NationStates Jolt Archive

I admit that I did skip a fair few pages, but only because this is a topic brought up so many times on various forums...

In my opinion, schools should have a uniform.
As you can probably guess, I live in the UK, where here almost all schools have a strict uniform code.

Uniforms help make the school environment look tidy, they help to seperate 'School' and 'Recreational' mentality, they can prevent prejudice because of what someones wearing and they prevent problems of girls 'showing themselves off'

The only problem with dress codes really, is occasionally (as has happened recently) you'll get someone apply to a school, then whine that the dress code clashes with their religions beliefs.
- Recently a Muslim girl applied to a school, and wasnt allowed to wear her full-length dress (including covering her head) because it was against the schools uniform code.. at this point they told her to either accept the code, or leave.

As for the sexual issues... Most girls start puberty around 12, and boys 14.
90% of kids having 'sexual urges' before this.. ISNT a sexual urge, its mimicing adults or the media.

Yes, there are the few who have hormonal PROBLEMS and come into puberty before this time, but generally... any 'girlfriend/boyfriend' stuff, as with sexual urges, is mimicing what they see and hear.

So my responce to the 10yo wearing a miniskirt to school... I say that the school should enforce their dress-codes, her parents need a slap, and the girl needs to realise that she ISNT an adult and that miniskirts arnt practical, they're not even attractive.

Men instinctively look for buxom[slightly fat] women, because this means they are more likely to survive through cold winters and childbirth..

YES... humans ARE that primative, that we still have instincts from when we were living in caves... And if anyone dosent believe that, must be 6 months ago now, scientific testing proved this.

The media is a terrible thing, making children act like adults, telling people what does and dosent look good, what is and isnt attractive.

I would point out they operate differently in different states.
*sighs* Ok lad, follow along now ok? In every state, education is ultimately decided by the Great School Board that meets in the state capital every so often. They usually go by the name of State Legistlature. They are elected by... parents of the district they represent.

The State School Board, which sets textbook choices (i.e. the range of books that are useable within the state as well as overarching state standards) are either directly elected by the people, or appointed by the Govenor (elected by the people) and confirmed by the legislature (elected by the people).

The local school boards, which have far, far more control than most people give them credit for, take the larger state standards, which usually read as "By 8th grade students can identify parts of speech" and refine them. They also choose the textbooks for the district, hire and fire school staff/faculty, and decide who gets what money from the budget. They too are elected by the people.

I have never heard of any state where this does not hold true. So pray point out one for me.

*sighs* Ok lad, follow along now ok? In every state, education is ultimately decided by the Great School Board that meets in the state capital every so often. They usually go by the name of State Legistlature. They are elected by... parents of the district they represent.

I am aware of this.

So please, explain to me, why do more and more people go in for private schooling and homeschooling, both religious and otherwise? Are these people stupid? Are they insane? Or maybe, just maybe, their view also has validity?

Funny, it wasn't like that in the private school I went to.
Wow, you went to ONE school and that is supposed to represent N?

No, that's just the same. They are still trying to control her attire.
They set a dress code, parents can be more strict if they feel like, but schools do have the right to maintain order in the school. I fail to see how this is any different from a private school saying you must wear uniforms or your example of a parent saying to their child that they cannot go out in that.

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.
And your proof of this? BTW, most of those idiotic rules were courtacy of the local school boards and state legislatures, usualy in responce to parents showing up and howling/suing until they got their way.

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

I am aware of this.

So please, explain to me, why do more and more people go in for private schooling and homeschooling, both religious and otherwise? Are these people stupid? Are they insane? Or maybe, just maybe, their view also has validity?
No, you went from stating that the state has a monoply (not true), to parents have no control (also not true), to local school boards don't have control (which I just showed is not true). You've also tried to state that I don't know what I am talking about, which I have shown I do.

At no time did I say that people leaving the public school system were stupid or insane, and if you had bothered to ask I would have told you that I see no problems with either home schooling or private as sometimes those situations are much better for a particular student, just as sometimes public is the best location.

So stop trying to put words in my mouth, stop trying to move the argument, and pick a point and argue it.

They set a dress code, parents can be more strict if they feel like, but schools do have the right to maintain order in the school.


The point I am trying to get accross is this:

A monopoly on schooling is bad. Why is it bad? As the programmers call it, Single Point of Failure. If something fucks up, you have no other choice.

It is easier to get your child into a private school with rules that are less stupid then to change the rules. This is exactly why there are private schools and homeschooling in the first place.

And your proof of this? BTW, most of those idiotic rules

Student Suspended over Safer-Sex costume (http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/03/costume.suspension.ap/)

Student Suspended after Dog Smells Drugs (http://wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1698605&nav=0qq5LOnQ)

Student Suspended over Blog posts (http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/12/marquette-dental-student-suspended.html)

Student Suspended over Baseball Bat (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38610)

Student Suspended for Jaywalking (http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/youth/news/story/1738526p-2009322c.html)

Student Suspended over T-Shirt (http://www.theroc.org/updates/korn.htm)

No pattern here.

I’m sick of the jailbait attitudes middle school / junior high school student’s show. It’s not just BS because I’m in my last year of high school and can’t tell you how many times I’ve stopped older high schools guys from sexually taking advantage of pre teen girls.
The crazy thing is most adults (parents) are either oblivious to these sort of activities or are turning a blind eye to it. I’m not usually one to enforce morals on others and I’m against most censorship but where are we going to draw the line and say that’s enough!

p.s: I’m not a right wing conservative Christian, just someone worried about where his country’s going.

4th graders should never wear miniskirts. Miniskirts are for fully developed popstars and adults. Putting them on anything younger is disgusting and inapropriate. :mad:

No, you went from stating that the state has a monoply (not true),

No. I said that the state should be prevented from having it.

to parents have no control (also not true),

Actually, this Is true.

to local school boards don't have control (which I just showed is not true).

No. You claimed it is true. De-facto, binding, semi-binding, etc. state and federal instructions, as well as the threat of lawsuits do limit school boards. Vin Suprinowycz describes that beautifully in his book.

Also, not in all US states are school boards elected.


Let me quote Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_board

"The size and authority of boards of education varies widely"

"State boards of education are generally appointed by the governor but are elected by popular vote in a few states."

"Boards of education are usually elected by residents of the school district but may also be appointed by mayors or other executives of jurisdictions such as cities or counties whose jurisdictions may be coextensive with that of the school district."

Clearly, the situation varies widely accross the United States, and your experience where-ever it is you have taught is not necessarily informative re: other states or even other jurisdictions in your own state.

The point I am trying to get accross is this:

A monopoly on schooling is bad. Why is it bad? As the programmers call it, Single Point of Failure. If something fucks up, you have no other choice.
Problem being, there is no monopoly. There's no law stating that can ONLY have public schools and no law stating that you HAVE to go to public schools, just that you MUST recive an education. It's up to the parents just how that should take place. So, sorry, no monopoly here.

It is easier to get your child into a private school with rules that are less stupid then to change the rules. This is exactly why there are private schools and homeschooling in the first place.
More like people are just so damn ignorant of the system. Do you even know who is ON your school board? It's much easier to place the blaim instead of actually, oh, I dunno, go to a school board meeting and demand change.

The second part of your statement is really off base, I recomend you do some research on the history of home schooling and private schools.

No pattern here.
Let me see here, I count a number of zero tolerance policies. Most of them I would be willing to bet were writen by a school board or legislature (there were a number of them after Columbine) that the schools are forced to enforce. Again, most of these are the results of something happening and parents going to a meeting and howling. It happened in my hometown, there was a school shooting, parents have gone to the schoolboard demanding why more security wasn't in place, WCSD came out with yet another tighter zero tolerance policy in responce to parental complaints.

Hate to tell you this, but teachers and adminstrators don't sit around thinking of things like this. We hate it just as much as it detracts from the main goal of education, but since the school board is the boss, they say jump, we say how high. And the school board jumps at parents' commands.

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?

Short sewn underneath it? WTF??? :confused:

I'm beginning to think that the Catholic school I went to was way, way, way ahead of its time in terms of liberal clothing. I did wear mini skirts when I was 10 (it was the early 80s, for god's sake, everyone was wearing them), and nobody even gave it a second thought...

No. I said that the state should be prevented from having it.
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.

A monopoly on schooling is bad. Why is it bad? As the programmers call it, Single Point of Failure. If something fucks up, you have no other choice.

Sounds like you are attempting to state that there is a monopoly to me.

No. You claimed it is true. De-facto, binding, semi-binding, etc. state and federal instructions, as well as the threat of lawsuits do limit school boards. Vin Suprinowycz describes that beautifully in his book.
Federal instructions have very, very little control over schools. Try again.

Also, not in all US states are school boards elected. *snip*
You need to go back to school and try for more reading comprehension. School boards are, ultimately, responcible to the people. They are either directly elected or appointed by elected officals and change with the administration. So if you don't like them, you can vote them out. They are not like, say, the IRS with career government workers.

As well as you need to read your own article as it states exactly what I said as to the power of the board.

More like people are just so damn ignorant of the system. Do you even know who is ON your school board?

I am quite certain that no elected school boards exist in Israel.


The second part of your statement is really off base, I recomend you do some research on the history of home schooling and private schools.

You are missing my point. I realize the origins of non-state schooling differ from what I state. But in modern society, its purpose is to provide choice.

Federal instructions have very, very little control over schools. Try again.

I think we have different definitions of 'little'.

Sounds like you are attempting to state that there is a monopoly to me.

You tell me. How many (as a percenteage) of total United States school age pupils are in public schools?

I am quite certain that no elected school boards exist in Israel.
Nice, so why are you attempting to dictate school policy to the US?

You are missing my point. I realize the origins of non-state schooling differ from what I state. But in modern society, its purpose is to provide choice.
Really? And here I was thinking that some have to do with religious vocation, and some having to do with disabilties, and some having to do with etc. etc. etc.

I think we have different definitions of 'little'.
I believe we do, after all the Federal government cannot set and does not set standards, it does not set the dress code, it does not set the textbooks, it doesn't set a whole hell of a lot. What it DOES tend to do is ADA/Special education laws, discrimination laws, and free lunch/breakfast.

Oh, and tests. It likes tests now, which was an unpressidented move by the DoEd into schools.

BTW, Vin Suprynowicz, if it is the same newspaper guy I am thinking about is from my home state.

You tell me. How many (as a percenteage) of total United States school age pupils are in public schools?
Out of 55 million (aprox) school aged children in the US, aprox 9.5 million are in private schools. 1 million (aprox) are home schooled. (US Census).

But, again, there is no law stating that you have to go to private schools or that you cannot build private schools, or that you cannot pull your student out and home school them. Maybe, just maybe, public schools are agreeable enough for the majority of American parents, at least when it comes time to put their money and time where their mouths are.

Nice, so why are you attempting to dictate school policy to the US?


Please point out were I was dictating - I cannot dictate, I can only express my opinion. I am not a government official and I cannot dictate anything nor would I descend to that level. Further, my opinion was not about US policy, but about what I believe individual people should do.




Really? And here I was thinking that some have to do with religious vocation, and some having to do with disabilties, and some having to do with etc. etc. etc.

How does this contradict with the main issue of choice?

BTW, Vin Suprynowicz, if it is the same newspaper guy I am thinking about is from my home state.

In this case his description of America's educational system - and particularly that of Nevada - differs from yours.

Out of 55 million (aprox) school aged children in the US, aprox 9.5 million are in private schools. 1 million (aprox) are home schooled. (US Census).

So, that gives us approximately 80% of the population in public schools.

In other markets, Standard Oil, in 1911, when it was widely considered to have been a monopoly, had a 64% market share.

Microsoft has a 49% market share of the server operating system market.

See where I am going?

In this case his description of America's educational system - and particularly that of Nevada - differs from yours.
Yes, and an poltical opinion writer knows so much more than an actual teacher about how the school system works. :rolleyes:

BTW, which book are you talking about, Amazon didn't seem to have anything directly relating to education.

So, that gives us approximately 80% of the population in public schools.

In other markets, Standard Oil, in 1911, when it was widely considered to have been a monopoly, had a 64% market share.

Microsoft has a 49% market share of the server operating system market.

See where I am going?
Small difference though, public schools do not compeate the same way gas stations and software companies do.

Actually it's hard to say even private schools compeate the same way the others due because the reason for chosing that particular school may have nothing to do with normal brand awareness or performance.

Yes, and an poltical opinion writer knows so much more than an actual teacher about how the school system works. :rolleyes:

Considering he's more of a journalist, and has interviews with teachers, state legislators, and researchers packed into that first book of his... and considering he actually lives in Nevada... it could happen.

BTW, which book are you talking about, Amazon didn't seem to have anything directly relating to education.

Send in the Waco Killers and The Ballad of Carl Drega both have stuff about public schools.

