-worshipping, bible-thumping, rednecked Texans who define every aspect of the terms. Of course not. My point is: If you dress like A, people will think you are A. If you dress like B, people will think you are B.

Prove me wrong, I dare you. Prove me wrong.

I find this to be a classic example of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Clearly, some people just want to be more "liberal", more "independent", which has become an oxymoron when the "individuals" are just conforming to a seperate society of baggy pants and anti-authorityism. Clearly, sexualism, hetero or otherwise, has become too much of a societal icon. It's a phenomenon that contradicts our societies' anti-stdism. Boys are getting more partners. Girls are getting looser and easier. It's a sign that we need to really set stricter bounderies because there will be people who will step outside them, no matter where they are.

Some girls need to realise: if you look like a stripper, act somewhat like a stripper, and talk like a stripper, expect to have people think you are a stripper. After all, we, as a species, tend to believe in the "if it quacks like a duck" rule. It's like the episode of King of the Hill where the Oklahoma prostitute moves in with the hills and gets Peggy and Hank to dress like prostitute and pimp. Suddenly, everyone thought they were prostitute and pimp. Were they? They're Bush-worshipping, bible-thumping, rednecked Texans who define every aspect of the terms. Of course not. My point is: If you dress like A, people will think you are A. If you dress like B, people will think you are B.

Prove me wrong, I dare you. Prove me wrong.


What about drag queens. They dress like A (women) but people think, or know, they are B (men).

And this kind of crap is exactly another reason to bail out of the public school system.

And this kind of crap is exactly another reason to bail out of the public school system.
Uh... why?

Because in a private school (or a homeschooling environment) parents have much more control about dress codes, content, etc. then in public schooling. If the girl's parents have no problem with her wearing this skirt - or a burqa - that should be up to them.

Boys are getting more partners. Girls are getting looser and easier. It's a sign that we need to really set stricter bounderies because there will be people who will step outside them, no matter where they are.

How so?

How is more sex bad?

More sex = good, imho.

Because in a private school (or a homeschooling environment) parents have much more control about dress codes, content, etc. then in public schooling. If the girl's parents have no problem with her wearing this skirt - or a burqa - that should be up to them.

I see. So, the children have no rights then? And why should parents control the content? You might end up with a generation of religious nuts (Or atheist nuts, whatever)

Surely the children have rights - to be protected from abuse, etc.

On the other hand, I believe that there is a right - individual, natural, god-given, call it what you may - for a person to choose the education of one's children.

Establish monopoly on education - state or otherwise - and it is that monopolist, or more correctly, his appointees, that control the education and mindset of the children.

Establish variety in education, and you get variety of culture and attitudes.

Because in a private school (or a homeschooling environment) parents have much more control about dress codes, content, etc. then in public schooling. If the girl's parents have no problem with her wearing this skirt - or a burqa - that should be up to them.
That makes no sense as the whole point was that the school was attempting to control the dress of its students.

On the other hand, I believe that there is a right - individual, natural, god-given, call it what you may - for a person to choose the education of one's children.

Establish monopoly on education - state or otherwise - and it is that monopolist, or more correctly, his appointees, that control the education and mindset of the children.

Establish variety in education, and you get variety of culture and attitudes.
Well, thankfully the US has a variety of educational opertunities and the appointees that control the public system are all elected locally and directly responcible to parents who vote them in and out.

Look, someone is going to control the dress of the child.

It's going to be the school, or it's going to be the mother who will frown and say 'Going to school? Not looking like that, young lady, you don't."

But if you deliver that authority to a bunch of people whom you cannot fire, or pressure in any way (school teachers), that's just inviting trouble.

Namely, stupidity and low-quality education.

Well, thankfully the US has a variety of educational opertunities and the appointees that control the public system are all elected locally and directly responcible to parents who vote them in and out.

You need to check on how much power school boards actually have in the US. Actually, way too little in the more densely-populated states like California and New York.

Look, someone is going to control the dress of the child.

It's going to be the school, or it's going to be the mother who will frown and say 'Going to school? Not looking like that, young lady, you don't."
Private schools usually have MUCH more strict dress codes than the public schools you know.

But if you deliver that authority to a bunch of people whom you cannot fire, or pressure in any way (school teachers), that's just inviting trouble.
Well, considering that this is a matter of the school telling the girl she CAN'T wear the skirt and not one where they tried to tell her she HAD to wear the skirt, you're still not making any sense.

I'm not even touching the second part.

Namely, stupidity and low-quality education.
Dress code of no miniskirts = low quality education? 何だHell? How do you figure that?

We have to wear a stupid uniform in my school and it is boys only! :headbang:

You need to check on how much power school boards actually have in the US. Actually, way too little in the more densely-populated states like California and New York.
I'm a teacher who's taught in the public system before coming to Japan to teach in the Japanese system for a few years.

You were saying about how I don't know how school boards operate?

I would point out they operate differently in different states.

Private schools usually have MUCH more strict dress codes than the public schools you know.

Funny, it wasn't like that in the private school I went to.

Well, considering that this is a matter of the school telling the girl she CAN'T wear the skirt and not one where they tried to tell her she HAD to wear the skirt


No, that's just the same. They are still trying to control her attire.

Dress code of no miniskirts = low quality education? 何だHell? How do you figure that?

No, I just pointed that out, it's not based on the dress-code observation.

Separately:

US (and other) public school administrators have a disturbing tendency to come up with, and enforce, idiotic rules, rarely if ever being punished for it.

[i]The public school systems of most Western nations are now suffering a variety of quality problems[/b]

http://www.wpxi.com/education/8508170/detail.html



Living outside of the US, and only visiting ever couple of years, this may well have passed me by. Has the sexualization of children really reached the level wher a ten year old girl in a mini-skirt is disruptive?
I don't know if disruptive is the word to use but yes kids know words at 8 generally which i didn't know 'til 14 and yes they do dress like trash.

Then i always hear or read about these freedom of speech cases where people can wear what they want to in the name of freedom of speech guys wearing dresses girls claiming barbie is a lesbian (She may be a Ho for breaking it off with Ken but she aint a Lesbo).

I blame Pop Culture