Considering he's more of a journalist, and has interviews with teachers, state legislators, and researchers packed into that first book of his... and considering he actually lives in Nevada... it could happen.

Gradute University of Nevada, Reno BA Secondary Education, MS CEP. Both from the College of Education. Taught in Washoe County School District. Born and rasied in Nevada.

Been out of Nevada for a year and a half in Japan.

Send in the Waco Killers and The Ballad of Carl Drega both have stuff about public schools.
And neither one of them were actually addressing education.

Any case, I have work to do for school tomorrow and this argument is compleatly off topic in any way. But if you're really interested, I argued nice and long for public schooling here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474184

Have fun.

And neither one of them were actually addressing education.

They have entire chapters on the topic.

But if you're really interested, I argued nice and long for public schooling here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474184


How and when did I argue against the existence of public schooling?

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, America really is that sex-phobic. The female body, at any age, must be so carefully regulated that countless hours and billions of dollars are committed to ensuring that females are properly instructed in how to clothe themselves.

It is important for us to make sure that females understand the rules, and there are enough rules that we've got to start with them as young as we can. So listen up, females of all ages!

1) As a female, your function in life will be to please heterosexual males. If you are old enough to pronounce "heterosexual male," you are old enough to begin working on this.

2) As a female, your primary concern is to reject the advances of beastial heterosexual males. If you dress in ways that are too attractive to heterosexual males, then you are a slut and nobody will ever love you. This may appear to contradict Rule 1, but rest assured: you're only confused because your soft female brain is full of irrational emotions.

3) Heterosexual males are attracted to women who are profoundly uncomfortable and handicapped by ludicrous clothing. This is why you must wear high heels, binding undergarments that inhibit your breathing and your range of motion, and flimsy clothing that will tear or fall off if you attempt anything more strenuous than walking with tiny mincing little steps.

4) You look too fat in everything you wear, which means that nobody will ever love you and you will die alone and miserable.

5) You may be only 10 years old, but the fact remains that your body is female. As a result, your body is everybody's business. This is why the PTA spends more money talking about your clothing than they do about your schooling.

6) The world needs to be able to determine if you are a virgin or a whore, and judging you by your clothing is the best way for the world to do this. Make your clothing choices accordingly. For instance, Dora The Explorer footie pajamas are a great way to assert that you are a virginal 8 year old, but wearing Barbie two-piece pajamas clearly marks you as a great big ho.

7) You know, you aren't getting any younger. Females are meant to have "baby-soft skin" for the entire length of their lives, and when a gal is pushing 10 years old she needs to start thinking about skin care.

8) Nothing says "I'm a good girl!" like self-denial. It goes without saying that women should deny sex, but if you're too young for the boys to be pressuring you for sex then you can always try denying yourself other things. Food, for instance. After all, if you're old enough for elementary school then you're clearly old enough to drop that baby fat.

9) If you find yourself unsure of how best to please heterosexual males, consult a homosexual male. Homosexual males are well versed in the art of female hair styling, make-up application, and design of uncomfortable (and therefore attractive!) female garments.

10) Because God is vengeful, He has made it necessary for us to occasionally come into contact with one another's shameful bodies for the purposes of procreation. The only reason we do it at all is to get girls pregnant, and even then we mustn't enjoy it. Orgasms give you syphilis.

11) Finally, have fun! As an American girl in the 21st century, you enjoy a life of unlimited possibilities! Unlike women of the past, you are living in a totally equal and non-sexist society. You can choose to have children, or you can choose to be a childless failure who isn't really a woman in any way that counts! You can choose to be a stay-at-home mother, or you can be a working woman who is obviously a failure as a parent! You can choose to be skinny, or you can be a revolting fat hog who nobody will ever love! Virgin or whore, doormat or bitch, the choices are all yours!

4th graders should never wear miniskirts. Miniskirts are for fully developed popstars and adults. Putting them on anything younger is disgusting and inapropriate. :mad:
Putting them on "anyTHING" younger...wow. At least we're now being up front about the fact that females are things, to be dressed like the dollies they are.

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 see nothing wrong with saying, "If you dress like a stripper, people will treat you like a stripper." I simply believe that strippers should get every bit as much respect as anybody else in society.

Being a stripper does NOT mean that you deserve less respect as a human being. It does NOT mean people have the right to hurt you. It does NOT make it more acceptable for people to be cruel or rude to you. It does NOT mean that your body belongs to other people. It does NOT mean that boys are entitled to use you however they like.

The message we are currently giving kids is that it's ok to abuse certain kinds of people just because they dress a certain way. Fuck that.

Student Suspended over Blog posts (http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/12/marquette-dental-student-suspended.html)
No pattern here.

DENTAL SCHOOL? Bwahahaha! I see your rules of evidence are "if it sounds like it supports my point, I'll use it." What does what a dental school have to do with school boards and general public schooling?

Nicely said, Bottle.

Nicely said, Bottle.
I try :).

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. :(
Or maybe they simply have different priorities or values than you do.

Personally, I wouldn't see anything wrong with my kid dressing however she damn well pleased, as long as she observed health concerns and didn't actively break any laws. On the other hand, I would ground my kid on the spot if they dared to call a girl "slut" for dressing a certain way. I would ground my kid for suggesting that she has the right to decide what other people can and cannot wear. That kind of brattiness needs to be cut short as quickly as possible.

So, from my perspective, the parents who really failed are the ones who reared our current generation of moralists. The people who think they have the right to shame a girl for wearing a certain outfit are the people who really were in need of better parenting.

Or maybe they simply have different priorities or values than you do.

Personally, I wouldn't see anything wrong with my kid dressing however she damn well pleased, as long as she observed health concerns and didn't actively break any laws. On the other hand, I would ground my kid on the spot if they dared to call a girl "slut" for dressing a certain way. I would ground my kid for suggesting that she has the right to decide what other people can and cannot wear. That kind of brattiness needs to be cut short as quickly as possible.

So, from my perspective, the parents who really failed are the ones who reared our current generation of moralists. The people who think they have the right to shame a girl for wearing a certain outfit are the people who really were in need of better parenting.
So what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people should not be allowed to make assumptions based on their experiences and knowledge, and must get to know every individual before making a determination, even a preliminary one, about any aspect of that person.

If I see a man with a scraggly beard, one shoe, and a filthy trench coat, you are saying I'm not justified in assuming he's poor? Is it wrong for me to assume that a man with well combed hair and a nice buisiness suit is less likely to mug me than the guy with the cutoff sleaves and the green mo-hawk?

It isn't practical to judge everyone on an individual basis, because we don't have the time to get to know everyone. What we wear does say things about us, and most of us are aware enough of that to control what messages we send. Just because that isn't something you can manage to handle on your own doesn't mean you get to deny me the right to make determinations about people based on social conventions.

So what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that people should not be allowed to make assumptions based on their experiences and knowledge, and must get to know every individual before making a determination, even a preliminary one, about any aspect of that person.

Consider yourself corrected. You have constructed a flimsy straw man, and have procede to abuse him.


If I see a man with a scraggly beard, one shoe, and a filthy trench coat, you are saying I'm not justified in assuming he's poor? Is it wrong for me to assume that a man with well combed hair and a nice buisiness suit is less likely to mug me than the guy with the cutoff sleaves and the green mo-hawk?

You can assume whatever you damn well please. If you see a black man and want to assume he's a criminal because all the criminals you've met are black, then that's your business.

However, if you were my kid, I would tan your behind if you thought that you've got the right to be rude simply because you don't like somebody's appearance. I don't care how short somebody's skirt is, you do not get to insult them or abuse them or treat them with disrespect. I don't care how raggedy their clothes are, you don't get to insult them or mistreat them or tell them they need to change how they look.

You can think whatever you want about whoever you want. But, if you were my kid, you'd get in big trouble for trying to stick your bossy little nose into other people's wardrobes.


It isn't practical to judge everyone on an individual basis, because we don't have the time to get to know everyone. What we wear does say things about us, and most of us are aware enough of that to control what messages we send.

Sure. So what? I don't care what message you think somebody is sending, you still should damn well learn to behave yourself.

If a Jewish kid wears his little hat near me, do I then have the right to call him a kike? I mean, if it's okay to call a girl a slut for wearing a short skirt, it should be ok to call that Jewish kid a kike, right? Because really, his little hat pretty much confirms that he IS a kike, while she might just be a virgin in a short skirt. So if you want to go for accuracy, you'd be better off yelling "kike" at all the Jewish hat-wearers than yelling "slut" at all the chicks in short skirts.


Just because that isn't something you can manage to handle on your own doesn't mean you get to deny me the right to make determinations about people based on social conventions.
Boy, talk about a whimpering little baby!

I guess I was supposed to be insulted by that dig at my clothing choices, but frankly I have better things to do than obsess over the "message" I am sending to shallow and unimaginative robots who can't be bothered to get to know me. If you can't be bothered to learn about an individual, then why the hell are you so concerned with what clothing they wear? Obviously they're not somebody you are spending time with, so why is it so important to you that they wear your particular uniform?

Also, I never at any time suggested that you shouldn't be able to make determinations about people based on social conventions. You made that up. What I did do is suggest that adults should behave like adults, and that they should encourage their kids to learn how to behave as adults. This made you upset, I guess because you really want to be able to call girls sluts if they dress "the wrong way."

If you want to go around making assinine assumptions, feel free. I don't really care. I simply expect you to behave like a grown up, and to show some basic common courtesy to EVERYBODY, not just to the people who obey your little fashion rules.

Sicking and Indecent. Is this what the U.S. wants to produce, sluts and whores. They should be executed without exception for they are no different than the rats you call an exterminator for.

Consider yourself corrected. You have constructed a flimsy straw man, and have procede to abuse him.

Part of what correcting me when I'm wrong implies is that you tell me what you really believe in relation to what I suspected you believed. Just telling me I'm wrong doesn't really help me understand your position. All it does is force me to make random guesses about what you really mean until I get lucky and guess right.

Please, elaborate a bit.

You can assume whatever you damn well please. If you see a black man and want to assume he's a criminal because all the criminals you've met are black, then that's your business.

Now who's constructed a straw man?

However, if you were my kid, I would tan your behind if you thought that you've got the right to be rude simply because you don't like somebody's appearance. I don't care how short somebody's skirt is, you do not get to insult them or abuse them or treat them with disrespect. I don't care how raggedy their clothes are, you don't get to insult them or mistreat them or tell them they need to change how they look.

You can think whatever you want about whoever you want. But, if you were my kid, you'd get in big trouble for trying to stick your bossy little nose into other people's wardrobes.

So you don't have any problem with people making judgements, just a problem with them acting accordingly?

Sure. So what? I don't care what message you think somebody is sending, you still should damn well learn to behave yourself.

If a Jewish kid wears his little hat near me, do I then have the right to call him a kike? I mean, if it's okay to call a girl a slut for wearing a short skirt, it should be ok to call that Jewish kid a kike, right? Because really, his little hat pretty much confirms that he IS a kike, while she might just be a virgin in a short skirt. So if you want to go for accuracy, you'd be better off yelling "kike" at all the Jewish hat-wearers than yelling "slut" at all the chicks in short skirts.

This doesn't make any sense. How do you get from making reasonably accurate assessments of a person's character, to making racist and provocative statements?

Boy, talk about a whimpering little baby!

I've been swayed by your obviously superior arguement. [/sarcasm]

Seriusly, name calling gets us nowhere.

I guess I was supposed to be insulted by that dig at my clothing choices, but frankly I have better things to do than obsess over the "message" I am sending to shallow and unimaginative robots who can't be bothered to get to know me.
Actually, the insult was directed toward your aditude that it shouldn't matter what signals you send, and that the onus is on everyone else not to get the wrong impression. I know nothing about your clothing choices.
If you can't be bothered to learn about an individual, then why the hell are you so concerned with what clothing they wear? Obviously they're not somebody you are spending time with, so why is it so important to you that they wear your particular uniform?

How many people do you pass on the street any given day? How do you decide which of them you'd care to know better? How do you intend to respond to their potential actions when you haven't sat down and gotten to know them yet?

Also, I never at any time suggested that you should be able to make determinations about people based on social conventions. You made that up.

Actually, you were saying that I shouldn't be allowed to do so, so you're technically correct.

What I did do is suggest that adults should behave like adults, and that they should encourage their kids to learn how to behave as adults.

As opposed to letting them bahave like, I don't know, children?

This made you upset, I guess because you really want to be able to call girls sluts if they dress "the wrong way."

Actually, I'm just arguing that the assumption is not unreasonable. I'm not generally in the practice of pointing out those I've determined to be sluts. I just make a mental note, and move on.

If you want to go around making assinine assumptions, feel free. I don't really care. I simply expect you to behave like a grown up, and to show some basic common courtesy to EVERYBODY, not just to the people who obey your little fashion rules.
And I just expect you to understand that people do profile, and that it is a useful tool when we are among people we don't know.

Sicking and Indecent. Is this what the U.S. wants to produce, sluts and whores. They should be executed without exception for they are no different than the rats you call an exterminator for.

A tad extreme..but they should be smarter and wear better clothes, otherwise they will turn into sluts.

A tad extreme..but they should be smarter and wear better clothes, otherwise they will turn into sluts.

Really? Can you show me a study that says that wearing provocative clothing turns you into a slut? I'd be interested in seeing it.

"See that girl over there in the miniskirt? It's too late for her. She's gonna be a slut."
"But she's a virgin."
"Doesn't matter. The leather in the miniskirt seeps into the vulva and makes it itch. She'll try everthing she knows to scratch it, but the only thing that works is male pubic hair. The next thing you know she can't help but rub it up against as many guys as possible. It's a scientific fact."

If you can't handle being called a slut, then try to not dress like one. If you can't handle being judged based on your appearance, then stay home as much as possible. I live in this world called reality. It's full of both decent folk and scumbags. I learned to deal with being called names based on how I dressed. After all, if I can't stand the heat, I shouldn't be in the kitchen. Here are some basic rules that apply in the real world, not some hypothetical utopia:
1. People will judge you by the way you look and/or act. If a woman is wearing a short, red dress, dirty high heals, fishnet stockings, and heavy make-up while carrying a sign that says "$100/hr", people will think she's a prostitute. If a large, muscular man in a bloody shirt wielding a bloody machete walks by, people will think he killed someone.

2. When it comes to how you personally feel about something, most people won't give a damn. You are just one in 6 billion. There's not enough time to get to know 6 billion strangers. If you want to be heard, you better get a group of people together. Groups are almost always greater than the sum of their parts. After all, the Holocaust wasn't ended by a single person. Niether was the Cold War. The American Civil Rights movement was only successful because it was formed and supported by a large group of people who believed in the cause. Martin Luthor King Jr. didn't make it successful. Niether did Rosa Parks. They helped. One person can't make the difference alone.

3. If you don't like the attention your clothes give you, then either deal with it, go away, or change your clothes. I don't have enough time to accomadate every single person. Niether does the next guy. The only person who can truly help you is you. You should be the one to improve your life. Not your neighbor. Not your family. You. You might not be able to change the world but you can adapt to it. This reminds me of this story:

When I was young, I wanted to change my family.
As I got older I wanted to change my friends.(not get new friends. change the friends I already had into new people.)
Then, I wanted to change my town.
As I got older still, I wanted to change my province.
As I approached my twilight years, I wanted to change the world.
Now, as I lay on my death bed, I realise that all I had to change was myself.

If I changed my self, I could influence my family and friends.
Then I could influence my town.
Then, I could have transformed my province.
Then I could greatly influence my country.
Finally, after that, I could have changed the world.

Face it: the world won't change until you do. People won't change until you do. Society won't change until you do.

Really? Can you show me a study that says that wearing provocative clothing turns you into a slut? I'd be interested in seeing it.

"See that girl over there in the miniskirt? It's too late for her. She's gonna be a slut."
"But she's a virgin."
"Doesn't matter. The leather in the miniskirt seeps into the vulva and makes it itch. She'll try everthing she knows to scratch it, but the only thing that works is male pubic hair. The next thing you know she can't help but rub it up against as many guys as possible. It's a scientific fact."

Most women who flaunt it or show it off are whores out for attention or to get a guy. People that do it are whores, its something anyone can do, but shouldn't.

A tad extreme..but they should be smarter and wear better clothes, otherwise they will turn into sluts.
Wow I have never seen any information that shows ANY corrolation between clothing choice and later sexual activity

Care to provide some?

Really? Can you show me a study that says that wearing provocative clothing turns you into a slut? I'd be interested in seeing it.

"See that girl over there in the miniskirt? It's too late for her. She's gonna be a slut."
"But she's a virgin."
"Doesn't matter. The leather in the miniskirt seeps into the vulva and makes it itch. She'll try everthing she knows to scratch it, but the only thing that works is male pubic hair. The next thing you know she can't help but rub it up against as many guys as possible. It's a scientific fact."
Actually, it's more a matter of her being propositioned more based on people percieving her as a slut. As a result, she will be statistically more likely to become one because she will have had greater oportunity.

It isn't a case of absolute determinism, but it can serve as a risk factor.

Most women who flaunt it or show it off are whores out for attention or to get a guy. People that do it are whores, its something anyone can do, but shouldn't.

So, you're saying sluts wear provacative clothes, unlike your previous statment, where provocative clothes make girls into sluts...

So, you're saying sluts wear provacative clothes, unlike your previous statment, where provocative clothes make girls into sluts...

The two usually go hand in hand.
Though its obvious this girl wanted attention from the boys. >.> *COUGH*WHORE*COUGH*

Most women who flaunt it or show it off are whores out for attention or to get a guy. People that do it are whores, its something anyone can do, but shouldn't.
Thats not what you said before ... you said that the clothing would MAKE them a slut

Actually, it's more a matter of her being propositioned more based on people percieving her as a slut. As a result, she will be statistically more likely to become one because she will have had greater oportunity.

It isn't a case of absolute determinism, but it can serve as a risk factor.
Sweet statistics now some hard evidence one way or another

Lets see them we can go through the regresssion step by step and see exactly what your stats show

The two usually go hand in hand.
Though its obvious this girl wanted attention from the boys. >.> *COUGH*WHORE*COUGH*
Yeah cause all girls that want attention are whore's :rolleyes:

Thats not what you said before ... you said that the clothing would MAKE them a slut

If you were those types of clothes yes its valid to call them a slut or whore.

If you were those types of clothes yes its valid to call them a slut or whore.
How so?

Are you just making up deffinitions for the word?

Yeah cause all girls that want attention are whore's :rolleyes:

Anyone who wears such clothing yes. You can get attention another way, but its not good to wear a miniskirt at the age of 10 nor any age to show it off. That's like girls wearing white see-through t-shirts and no bras.

Sweet statistics now some hard evidence one way or another

Lets see them we can go through the regresssion step by step and see exactly what your stats show
You know full well, that when I used the term statistically, I meant that it was a trend rather than a predetermination. That the relationship I suggested could only be seen when a sufficient sample was used.

Though, if you'd like to get a bunch of children together, control their style of dress, we'll have an experiment that I believe would support my supposition.

Anyone who wears such clothing yes. You can get attention another way, but its not good to wear a miniskirt at the age of 10 nor any age to show it off. That's like girls wearing white see-through t-shirts and no bras.
Again what fucked up deffinition of slut and whores are you using? your discription does not fit with mine nor the dictionarys

How so?

Are you just making up deffinitions for the word?

No it is the definition of the word.

Well, I read through the article and I did not see a reason for her to want to wear the skirt. What was the reason other than to *whore* attention from others through a more, uh, fleshy means *slut*.

My Vocab:

Whore = Someone who acts/dresses like a slut.
Slut = Someone who "reveals to much"

But it still stands, If they won't cover it up they are no different than the rats who show theirs to get some as well and as such should be exterminated as such.

Most women who flaunt it or show it off are whores out for attention or to get a guy. People that do it are whores, its something anyone can do, but shouldn't.

You appear to me to be out for negative attention. Neo-nazis often seek negative attention. You better stop it or you will turn into a neo-nazi. Oh, wait, the real world doesn't work that way. That's why slippery slope analogies are fallacies. Hey, don't learn from this thread. Just keep arguing that slippery slope. Who cares if everyone recognizes it as a fallacy? You're just out for negative attention, and being wrong actually helps, no?

You know full well, that when I used the term statistically, I meant that it was a trend rather than a predetermination. That the relationship I suggested could only be seen when a sufficient sample was used.

Though, if you'd like to get a bunch of children together, control their style of dress, we'll have an experiment that I believe would support my supposition.
Of course ... about 384 for to be exact (at least with a population the size of the US)(if you are shooting for a CI of 5% and a CL of 95% which is alright for a population survey)

And trends can be predicted they dont have to be predetermined you can mesure trends

And the act of controlling the clothing would lead to a non representitive sample ... you would have to find them in the general population not "collect" them

Unlike a drug (which variation is controlled with a dummyvar test for placibo) emotional development has to almost exclusivly be done in their natural envyroment and with their natural predelection

Well, I skimmed through the article and I did not see a reason for her to want to wear the skirt. What was the reason other than to *whore* attention from others through a more, uh, fleshy means *slut*.

My Vocab:

Whore = Someone who acts/dresses like a slut.
Slut = Someone who "reveals to much"

But it still stands, If they won't cover it up they are no different than the rats who show theirs to get some as well and as such should be exterminated as such.

Which actually is both parts of the definition of the word. Though they shouldn't be killed for it, though they should know the risks and it should bring much shame on them!

No it is the definition of the word.

Hmmmm...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/slut
Apparently not.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whore
Nope. You're using that word wrong as well.

No it is the definition of the word.
Please show us ... I see no where that clothing is mentioned in the deffinition

Im sure you could streach it by making some un founded assumptions but please point them out

Which actually is both parts of the definition of the word. Though they shouldn't be killed for it, though they should know the risks and it should bring much shame on them!
Please show us where ... I have checked several dictionary's now ... no luck

You appear to me to be out for negative attention. Neo-nazis often seek negative attention. You better stop it or you will turn into a neo-nazi. Oh, wait, the real world doesn't work that way. That's why slippery slope analogies are fallacies. Hey, don't learn from this thread. Just keep arguing that slippery slope. Who cares if everyone recognizes it as a fallacy? You're just out for negative attention, and being wrong actually helps, no?

I am not out for negative attention.

I am against the short miniskirts that when they sit you can see their panties or thongs. I am against the very sexy and often revealing clothes that have become common place in our society.

Its a problem and I don't like every woman who dresses like this, besides have you ever realized how GROSS some of them are? KEEP IT COVERED!

Hmmmm...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/slut
Apparently not.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whore
Nope. You're using that word wrong as well.

Slut

1.
1. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.
Whore

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

I think I am using it correctly. :)

Actually, it's more a matter of her being propositioned more based on people percieving her as a slut. As a result, she will be statistically more likely to become one because she will have had greater oportunity.

It isn't a case of absolute determinism, but it can serve as a risk factor.

Bwahaha! Yes, that's it. What determines a slut or whore chiefly is the availability of willing men. I know that my female friends have a horrible time finding a guy willing to sleep with them. What color is the sky in your world?

I am not out for negative attention.

I am against the short miniskirts that when they sit you can see their panties or thongs. I am against the very sexy and often revealing clothes that have become common place in our society.

Its a problem and I don't like every woman who dresses like this, besides have you ever realized how GROSS some of them are? KEEP IT COVERED!
You must be horrified every time you undress. :rolleyes:

Slut

1.
1. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.
Whore

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

I think I am using it correctly. :)
Just like I thought ... you neglect to state your assumption

That mini skirts are a signal for someone sexualy promiscuous

That does not make them a whore ... that just means you are possibly misreading the signals

Please show us ... I see no where that clothing is mentioned in the deffinition

Im sure you could streach it by making some un founded assumptions but please point them out

I did.

Oh and Jo....

OWNED BY YOUR OWN ARGUEMENT.

1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

I did.

Oh and Jo....

OWNED BY YOUR OWN ARGUEMENT.
Not really how does a mini skirt mean someone is having sex for money?

Edit: personally I would have picked one of the different examples of the word they were much stronger then that choice

Slut

1.
1. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.
Whore

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

I think I am using it correctly. :)

Where does it mention women who wear revealing clothing? I don't see it. Could you bold it for me? Because it seems like everything there says it relates to ACTUALLY being promiscuous and not just wearing something you think makes her 'look promiscuous'.

I did.

Oh and Jo....

OWNED BY YOUR OWN ARGUEMENT.
Where does it mention clothes?

You must be horrified every time you undress. :rolleyes:

Take the flaming out of the thread, its pointless.

Just like I thought ... you neglect to state your assumption

That mini skirts are a signal for someone sexualy promiscuous

That does not make them a whore ... that just means you are possibly misreading the signals

Actually its common for them to wear such clothes and it is a sign of promiscious nature and immorality. Both suitable for the tag of slut or whore.

I did.

Oh and Jo....

OWNED BY YOUR OWN ARGUEMENT.

Did you even read the definitions? Whore and sluts require actions not looks. Seriously, are you trolling?

Where does it mention women who wear revealing clothing? I don't see it. Could you bold it for me? Because it seems like everything there says it relates to ACTUALLY being promiscuous and not just wearing something you think makes her 'look promiscuous'.
Yeah personally I would have chose the percived one to argue instead of the one he did ... much stronger argument

I am not out for negative attention.

I am against the short miniskirts that when they sit you can see their panties or thongs. I am against the very sexy and often revealing clothes that have become common place in our society.

Its a problem and I don't like every woman who dresses like this, besides have you ever realized how GROSS some of them are? KEEP IT COVERED!

Geez! Is this your issue? You want a world where women are covered?

http://www.geocities.com/orchike/images/photos/MD001212P1.jpg
The middle east is nice this time of year.

Take the flaming out of the thread, its pointless.



Actually its common for them to wear such clothes and it is a sign of promiscious nature and immorality. Both suitable for the tag of slut or whore.
That was me you quoted ... not J

They should not be killed :mp5: , they need to be executed.

My Vocab:
Executed - The legal killing of someone, or in this case, something.

For instances, in this case I talking about slavery. They are so willing to use their bodies then let them, for the benifit of everyone :fluffle: .


Think about it, when the little sluts get "knocked up" what happens...

The school needs to give them special access to an elevator or such which costs, key word, EVERYbody money who pays taxes. And when the sluts put the babies up for adoption what happens, EVERYbody has to pay to feed and cloth the child.

Take the flaming out of the thread, its pointless.



Actually its common for them to wear such clothes and it is a sign of promiscious nature and immorality. Both suitable for the tag of slut or whore.

The tag is inappropriate period, but aside from that you are using the terms incorrectly. The definition YOU listed says that they have to actually be promiscuous not just live up to your standards of clothing. Do you have any actual evidence or are you just going to keep listing evidence that has nothing to do with your argument?

Did you even read the definitions? Whore and sluts require actions not looks. Seriously, are you trolling?

No. Its in the defination and it does not require an action.
Slut and whore do not too be prostitutes to be called that. Its in the dictionary. So I am using the term properly to describe how they are acting and what they are for doing so.

And when the sluts put the babies up for adoption what happens, EVERYbody has to pay to feed and cloth the child.

Off chance you're pro-life too?

No. Its in the defination and it does not require an action.
Slut and whore do not too be prostitutes to be called that. Its in the dictionary. So I am using the term properly to describe how they are acting and what they are for doing so.
You have yet to show us where it actualy shows that... claiming it does, does not make it so

I am not out for negative attention.

I am against the short miniskirts that when they sit you can see their panties or thongs. I am against the very sexy and often revealing clothes that have become common place in our society.

Its a problem and I don't like every woman who dresses like this, besides have you ever realized how GROSS some of them are? KEEP IT COVERED!

Or, here's a thought, don't look. They won't complain. I'm sorry if you can't control your eyes, but if I don't like looking at someone, I don't look.

And, yes, you are. That's why you keep using inflamatory words. Your arguments have no merit so you put flamebaiting words into them becuase it gets attention. For you, negative attention beats no attention. How about actually putting in some effort and actually making argument?

No. Its in the defination and it does not require an action.
Slut and whore do not too be prostitutes to be called that. Its in the dictionary. So I am using the term properly to describe how they are acting and what they are for doing so.

It says they actually have to promiscuous. Promiscuous means sexually-active. ACTIVE. It requires ACTion. Looking promiscuous =/= being promiscuous.

Promiscuous - 3 : not restricted to one sexual partner

In other words, if they don't have more than one sexual partner they CANNOT be promiscuous.

No. Its in the defination and it does not require an action.
Slut and whore do not too be prostitutes to be called that. Its in the dictionary. So I am using the term properly to describe how they are acting and what they are for doing so.
Slut

1.
1. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.
Whore

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Your own definitions
Do you have a reading disability? I don't see clothes mentioned anywhere.

Or, here's a thought, don't look. They won't complain. I'm sorry if you can't control your eyes, but if I don't like looking at someone, I don't look.

And, yes, you are. That's why you keep using inflamatory words. Your arguments have no merit so you put flamebaiting words into them becuase it gets attention. For you, negative attention beats no attention. How about actually putting in some effort and actually making argument?
Sense the other argument is not worth it what do you think of school uniform policy?

The tag is inappropriate period, but aside from that you are using the terms incorrectly. The definition YOU listed says that they have to actually be promiscuous not just live up to your standards of clothing. Do you have any actual evidence or are you just going to keep listing evidence that has nothing to do with your argument?

CONSIDERED Sexually promicious.

Promicious is:

1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: “Throngs promiscuous strew the level green” (Alexander Pope).

Showing herself off like that does fit the defination of slut and whore. It does not require an action. I don't need to see someone being a prostitute to call them a slut or whore. Jeeze.

We're talking a 10-year old in a MINISKIRT with short-shorts underneath. Its meant to arouse and generate attention to her and she's showing it off. By my book and many others, that is the defination of a slutty girl. Besides...what parents let their daughter go to school in such clothes anyways!

Off chance you're pro-life too?

Kind of, where as I don't care if the little babies are killed by needle, club, or even eaten...seriously I don't care until they are poped out of their mother.

However, why kill something that can be useful...need an organ, get and an "aborted baby", a baby taken off the parent. The parent does not have to be burdened by it and the state gets a child which it could train into an elite soldier, conduct experiments on it instead of animals...

Your own definitions
Do you have a reading disability? I don't see clothes mentioned anywhere.

Your the only troll here who's opening statement was an insult and attack on me for my use of the language which is supported in the dictionary. The definition is proper, albeit a little unusual for this case, but it still applies.

Sense the other argument is not worth it what do you think of school uniform policy?

I think they are unneeded. I think simple rules are good enough to resolve any conflicts. At my school you were required to be covered to the neck, at least to the point on your shoulder where it heads downward and to the point where your fingertips touch your thighs with continuous opaque clothing. Male or female, it didn't matter. The rules were consistent and fair and not really much different than many jobs require.

CONSIDERED Sexually promicious.

Promicious is:

1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: “Throngs promiscuous strew the level green” (Alexander Pope).

Showing herself off like that does fit the defination of slut and whore. It does not require an action. I don't need to see someone being a prostitute to call them a slut or whore. Jeeze.

No...It doesn't...It actually HAVING sexual relations or lacking standards (I assume 3 and 4 don't apply here). Wearing clothes does neither of these things. And yeah, reasonable people actually do need to see it to call them that, and even then most don't.

Your the only troll here who's opening statement was an insult and attack on me for my use of the language which is supported in the dictionary. The definition is proper, albeit a little unusual for this case, but it still applies.

It is not proper. Didn't you read the definition? She either has to have sex for money or have sex with multiple partners, but she MUST be having sex for the terms to apply. You fail.

I think they are unneeded. I think simple rules are good enough to resolve any conflicts. At my school you were required to be covered to the neck, at least to the point on your shoulder where it heads downward and to the point where your fingertips touch your thighs with continuous opaque clothing. Male or female, it didn't matter. The rules were consistent and fair and not really much different than many jobs require.
What about us with long gorilla arms :)

Kind of, where as I don't care if the little babies are killed by needle, club, or even eaten...seriously I don't care until they are poped out of their mother.

However, why kill something that can be useful...need an organ, get and an "aborted baby", a baby taken off the parent. The parent does not have to be burdened by it and the state gets a child which it could train into an elite soldier, conduct experiments on it instead of animals...

Baby organs are too small to be of use to adult or many children patients, everything is so disproportantly small. Conducting experiements on people instead of animals is even worse also.

CONSIDERED Sexually promicious.

Promicious is:

1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: “Throngs promiscuous strew the level green” (Alexander Pope).

Showing herself off like that does fit the defination of slut and whore. It does not require an action. I don't need to see someone being a prostitute to call them a slut or whore. Jeeze.

We're talking a 10-year old in a MINISKIRT with short-shorts underneath. Its meant to arouse and generate attention to her and she's showing it off. By my book and many others, that is the defination of a slutty girl. Besides...what parents let their daughter go to school in such clothes anyways!

Only the first definition of promiscuous applies and as it states requires sexual partners. If you consider a virgin sexually promiscuous because of what she wears then you don't understand the term.

What about us with long gorilla arms :)

Too bad. I have them and I had to deal with it.

Too bad. I have them and I had to deal with it.
Lol I was just kidding ... as a guy I liked my shorts long anyways lol

Edit: That does bring into question the fact that I had a friend with a growth disorder ... tiny gal but I am not sure her arms would have actualy reached past her waist ... wonder where that would fall

It is not proper. Didn't you read the definition? She either has to have sex for money or have sex with multiple partners, but she MUST be having sex for the terms to apply. You fail.

Wrong. It applies to one definition, but dressing like one also applies. Just drop it, even your own dictionary had the immorality and doing something for personal gain against morals.

Remember that episode of South Park where Jesus said Kenny was a whore for doing stuff that anyone could do for money? He was not having sex (well at that point until Howard Stern came along), but he was doing it against his own morals for personal gain in some form or another. That was money and fame.

My definiton is by all means right to use and although uncommon is acceptable.

Lol I was just kidding ... as a guy I liked my shorts long anyways lol

Edit: That does bring into question the fact that I had a friend with a growth disorder ... tiny gal but I am not sure her arms would have actualy reached past her waist ... wonder where that would fall

;) :p

Baby organs are too small to be of use to adult or many children patients, everything is so disproportantly small. Conducting experiements on people instead of animals is even worse also.

I ment to "grow" the babies to an adult level through intense physical labor, slavery, thus allowing the best possible lung and such. And I don't see whats so wrong with conducting experiments on people who should be dead anyways wrong, especially experiments who help people the most (makeup tech, behavioral studies...). No reason to force a monkey to get lung cancer because it is being forced to smoke just so companies could make a safer cigarette.

Wrong. It applies to one definition, but dressing like one also applies. Just drop it, even your own dictionary had the immorality and doing something for personal gain against morals.

No, it doesn't. There's not one good reason clothing is a sexual act.

Remember that episode of South Park where Jesus said Kenny was a whore for doing stuff that anyone could do for money? He was not having sex (well at that point until Howard Stern came along), but he was doing it against his own morals for personal gain in some form or another. That was money and fame.

My definiton is by all means right to use and although uncommon is acceptable.

...You're using South Park to debate?

Only the first definition of promiscuous applies and as it states requires sexual partners. If you consider a virgin sexually promiscuous because of what she wears then you don't understand the term.

Again you have no respect for the English languages diversity. See my post above for this. I am getting tired of trying to beat this into you and you won't understand it is an acceptable term under the conditions. :headbang:

I ment to "grow" the babies to an adult level through intense physical labor, slavery, thus allowing the best possible lung and such. And I don't see whats so wrong with conducting experiments on people who should be dead anyways wrong, especially experiments who help people the most (makeup tech, behavioral studies...). No reason to force a monkey to get lung cancer because it is being forced to smoke just so companies could make a safer cigarette.

That is just even worse.... sickening!

Wrong. It applies to one definition, but dressing like one also applies. Just drop it, even your own dictionary had the immorality and doing something for personal gain against morals.

Remember that episode of South Park where Jesus said Kenny was a whore for doing stuff that anyone could do for money? He was not having sex (well at that point until Howard Stern came along), but he was doing it against his own morals for personal gain in some form or another. That was money and fame.

My definiton is by all means right to use and although uncommon is acceptable.
Wrong

Re read it

Here I will quote it in case you are having more problems
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

It only counts if she is compromising her principals for personal gain

Care to prove she is doing that?

Again you have no respect for the English languages diversity. See my post above for this. I am getting tired of trying to beat this into you and you won't understand it is an acceptable term under the conditions. :headbang:
Thats only because it is not

If you feel like using incorrect words fine ... just dont expect us to accept your ignorance

Sicking and Indecent. Is this what the U.S. wants to produce, sluts and whores. They should be executed without exception for they are no different than the rats you call an exterminator for.
Please don't troll or flamebait, next time you get a brief forum ban.

No, it doesn't. There's not one good reason clothing is a sexual act.



...You're using South Park to debate?

First part....it is considered, doesn't mean so, but it is associated and makes them look like it. Ever here of guilty by association? If I dress up in a black trenchcoat and chains and dark clothes, is it wrong to call me gothic even if I wear the symbols and clothing of one, but am not at all?

Secondly, it was an example. It was the first one that popped into my head that most people on the forum would get, because most of the shows I see are still in japanese. :P

First part....it is considered, doesn't mean so, but it is associated and makes them look like it. Ever here of guilty by association? If I dress up in a black trenchcoat and chains and dark clothes, is it wrong to call me gothic even if I wear the symbols and clothing of one, but am not at all?

Secondly, it was an example. It was the first one that popped into my head that most people on the forum would get, because most of the shows I see are still in japanese. :P
You can, but prepare to be cussed at if you do.

If I dress up in a black trenchcoat and chains and dark clothes, is it wrong to call me gothic even if I wear the symbols and clothing of one, but am not at all?


Yes, it is. And moreso, if you have an issue with goths, you don't ban gothic-looking clothing.

Thats only because it is not

If you feel like using incorrect words fine ... just dont expect us to accept your ignorance

Okay this is my last post on the usage of the stupid word. It is acceptable to me, and although it is not the first defination you think of it is by all means acceptable under terms of lack of a better word to describe her promicious clothing in such an environment.

I still stand by my arguement that she is completely in the wrong and deserves everything she gets for this. It is all too common for people to push and push the law until things like this happen. I don't care if anyone is a pedo or not, but a 10-year-old girl should not even be SEEN with such clothing. Her parents deserve to be investigated and her daughter suspended at the very least for the maximum amount of time for such an offense.

What kind of world are we coming to when a 10 year old girl can dress like THAT and have it be accepted. Not even teenage girls should be seen in these clothes unless they want to be called sluts and whores for the way they dress that is meant to attract attention by showing off their body in a sexual way!

I don't know if this is relevant, but I work for a program that serves first-time parents in the area. We get our information through the local hospital. Our assessment worker interviewed a 13-year old girl who had just had a baby. She would have been a shoo-in for our program (which especially targets teen parents) except that it turned out the girl had already had a child before this one so she wasn't a first-time parent.

These things happen.

Okay this is my last post on the usage of the stupid word. It is acceptable to me, and although it is not the first defination you think of it is by all means acceptable under terms of lack of a better word to describe her promicious clothing in such an environment.

I still stand by my arguement that she is completely in the wrong and deserves everything she gets for this. It is all too common for people to push and push the law until things like this happen. I don't care if anyone is a pedo or not, but a 10-year-old girl should not even be SEEN with such clothing. Her parents deserve to be investigated and her daughter suspended at the very least for the maximum amount of time for such an offense.

What kind of world are we coming to when a 10 year old girl can dress like THAT and have it be accepted. Not even teenage girls should be seen in these clothes unless they want to be called sluts and whores for the way they dress that is meant to attract attention by showing off their body in a sexual way!


By your figuring

Personally I find your need to control others dress and your apparent inability to separate the clothing from the person as more troubling then her choice of clothing.

Yes, it is. And moreso, if you have an issue with goths, you don't ban gothic-looking clothing.

*Sigh* What's with your problem, you think I want to 'ban' everything. I am totally for a strict dress code or school uniforms becasue of everything that comes with it at the small sacrifice of individuality in clothing in a govenmentally funded education system which is already plagued with endless behavior problems and infractions on the entire dress code by social trends and fads that are particulary offensive or overly revealing.

You wonder why private schools have strict dress-codes or uniforms and are also among the most prestigious and successful schools? Though that is another matter.

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.

Face it she broke the code and broke the rules, skirts at the least should be below the knees when sitting. Its not too much to ask.

Wrong. It applies to one definition, but dressing like one also applies. Just drop it, even your own dictionary had the immorality and doing something for personal gain against morals.

Remember that episode of South Park where Jesus said Kenny was a whore for doing stuff that anyone could do for money? He was not having sex (well at that point until Howard Stern came along), but he was doing it against his own morals for personal gain in some form or another. That was money and fame.

My definiton is by all means right to use and although uncommon is acceptable.
Your argument is that South Park did it so it's right? Seriously, just admit you're wrong. Everyone else already dismissed your arguments. The rest of us are in the pool and I know you're afraid the water's cold, but jump in, it's heated.

I don't know if this is relevant, but I work for a program that serves first-time parents in the area. We get our information through the local hospital. Our assessment worker interviewed a 13-year old girl who had just had a baby. She would have been a shoo-in for our program (which especially targets teen parents) except that it turned out the girl had already had a child before this one so she wasn't a first-time parent.

These things happen.

O.O That means she was sexually active at/before the age of 12! :eek: :eek:
And people still think our children are innocent when more and more teenage pregnancies (under 18) are occuring and even in such extreme cases as this. Puberty is barely kicking in at this age!

Again you have no respect for the English languages diversity. See my post above for this. I am getting tired of trying to beat this into you and you won't understand it is an acceptable term under the conditions. :headbang:

I have respect for the proper use of language. You are complaining because I don't accept your use of a slur. Waaa! I would say people who use slurs in the first place have no respect for the language. Moreso, I would say you're no different than the girl in this article. You both seem to be using negative means to draw attention. Her by fighting a reasonable dress code and you by using slurs and hyperbole to substitute for evidence and debate.

O.O That means she was sexually active at/before the age of 12! :eek: :eek:
And people still think our children are innocent when more and more teenage pregnancies (under 18) are occuring and even in such extreme cases as this. Puberty is barely kicking in at this age!
:eek: Bring out the burqas!

Your argument is that South Park did it so it's right? Seriously, just admit you're wrong. Everyone else already dismissed your arguments. The rest of us are in the pool and I know you're afraid the water's cold, but jump in, it's heated.

I'm sorry, but I am not fixing my post about the use of a word which does apply under the language and is right.

Though I hope you are not against this girl getting away with what she did! Are you!?

O.O That means she was sexually active at/before the age of 12! :eek: :eek:
And people still think our children are innocent when more and more teenage pregnancies (under 18) are occuring and even in such extreme cases as this. Puberty is barely kicking in at this age!

Um, you're wrong. Teenage pregnancies are on the decline.

Meanwhile, you cannot use isolated examples to evidence a trend. We keep telling you this and you keep trying to do so. Telling you I was a virgin until I was 21 doesn't prove that my generation was mostly virgins.

O.O That means she was sexually active at/before the age of 12! :eek: :eek:
And people still think our children are innocent when more and more teenage pregnancies (under 18) are occuring and even in such extreme cases as this. Puberty is barely kicking in at this age!

It was pretty shocking, although we do see a lot of first-time pregnancies between 13 and 15. The girls don't always go through with them, thank goodness. My 18 year old client has two children, and said that she had an abortion before those at the age of 14 because she felt she was too young. (Btw, this girl was on the pill, but my guess is she wasn't using it correctly.)

I'm sorry, but I am not fixing my post about the use of a word which does apply under the language and is right.

Though I hope you are not against this girl getting away with what she did! Are you!?

I find your intolerant use of language to attack women to be much more deplorable than what she did. We PROVED you used the word improperly and your reply is 'nuh-uh'.

As for my views on how this should be handled, I posted a few dozen posts on the matter. Feel free to read them.

Um, you're wrong. Teenage pregnancies are on the decline.

Meanwhile, you cannot use isolated examples to evidence a trend. We keep telling you this and you keep trying to do so. Telling you I was a virgin until I was 21 doesn't prove that my generation was mostly virgins.

Sorry, I didn't know this thread had gotten so angry. I wouldn't have bothered posting at all.

O.O That means she was sexually active at/before the age of 12! :eek: :eek:
And people still think our children are innocent when more and more teenage pregnancies (under 18) are occuring and even in such extreme cases as this. Puberty is barely kicking in at this age!
Psst sorry to rune your fun but teenage pregnancies are on the DECLINE

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator.html?Id=6&G=23

Edit incase a picture is needed

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/chorep/mum/mum_teenloc_big.gif

Edit example is from england but the trend is in most 1st word countries as the mn link shows

I have respect for the proper use of language. You are complaining because I don't accept your use of a slur. Waaa! I would say people who use slurs in the first place have no respect for the language. Moreso, I would say you're no different than the girl in this article. You both seem to be using negative means to draw attention. Her by fighting a reasonable dress code and you by using slurs and hyperbole to substitute for evidence and debate.

Its hardly a slur when its in the dictionary and is also one of the older uses for it. Prostitute used to be what you called a woman who sold herself, slut and whore were also terms that were added upon. It used to be exclusive that a slut was a female prostitute and whore was a male prostitute. Though as times have changed it can be both know (through improper use) and its listed even today. Well sorry for it not matching your ONLY use.

Psst sorry to rune your fun but teenage pregnancies are on the DECLINE

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator.html?Id=6&G=23

Thank goodness for oral sex!

What kind of world are we coming to when a 10 year old girl can dress like THAT and have it be accepted. Not even teenage girls should be seen in these clothes unless they want to be called sluts and whores for the way they dress that is meant to attract attention by showing off their body in a sexual way!

Believe me, it does get a little disturbing when I get hit on and have some sexual gestures made towards me from girls who are barely 12 and look like like they have been around the block quite a few times. And Im 20! *shudders* *shudders again* good Lord what the hell is going on here?
I have seen it, and it is quite disturbing, to see girls dressing like whores in the 6th grade. I just dont understand those who think this type of behavior is ok. I sure as hell didnt see that stuff when I was in grade school. Boy, a lot has changed since then!
I just find it hilarious when they dress like that, and then they complain when guys do give them attention. They're like, "Oh what pervs!" Hey, you asked for it! Now deal with it. Dont like the attention? dont dress like that!

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teen_sex.html

Since 1980, abortion rates among sexually experienced teens have declined steadily, because fewer teens are becoming pregnant, and in recent years, fewer pregnant teens have chosen to have an abortion.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

If you read you will see that teenage pregnancy has pretty much steadily declined since 1950 and it's the lowest it's been pretty much since they started measuring. You'll also see that the decline is due to better and more use of birth control but also a reduction in the number of teenagers having sex.

Seems like the data again disagrees with you.

Its hardly a slur when its in the dictionary and is also one of the older uses for it. Prostitute used to be what you called a woman who sold herself, slut and whore were also terms that were added upon. It used to be exclusive that a slut was a female prostitute and whore was a male prostitute. Though as times have changed it can be both know (through improper use) and its listed even today. Well sorry for it not matching your ONLY use.
Wearing revealing clothing=/= promiscuous.

Its hardly a slur when its in the dictionary and is also one of the older uses for it. Prostitute used to be what you called a woman who sold herself, slut and whore were also terms that were added upon. It used to be exclusive that a slut was a female prostitute and whore was a male prostitute. Though as times have changed it can be both know (through improper use) and its listed even today. Well sorry for it not matching your ONLY use.
Too bad wearing a skirt does not qualify them for being a prostitute

So your incorrect usage is still a slur

I take back my comment....it wasn't it. I seen locally we had more pregnacies by year, but its not the national trend.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf

Too bad wearing a skirt does not qualify them for being a prostitute

So your incorrect usage is still a slur

Its a correct usage. I cited the dictionary which it applies, and I did not say she was a prostitute. Jeeze you overreact on that.

Its hardly a slur when its in the dictionary and is also one of the older uses for it. Prostitute used to be what you called a woman who sold herself, slut and whore were also terms that were added upon. It used to be exclusive that a slut was a female prostitute and whore was a male prostitute. Though as times have changed it can be both know (through improper use) and its listed even today. Well sorry for it not matching your ONLY use.

You are not using it properly. Not at all. It's not the only use. Your usage is NOT in the dictionary and you have three different people trying to explain it to you. You cannot be promiscuous and be a virgin. It's not possible. Promiscuous requires sexual partners and to be a slut or a whore requires promiscuity or collecting money for the act. Both require sexual partners. Just admit you're wrong.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/******
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dyke (see the second noun definition)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kike
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wetback

And, yet again, you're proven wrong. Slurs are often in the dictionary.

Its a correct usage. I cited the dictionary which it applies, and I did not say she was a prostitute. Jeeze you overreact on that.

The dictionary says she must either be considered promiscuous (that means she must actually fit the definition) or she must be a prostitute. Since you say she doesn't fit the second definition, please explain how dressing in a short skirt makes a woman fit the definition of promiscuous. I would be interested to know.

I take back my comment....it wasn't it. I seen locally we had more pregnacies by year, but its not the national trend.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf

Where?

Wearing revealing clothing=/= promiscuous.

Yes I agree, that's why I said it makes girls 'sluts or whores' because of what it is doing. Though seriously anyone who wants to run around in those types of clothes for attention are just sick. Which is one of many reasons why I hate Rap and the rest of the hip hop garbage that pollutes our nations youth with absolutely horrible values and viewpoints on life that will scar our generation.

Psst sorry to rune your fun but teenage pregnancies are on the DECLINE

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/ind...html?Id=6&G=23

Edit incase a picture is needed

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-...eenloc_big.gif

Edit example is from england but the trend is in most 1st word countries as the mn link shows

Yeah, from 1993 to now there is a decline, but compare it to the 1940s or so and it would be high. You can't use that as proof to persuade me, which should be the point of a debate, to persuade people to your side. Just like if someone would quote out of context, it just does not work.

The dictionary says she must either be considered promiscuous (that means she must actually fit the definition) or she must be a prostitute. Since you say she doesn't fit the second definition, please explain how dressing in a short skirt makes a woman fit the definition of promiscuous. I would be interested to know.

1. Was answered before by Thrall.
2. Ledyard. Which had 5, 6, and then 10 girls (in my years at the school) leave because of pregnacies. Citing a source from our nice health teacher. :o

Yes I agree, that's why I said it makes girls 'sluts or whores' because of what it is doing. Though seriously anyone who wants to run around in those types of clothes for attention are just sick. Which is one of many reasons why I hate Rap and the rest of the hip hop garbage that pollutes our nations youth with absolutely horrible values and viewpoints on life that will scar our generation.

Horrible values like calling people names and aggressively verbally assaulting people because you don't agree with what they wear? I agree. I would find it very concerning if I actually thought the behavior you display is common among our youth. I don't believe these tactics are typical tactics of youth, however. I also assume that most young people know the definition of promiscuous and don't try to argue that a virgin can be promiscuous.

Yeah, from 1993 to now there is a decline, but compare it to the 1940s or so and it would be high. You can't use that as proof to persuade me, which should be the point of a debate, to persuade people to your side. Just like if someone would quote out of context, it just does not work.
Look at the graph. It starts at 1950 when they started measuring. There was a peek in the early 90's but even that was much lower than the incidence in the 50's.

Yes I agree, that's why I said it makes girls 'sluts or whores' because of what it is doing. Though seriously anyone who wants to run around in those types of clothes for attention are just sick. Which is one of many reasons why I hate Rap and the rest of the hip hop garbage that pollutes our nations youth with absolutely horrible values and viewpoints on life that will scar our generation.
Phew am I glad you're not in charge then. The world certainly doesn't need that kind of back-ward mentality.

Yeah, from 1993 to now there is a decline, but compare it to the 1940s or so and it would be high. You can't use that as proof to persuade me, which should be the point of a debate, to persuade people to your side. Just like if someone would quote out of context, it just does not work.
Ok what are the 1940's national teen birth rate?

Care to show us that it is lower?

Ok what are the 1940's national teen birth rate?

Care to show us that it is lower?


He clearly didn't read the graph. It's been on a nearly steady decline since the 1950's which is the earliest data on the matter that I can find.

Horrible values like calling people names and aggressively verbally assaulting people because you don't agree with what they wear? I agree. I would find it very concerning if I actually thought the behavior you display is common among our youth. I don't believe these tactics are typical tactics of youth, however. I also assume that most young people know the definition of promiscuous and don't try to argue that a virgin can be promiscuous.

Hardly a verbal assault, you are what you are if it matches the defination. I'm not going to call her a naughty tramp or anything, but it was fitting for such a person.

Virgins can be very promiscious and most don't know the word, but know what 'looking slutty' means.

Last thing, my behavior is that of a gentleman about such topics, when I am wrong I admit it, but just because someone says the sky is red and a few people support him on it doesn't mean I am going to think I am wrong and join the collective when the sky is obviously blue to me. :p

He clearly didn't read the graph. It's been on a nearly steady decline since the 1950's which is the earliest data on the matter that I can find.
Ahhh so the phrase "talking out his arse" would apply? :)

1. Was answered before by Thrall.
2. Ledyard. Which had 5, 6, and then 10 girls (in my years at the school) leave because of pregnacies. Citing a source from our nice health teacher. :o

1. Who is thrall?
2. So your trend is three years? You're claiming that a major social trend occurred in three years?!? Okey-dokey. Perhaps then your argument should center around something unique to your school during those three years since that is where your evidence comes from.

Look at the graph. It starts at 1950 when they started measuring. There was a peek in the early 90's but even that was much lower than the incidence in the 50's.

I used the picture one (bottom one). So I am sorry if there was 1950 on there.:confused:

Hardly a verbal assault, you are what you are if it matches the defination. I'm not going to call her a naughty tramp or anything, but it was fitting for such a person.

Virgins can be very promiscious and most don't know the word, but know what 'looking slutty' means.

Last thing, my behavior is that of a gentleman about such topics, when I am wrong I admit it, but just because someone says the sky is red and a few people support him on it doesn't mean I am going to think I am wrong and join the collective when the sky is obviously blue to me. :p
Your performance thus far contradicts that last part

I used the picture one (bottom one). So I am sorry if there was 1950 on there.:confused:
In Jacobia's posted links

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0501/gr050107f1.gif

Hardly a verbal assault, you are what you are if it matches the defination. I'm not going to call her a naughty tramp or anything, but it was fitting for such a person.

You just did. You called her a whore, a naughty tramp and a slut and my mother would be scrubbing your mouth right now if she heard it.

Virgins can be very promiscious and most don't know the word, but know what 'looking slutty' means.

Depends on what you consider a virgin. Meanwhile, you didn't say they looked like sluts, you said they WERE sluts. And I don't know very many teenagers who don't know what promiscuous means.

Last thing, my behavior is that of a gentleman about such topics, when I am wrong I admit it, but just because someone says the sky is red and a few people support him on it doesn't mean I am going to think I am wrong and join the collective when the sky is obviously blue to me. :p
You didn't admit you were wrong. You said that dressing a certain way makes you a whore and a slut by the definition of the term and when proved wrong you whined and accused of us of misusing the dictionary.

"Just because he says that a slut is definition X and the dictionary says a slut is definition X and everyone else in the discussion says a slut is definition X, doesn't mean I am wrong." We get it. You don't accept the dictionary as an authority on definitions even though you claimed to be using the definition from the dictionary. Good to know. So much for admitting when you're wrong.

Meanwhile, there is nothing gentlemanly about calling people whores and sluts and abusing evidence the way you do just to sound like you're right.

Bah, this would never happen in the UK.. you know why? We have uniforms.It's quite a simple process, just make children at school wear a uniform.

Oops ment Thrice.
Though I assume it would be higher in the 1950's :P

Bah, this would never happen in the UK.. you know why? We have uniforms.It's quite a simple process, just make children at school wear a uniform.
Thankfully where I live they don't needlessly limit freedoms

Edit: At least in this way

Bah, this would never happen in the UK.. you know why? We have uniforms.It's quite a simple process, just make children at school wear a uniform.

My thoughts exactly!

Oops ment Thrice.
Though I assume it would be higher in the 1950's :P

It wasn't answered by Thrice. Thrice disagrees with you. What part of the definition of promiscuous does a girl who is wearing revealing clothing necessarily engaging in?

Thankfully where I live they don't needlessly limit freedoms

We have too many freedoms, its just sickening how much freedom we have that we take for granted every single day! America has become a victims society and this is proof of our society going down the drain, its EVERYWHERE. Anyone whose a victim is put higher then the body or person who did this 'wrong' to them.

We have too many freedoms, its just sickening how much freedom we have that we take for granted every single day! America has become a victims society and this is proof of our society going down the drain, its EVERYWHERE. Anyone whose a victim is put higher then the body or person who did this 'wrong' to them.
Ok? I am not even sure where you were going with that

We have too many freedoms, its just sickening how much freedom we have that we take for granted every single day! America has become a victims society and this is proof of our society going down the drain, its EVERYWHERE. Anyone whose a victim is put higher then the body or person who did this 'wrong' to them.
So you'd rather live in a theocracy? So you can subject people to your morals. Thank god, not many people agree with you.

We have too many freedoms, its just sickening how much freedom we have that we take for granted every single day! America has become a victims society and this is proof of our society going down the drain, its EVERYWHERE. Anyone whose a victim is put higher then the body or person who did this 'wrong' to them.

A victim's society isn't about freedoms. It's about responsibility. Taking away freedom doesn't increase responsibility, so your points aren't even remotely related. In fact, you can hardly expect people to take responsibility without freedom. Seriously, I'm having a hard time seeing where the tracks lie for your train of thought.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-...eenloc_big.gif

I used this one, and if that does have more than 1993 to whatever then I don't know what the problem is.:confused:

So you'd rather live in a theocracy? So you can subject people to your morals. Thank god, not many people agree with you.

Theocracy is rule by religion. Not my ideal type of government. I'll stick with democracy.

I used this one, and if that does have more than 1993 to whatever then I don't know what the problem is.:confused:
Link does not work

and I already posted the picture for the one we were using ... scroll down some sonny

A victim's society isn't about freedoms. It's about responsibility. Taking away freedom doesn't increase responsibility, so your points aren't even remotely related. In fact, you can hardly expect people to take responsibility without freedom. Seriously, I'm having a hard time seeing where the tracks lie for your train of thought.

A victim's society because we have too many freedoms is just the thing, we created it with all our laws and systems protecting the victim and now immediately back them!

The day where a mother and daughter can fight a proper and reasonable dress code and be called victims is just wrong. The day where someone dries their cat in the dryer and it dies is just sick. When someone gets burned from HOT coffee and wins a court case is wrong. We're already past the point we blame everyone else for our faults and wrongs. Like a song leading someone to suicide. (Manson case)

If I tripped and fell on the ice ANYWHERE I can sue the people who didn't clear it off and win a court case. Hell there was a court case here over a PIECE OF STRING and the guy won $130,000 for TRIPPING ON IT!

A victim's society because we have too many freedoms is just the thing, we created it with all our laws and systems protecting the victim and now immediately back them!

The day where a mother and daughter can fight a proper and reasonable dress code and be called victims is just wrong. The day where someone dries their cat in the dryer and it dies is just sick. When someone gets burned from HOT coffee and wins a court case is wrong. We're already past the point we blame everyone else for our faults and wrongs. Like a song leading someone to suicide. (Manson case)

If I tripped and fell on the ice ANYWHERE I can sue the people who didn't clear it off and win a court case. Hell there was a court case here over a PIECE OF STRING and the guy won $130,000 for TRIPPING ON IT!
And how is all of that caused by freedom?

A victim's society because we have too many freedoms is just the thing, we created it with all our laws and systems protecting the victim and now immediately back them!

The day where a mother and daughter can fight a proper and reasonable dress code and be called victims is just wrong. The day where someone dries their cat in the dryer and it dies is just sick. When someone gets burned from HOT coffee and wins a court case is wrong. We're already past the point we blame everyone else for our faults and wrongs. Like a song leading someone to suicide. (Manson case)

If I tripped and fell on the ice ANYWHERE I can sue the people who didn't clear it off and win a court case. Hell there was a court case here over a PIECE OF STRING and the guy won $130,000 for TRIPPING ON IT!

That has nothing to do with freedoms. It has to do with no one taking responsibilities for their actions. Freedoms =/= responsibilities. Seriously, if you can't figure out how to use words, then I'm not sure we can continue. You are not talking about freedoms. AT ALL.

I used this one, and if that does have more than 1993 to whatever then I don't know what the problem is.:confused:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

I posted a link going back to 1950. Look on the first page. Are we done here?

And how is all of that caused by freedom?

He doesn't know. Earlier he claimed a stories about a couple of people evidence an nationwide trend. Then the number of pregnancies at his high school in three years are evidence that teenage pregnancy is increasing. Then that the dictionary definitions of whore and slut includes how they dress even though he posted them and they don't. I'm tired trying to find the tracks for his unfathomable train of thought.

Sigh its another rant for another time.
I'm just saying we have too many rights to actions and its all pathetic.
At least the legislation against the fast food companies passed. >.>

Any updates on them stopping this stupid protest?

What does having a uniform have to do with limiting freedoms? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard and its again proof of why your society seems to be rotting according to quite a few sources.

What does having a uniform have to do with limiting freedoms? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard and its again proof of why your society seems to be rotting according to quite a few sources.
People think that they can't express themselves and it is an infringement on their rights. XD

People think that they can't express themselves and it is an infringement on their rights. XD
I never said it was limiting my rights

It IS limiting freedom though

I need better justification for that then anyone in the thread has actualy shown

What does having a uniform have to do with limiting freedoms? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard and its again proof of why your society seems to be rotting according to quite a few sources.

free·dom Audio pronunciation of "freedom" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.

What I did NOT say is nessisarily that this freedom is a RIGHT like aparently some on here ASSUMED

But placing "restraints" on dress IS limiting FREEDOMS by its very deffinition

Maybe it is a limit of freedom, but so is jail. There are rules and laws set in place for good reasons, and in many countries, one of them is school uniform. There's a whole host of reasons why a school uniform is much simpler and much better (and also better looking) than students wearing their own clothes.

There's a whole host of reasons why a school uniform is much simpler and much better (and also better looking) than students wearing their own clothes.

You'd imagine one of these myriad reasons would slip out every once in a while, eh?

Maybe it is a limit of freedom, but so is jail. There are rules and laws set in place for good reasons, and in many countries, one of them is school uniform. There's a whole host of reasons why a school uniform is much simpler and much better (and also better looking) than students wearing their own clothes.

Agreed. :)

You'd imagine one of these myriad reasons would slip out every once in a while, eh?

I'd say this is one of them.

I'd say this is one of them.

No, this is a reason to make a reasonable limit on the shortness of skirts, not for uniforms.

No, this is a reason to make a reasonable limit on the shortness of skirts, not for uniforms.
I'd say it's neither, but that's just me.

I'd say it's neither, but that's just me.

Well, I don't actually think you'd need either, but that's the best you could use it as reasoning for.

1.) Peer pressure and bullying.
It wouldn't be uncommon for someone to be bullied because of the way they dress, the sort of clothes they were, or how much they cost. School uniform stops all that and links all students in a common clothing code.
2.) Cases like the OP
3.) Smartness and Discipline
A school uniform brings a sense of smartness and discipline. Do you wear your own clothes in employment? In the military? In big business? No.
4.) Indentity
Useful for identifying students if they're truanting or something.

1.) Peer pressure and bullying.
It wouldn't be uncommon for someone to be bullied because of the way they dress, the sort of clothes they were, or how much they cost. School uniform stops all that and links all students in a common clothing code.
2.) Cases like the OP
3.) Smartness and Discipline
A school uniform brings a sense of smartness and discipline. Do you wear your own clothes in employment? In the military? In big business? No.
4.) Indentity
Useful for identifying students if they're truanting or something.

Well they have outside clothes to....but you know whats really funny?
Seniors from our class got caught skipping down at a pizzeria in ledyard, a teacher came in to order pizza and saw them there (this was at 2nd period) and they got OWNED. So you can't skip class unless you have 2 sets of clothes lol!

Though uniforms are good and this shows it. :)

1.) Peer pressure and bullying.
It wouldn't be uncommon for someone to be bullied because of the way they dress, the sort of clothes they were, or how much they cost. School uniform stops all that and links all students in a common clothing code.

I'm sure you've studied this...I mean of course bully only exist because people wear different clothes, if there were uniforms, they certainly couldn't find any reason to put someone down.

2.) Cases like the OP

Again, a dress code with limits on lengths of skirts would be a reasonable answer, not uniforms

3.) Smartness and Discipline
A school uniform brings a sense of smartness and discipline. Do you wear your own clothes in employment? In the military? In big business? No.

That I want evidence for. Actual evidence.

4.) Indentity
Useful for identifying students if they're truanting or something.

Because, of course, they keep the uniforms on. And yanno, you can't tell when a kid is absent and call the parents to check if they should be.

1.) Peer pressure and bullying.
It wouldn't be uncommon for someone to be bullied because of the way they dress, the sort of clothes they were, or how much they cost. School uniform stops all that and links all students in a common clothing code.
2.) Cases like the OP
3.) Smartness and Discipline
A school uniform brings a sense of smartness and discipline. Do you wear your own clothes in employment? In the military? In big business? No.
4.) Indentity
Useful for identifying students if they're truanting or something.
1 Kids are inventive. If it isn't the clothes, there is always something else
2 What about it?
3 Don't need a uniform for discipline
4 How so? They all look the same. 'Who did it?' The kid with the uniform.

Don't really have the time or patience to go through over 440 replies ATM, and I hope I'm not intruding on the current line of debate if it's changed, but I do know that the way children dress these days IS getting ridiculous, and it DOES need to be nipped in the branch, since it's already gone past the "bud" stage. I've seen 2 and 3 year olds walking around in string bikinis at an amusement park, with those sheer little wrap skirts around their hips. I've seen girls wear Playboy Bunny costumes to school on Hallowe'en. I've seen far too many young girls wear clothes that are inappropriate (and unflattering, my fashion sense screams) because older kids are allowed to wear the same styles and do so regularly, and they'll cry and scream until they're allowed to wear what Big Sis wears to school, too.

It's true that not all kids as young as the girl in the topic post are sexually active, nor even ready to be, but I should think that people would take into account A) older kids in the school who are active or 'mature' physically, B) the distraction to teachers, assistants, etc., and C) the trip to and from school, especially if the girl walks or takes a bus, since she can pass by a lot of older boys who are just testosterone-crazed enough to do more than look. Wearing clothes that were designed to tease should not be allowed in schools of any level, IMHO.

(*Puts on her flame-proof suit and prepares for lockdown*)

Personally, I don’t think it’s a good think to sex up pre-puberty kids. Sometimes it seems like the kid’s fashion market is being driven by pedophiles. I now that market forces have no shame in trying to get younger and younger kids (see their parents) interesting in shelling out for the latest look. I can’t get my head around a parent dressing their kids up like a hooker at the age of 10. I think it’s retarded not letting kids just be kids. They can’t play on the playground now because they might dirty their fashionable clothes. Hanging out isn’t a healthy playground activity for young kids.

I'm sure you've studied this...I mean of course bully only exist because people wear different clothes, if there were uniforms, they certainly couldn't find any reason to put someone down.



Again, a dress code with limits on lengths of skirts would be a reasonable answer, not uniforms



That I want evidence for. Actual evidence.



Because, of course, they keep the uniforms on. And yanno, you can't tell when a kid is absent and call the parents to check if they should be.

1. Its one of many reasons....you can't stop it totally....so why not stop SOME?

2. Apparently the code isn't working and its not exactly perfect, uniforms are. :)

3. This one....you have GOT to be kidding. You want proof of uniforms for the MILITARY!? ITS OBVIOUS. You want proof for companies? Take a look at any fast food chain!

http://www.naumd.com/2003Convention/Graphics/IOY/McDonalds.jpg
http://www.pbworks.net/albums/pol/pol_cr04.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/walmart_file040803.jpg

Just to get a few....easier to see in person!

1. Its one of many reasons....you can't stop it totally....so why not stop SOME?

Try showing it stops ANY

2. Apparently the code isn't working and its not exactly perfect, uniforms are. :)

No, they're not. Why would they be any better? There'd likely be even more protests.

3. This one....you have GOT to be kidding. You want proof of uniforms for the MILITARY!? ITS OBVIOUS. You want proof for companies? Take a look at any fast food chain!

I want proof that the uniform creates "smartness" and discipline.

Ivia and Bruce
I agree with you, its gone too far. 3 year olds in string bikinis! O.O

Ivia and Bruce
I agree with you, its gone too far. 3 year olds in string bikinis! O.O

Dude...In most places, 3 year-olds can go into changing rooms with opposite gendered parents. You can barely telll the difference between a boy and a girl unless they're completely naked or wearing a lot of blue/pink.

well the problem is that it is so dang hard to find clothes in stores nowadays that are considered appropriate to wear in public.

you go to even walmart and you have to hunt for shorts that you couldn't wear as a bikini.

You can barely tell the difference, but that doesn't stop pedophiles, and that doesn't stop their excuse later on for dressing like little prostitutes at 10 because mommy let them wear the tiniest amount of fabric necessary to cover the naughty bits when they were growing up and forming their moral standards.

You can barely tell the difference, but that doesn't stop pedophiles, and that doesn't stop their excuse later on for dressing like little prostitutes at 10 because mommy let them wear the tiniest amount of fabric necessary to cover the naughty bits when they were growing up and forming their moral standards.

...This is is about pedophiles? And we're back to "dressing like that makes them sluts" again?

Of course ... about 384 for to be exact (at least with a population the size of the US)(if you are shooting for a CI of 5% and a CL of 95% which is alright for a population survey)

And trends can be predicted they dont have to be predetermined you can mesure trends

And the act of controlling the clothing would lead to a non representitive sample ... you would have to find them in the general population not "collect" them

Unlike a drug (which variation is controlled with a dummyvar test for placibo) emotional development has to almost exclusivly be done in their natural envyroment and with their natural predelection
Unless you do it my way, you'll always be able to make a chicken or the egg arguement. My way is designed to prove or disprove my supposition that the miniskirts have a causal relationship.

Try showing it stops ANY



No, they're not. Why would they be any better? There'd likely be even more protests.



I want proof that the uniform creates "smartness" and discipline.


Long Beach California test to name one.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformBrunRock.html

Though a uniform adds CLASS not discipline but gives a sense of value. :)

You can barely tell the difference, but that doesn't stop pedophiles, and that doesn't stop their excuse later on for dressing like little prostitutes at 10 because mommy let them wear the tiniest amount of fabric necessary to cover the naughty bits when they were growing up and forming their moral standards.
What the hell do paedophiles have to do with how children dress?
And who cares what people wear? They can go stark-naked for all I care.

well i care i wouldnt want my children exposed to those exuse me bad influences

Unless you do it my way, you'll always be able to make a chicken or the egg arguement. My way is designed to prove or disprove my supposition that the miniskirts have a causal relationship.

The egg came first.

well the problem is that it is so dang hard to find clothes in stores nowadays that are considered appropriate to wear in public.

you go to even walmart and you have to hunt for shorts that you couldn't wear as a bikini.

Then you are shopping in the wrong place, I hate people like you who feel they are victimized cause they cannot buy PROPER clothes instead of meeting the bare minimum of the dress code. Plenty of people wear jeans and nice shirts, boys and girls, why can't everyone where proper clothes that aren't revealing or falling down or barely covering them.

Its like our clothes are reverting back to the loincloths of olde in our 'hip' society.

Bwahaha! Yes, that's it. What determines a slut or whore chiefly is the availability of willing men. I know that my female friends have a horrible time finding a guy willing to sleep with them. What color is the sky in your world?
Not a critical reader, are we?

The hypothesis I advanced was that there would be an increase in sexual attention as a result of the style of dress because those males would believe, accureately or not, that she was more likely to put out. As a result, she would experience more pressure for sex than her counterparts, and as a result would be more likely to bend to that pressure, and become what she is expected to be.

Oh, and it's blue with some white, various shades of grey, and black with some tiny white specs depending on the time and day. How about yours?

Then you are shopping in the wrong place, I hate people like you who feel they are victimized cause they cannot buy PROPER clothes instead of meeting the bare minimum of the dress code. Plenty of people wear jeans and nice shirts, boys and girls, why can't everyone where proper clothes that aren't revealing or falling down or barely covering them.

Its like our clothes are reverting back to the loincloths of olde in our 'hip' society.


Thats my whole point there are those few places to buy modest clothing but those places are diminishing in number by the year.

...This is is about pedophiles? And we're back to "dressing like that makes them sluts" again?
Again, I don't know what's gone on through the thread, I didn't want to sort through 11 pages of 40-replies-per-page. And it's about anyone who would be negatively affected by their wearing this. 3 year old wears string bikini, 5 year old begs and screams for string bikini, 8 year old cries to be able to wear a halter top, 10 year old wears a micromini to school. There are those who would be turned on by the kids' wearing those clothes (pedophiles, boys who are in/past puberty but know just enough about the facts of life to follow their pricks to green pastures), those who would be distracted because of the clothes being inappropriate (teachers, other parents, etc.), and all the other kids who want to do what the Big Kids do now that someone else their age is doing it.

What the hell do paedophiles have to do with how children dress?
And who cares what people wear? They can go stark-naked for all I care.

Uh.... did you even read that post?
No nudist schools or people around here for me!

The egg came first.
Dinaverg is right. Eggs were around well before chickens.

Thats my whole point there are those few places to buy modest clothing but those places are diminishing in number by the year.

No there isn't they are everywhere here. Though to find the 'popular' clothes you won't find them and be acceptable because they are popular cause they are revealing and bold and sexy.

What the hell do paedophiles have to do with how children dress?

How did this conversation get back to pedophiles?

Where the heck do you live then i want to move there because there is maybe one place that has a wide selection of modest clothing here.

And actually I wasn't talking about popular clothes at all I'm just saying its hard to find modest clothes period. At least here it is.

Again, I don't know what's gone on through the thread, I didn't want to sort through 11 pages of 40-replies-per-page. And it's about anyone who would be negatively affected by their wearing this. 3 year old wears string bikini, 5 year old begs and screams for string bikini, 8 year old cries to be able to wear a halter top, 10 year old wears a micromini to school. There are those who would be turned on by the kids' wearing those clothes (pedophiles, boys who are in/past puberty but know just enough about the facts of life to follow their pricks to green pastures), those who would be distracted because of the clothes being inappropriate (teachers, other parents, etc.), and all the other kids who want to do what the Big Kids do now that someone else their age is doing it.

So true. Children are VERY impressionable, we shouldn't be giving them the idea this is the way to act or dress.

How did this conversation get back to pedophiles?
Beats me. Apparantly someone here thinks it matter what kids wear to paedophiles.

Long Beach California test to name one.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformBrunRock.html

Though a uniform adds CLASS not discipline but gives a sense of value. :)

Err....you read that link right?

Conclusion

Based upon this analysis, the authors were forced to reject the ideas that uniforms improved attendance rates, decreased behavioral problems, decreased drug use, or improved academic achievement. The authors did find that proschool attitudes from students and their peers and good academic preparedness did predict the desired behavior. They saw that wearing uniforms did not lead to improvements in proschool attitudes or increased academic preparation.

That says what I think it says right?

Again, I don't know what's gone on through the thread, I didn't want to sort through 11 pages of 40-replies-per-page. And it's about anyone who would be negatively affected by their wearing this. 3 year old wears string bikini, 5 year old begs and screams for string bikini, 8 year old cries to be able to wear a halter top, 10 year old wears a micromini to school. There are those who would be turned on by the kids' wearing those clothes (pedophiles, boys who are in/past puberty but know just enough about the facts of life to follow their pricks to green pastures), those who would be distracted because of the clothes being inappropriate (teachers, other parents, etc.),

Yeah.....might be shocking to you, but uniforms aren't going to much of anything about those. Pedo's are atracted to kids, what they wear would have like to do with whether they act on that or not. If you don't want "10 year old wears a micromini to school", set up a dress code with a set length for skirts.

and all the other kids who want to do what the Big Kids do now that someone else their age is doing it.

It's ALWAYS like that. The clothes they wear have nothing to do with it. Set reasonable standards, but we don't need uniforms, they serve no good purpose you couldn't get with a dress code.

Dinaverg is right. Eggs were around well before chickens.

No, seriously, the chicken egg came first.

So true. Children are VERY impressionable, we shouldn't be giving them the idea this is the way to act or dress.

Wait....don't tell me....Next, we ban books from school that could give kids sinful ideas?

And I'm not saying the standard of clothing needs to be risen I'm saying the opposite. That was just a point I wanted to make that it's hard to find modest clothing in retail stores. "popular" clothes or not.

Personally, I think kids these days are so mindset on being noticed they have it in their brains that they have to dress scantily to be noticed and I blame society in general. Too much is shown on tv, music etc. for them not to be affected by it.

Yet again, I have no idea what went on in those first 400 replies or so. I was just putting in my two cents' worth.

And as for it mattering or not, would you be more turned on by the same person in A) a sweatsuit, B) the nude, non-sexually, or C) a low-cut shirt and a miniskirt? It does matter because pedophiles, like anyone who uses their sex drive, get turned on by things, and a 10 year old walking around in high heels, a miniskirt, and a tube top is probably going to attract their interest more than the same 10 year old in jeans and a sweater.

Dinaverg, I wasn't talking about uniforms at all. I made my reply from the first page, not the last. I had no idea there was talk of uniforms until I read the posts around mine. Sorry for any confusion.

Wait....don't tell me....Next, we ban books from school that could give kids sinful ideas?

You're quickly becoming the type of person I hate. Just give it a REST. Read Fahrenheit 451 btw.

-----------------------
No the California piece, that study was just the implementation of uniforms for a bit. Long Beach California has had them for 12 years already and it means you ALWAYS have them and its part of the system. You cannot just pull data out of your wazzoo when it is not on a fresh set of students in a controlled environment.

Yet again, I have no idea what went on in those first 400 replies or so. I was just putting in my two cents' worth.

And as for it mattering or not, would you be more turned on by the same person in A) a sweatsuit, B) the nude, non-sexually, or C) a low-cut shirt and a miniskirt? It does matter because pedophiles, like anyone who uses their sex drive, get turned on by things, and a 10 year old walking around in high heels, a miniskirt, and a tube top is probably going to attract their interest more than the same 10 year old in jeans and a sweater.
If they're hot, they're hot. Doesn't matter what they wear.

Yet again, I have no idea what went on in those first 400 replies or so. I was just putting in my two cents' worth.

And as for it mattering or not, would you be more turned on by the same person in A) a sweatsuit, B) the nude, non-sexually, or C) a low-cut shirt and a miniskirt?

Actually, a few of the girls I find most atractive wear nothing but sweatshirts or hoodies. It doesn't matter what they're wear, which would be the same in schools, kids'll go about things the same way they always do.

It does matter because pedophiles, like anyone who uses their sex drive, get turned on by things, and a 10 year old walking around in high heels, a miniskirt, and a tube top is probably going to attract their interest more than the same 10 year old in jeans and a sweater.

You of course, have intimate knowledge of the pedo psyche.

Yet again, I have no idea what went on in those first 400 replies or so. I was just putting in my two cents' worth.

And as for it mattering or not, would you be more turned on by the same person in A) a sweatsuit, B) the nude, non-sexually, or C) a low-cut shirt and a miniskirt? It does matter because pedophiles, like anyone who uses their sex drive, get turned on by things, and a 10 year old walking around in high heels, a miniskirt, and a tube top is probably going to attract their interest more than the same 10 year old in jeans and a sweater.

Correct. Clothes add sexiness when they are like that. Also little boys will notice that's for sure. :)

You of course, have intimate knowledge of the pedo psyche.

That is a HORRIBLE thing to say. What is with you tonight! You just basically used the psychologists way to say that Ivia is a pedophile or has tendancies towards pedophila.

You're quickly becoming the type of person I hate. Just give it a REST. Read Fahrenheit 451 btw.

Funny, you managed to pass the mark a while ago. *shrug*

-----------------------
No the California piece, that study was just the implementation of uniforms for a bit. Long Beach California has had them for 12 years already and it means you ALWAYS have them and its part of the system. You cannot just pull data out of your wazzoo when it is not on a fresh set of students in a controlled environment.

If uniforms have always been there and are "part of the system", how are you gonna compare it to a similar non uniformed time period?

That is a HORRIBLE thing to say. What is with you tonight! You just basically used the psychologists way to say that Ivia is a pedophile or has tendancies towards pedophila.

No, it was sarcasm, to suggest that he should in actuality have no idea how a pedo's mind works, unless his is a psychologist who's dealt with them or is in fact one. If he's either, I can consider his statment an informed testimony.

That is a HORRIBLE thing to say. What is with you tonight! You just basically used the psychologists way to say that Ivia is a pedophile or has tendancies towards pedophila.
As opposed to calling people sluts for wearing clothes you don't like?:rolleyes:

Forget it. Give it a *ing rest, go have a cup of tea/coffee/warm milk, and cool off for a moment. I was just offering my two cents, which then turned into 4, and then 6, because of your refusal to accept that someone else has a point of view that's valid and that they're not going to change easily.

And for the record, I'm female. With a big, capital F.

Forget it. Give it a *ing rest, go have a cup of tea/coffee/warm milk, and cool off for a moment. I was just offering my two cents, which then turned into 4, and then 6, because of your refusal to accept that someone else has a point of view that's valid and that they're not going to change easily.

And for the record, I'm female. With a big, capital F.
If you weren't up for debate, you could've stayed away.

Funny, you managed to pass the mark a while ago. *shrug*



If uniforms have always been there and are "part of the system", how are you gonna compare it to a similar non uniformed time period?

Fun...

Uniform schools compared to Public schools I have info for but you want revelancy right? From public non-uniformed to uniformed?

Forget it. Give it a *ing rest, go have a cup of tea/coffee/warm milk, and cool off for a moment. I was just offering my two cents, which then turned into 4, and then 6, because of your refusal to accept that someone else has a point of view that's valid and that they're not going to change easily.

And for the record, I'm female. With a big, capital F.

*shrug* Sorry, you got caught in the crossfire it seems. And you might wanna put that capital F in your sig, or location...Or post pictures, any one will get you remembered.

As opposed to calling people sluts for wearing clothes you don't like?:rolleyes:

*sigh* Making assumptions aren't we. :p
Its not the time and place for such clothing.

Fun...

Uniform schools compared to Public schools I have info for but you want revelancy right? From public non-uniformed to uniformed?

From one public school, or at least two schools of the same age group in the same district, so we can be relatively sure other factors aren't in effect here. I don't want a comparison between Detroit and Bowling Green.

*sigh* Making assumptions aren't we. :p
Its not the time and place for such clothing.

What assumptions? You said that yourself. You can call them sults based on their clothing.

*shrug* Sorry, you got caught in the crossfire it seems. And you might wanna put that capital F in your sig, or location...Or post pictures, any one will get you remembered.

Meaning you treat girls differently then guys based on gender? Cause that's a little sexist. :eek:

Dinaverg you strike me as the kind of person that would let your children dress in that manner. Therefore, people would see them as sluts/pedophiles. Some guys/girls don't like that and it makes them seem like they are "easy"

Do you seriously want that for your children. If you really don't care..you need some help.

What assumptions? You said that yourself. You can call them sults based on their clothing.

I thought everyman wants to have a nice honorable wife for the day and a slut for bed....Though that is a little more then you need to know. :p

No matter what I don't like my 10 year old daughter or anyone else wearing such provactive attire in school, and apparently so doesn't the school.

No, it was sarcasm, to suggest that he should in actuality have no idea how a pedo's mind works, unless his is a psychologist who's dealt with them or is in fact one. If he's either, I can consider his statment an informed testimony.
In that case, I'll tell you that I am one, and that he was talking out his ass. In no way does a miniskirt or whatever effect the degree of sexual attraction I feel toward any given person, adult or child.

Dinaverg you strike me as the kind of person that would let your children dress in that manner. Therefore, people would see them as sluts/pedophiles. Some guys/girls don't like that and it makes them seem like they are "easy"

Do you seriously want that for your children. If you really don't care..you need some help.

Sad....but I already came to that conclusion after his arguement. Though if you'd let your daughters dress like sluts for school, I bet someone will think something bad about your daughters or try to take advantage of them.

Meaning you treat girls differently then guys based on gender? Cause that's a little sexist. :eek:

Well, I'm atracted to girls and (as far as I can tell) not guys. Don't you ever...yanno, hold doors open for girls or something?

Dinaverg you strike me as the kind of person that would let your children dress in that manner. Therefore, people would see them as sluts/pedophiles. Some guys/girls don't like that and it makes them seem like they are "easy"

Do you seriously want that for your children. If you really don't care..you need some help.

What is "that manner" if you mean "like a slut", not really, but I wouldn't try and get uniforms, I'd try for a dress code.

I thought everyman wants to have a nice honorable wife for the day and a slut for bed....Though that is a little more then you need to know.

No matter what I don't like my 10 year old daughter or anyone else wearing such provactive attire in school, and apparently so doesn't the school.

Good for you, deal with your kid, we'll parent ours, based on what we think is apropriate, within the limits of the reasonable dress code i'd want in the school.


In that case, I'll tell you that I am one, and that he was talking out his ass. In no way does a miniskirt or whatever effect the degree of sexual attraction I feel toward any given person, adult or child.

*shrug* K.

I'm one of those people who has a higher standard of morality in my life. Partly because of my religion, partly because of choice. I am not turned on by children or anyone for that matter, dressing like a slut. Frankly, it disgusts me.

To think that they have to try so hard to get attention makes me wonder what kind of self-asteem they really have.

But you know what? If you want to influence your children like that and mark them for life as the one who will always give the men what they want...more power to ya.

As for me, I choose to abstain from that kind of living.

Sad....but I already came to that conclusion after his arguement. Though if you'd let your daughters dress like sluts for school, I bet someone will think something bad about your daughters or try to take advantage of them.

...So...wouldn't happen to think women who wear provocative clothing are to somewhat to blame if they get raped?

I'm one of those people who has a higher standard of morality in my life. Partly because of my religion, partly because of choice. I am not turned on by children or anyone for that matter, dressing like a slut. Frankly, it disgusts me.

To think that they have to try so hard to get attention makes me wonder what kind of self-asteem they really have.

But you know what? If you want to influence your children like that and mark them for life as the one who will always give the men what they want...more power to ya.

As for me, I choose to abstain from that kind of living.

Good for you. Your choice. For you and your progeny. Not mine.

I wouldn't try and get uniforms, I'd try for a dress code.




Weren't you the one a few posts up who said you could care less what people wore? So now you've gone from not caring to a dress code...hmmm.

...So...wouldn't happen to think women who wear provocative clothing are to somewhat to blame if they get raped?


Yeah they are. If they don't want to get seen as a potential target..don't dress like one.

For the record I'm not saying all rape victims are slut-wannabes my aunt being one herself.

Weren't you the one a few posts up who said you could care less what people wore? So now you've gone from not caring to a dress code...hmmm.
Actually that was me.

Weren't you the one a few posts up who said you could care less what people wore? So now you've gone from not caring to a dress code...hmmm.

I think that was Thriceaddict. I've said repeatedly there should be a reasonable dress code, but uniforms are too far.

Oh well my mistake I take that back.

Yeah they are. If they don't want to get seen as a potential target..don't dress like one.

For the record I'm not saying all rape victims are slut-wannabes my aunt being one herself.
Thanks. I know enough.

Yeah they are. If they don't want to get seen as a potential target..don't dress like one.

For the record I'm not saying all rape victims are slut-wannabes my aunt being one herself.

Eh, good thing no one else is reading this thread, people seem to hate that opinion...

That's fine. That's why I clarified in my second sentence.

I'm just saying rapists will look at a line of girls and if they are dressing like a slut wouldn't you think its more likely that girl is going to be victimized over the other?

BUT! Rape victims are not to blame for what happened to them IN NO WAY am I saying that. But if you dress like that you are asking for trouble in so many ways, besides rape. Such as...teen pregnancy? STD's?

This whole situation is terribly sad to me. Kids are just growing up too fast. And 11 I was horribly afraid to even admit I sorta "like liked" my best guy friend, but now I see kids even younger than that hugging and kissing their bf/gf.

I also run an advice board on relationships and have had several 9-11 year olds ask me how to ask their crush out, or kiss them, or what do do if they're not allowed to date. It's awful.

And more to the dressing bit, the freshmen at my school are just too much of everything. Too low shirts, too high skirts, too much make up.

And I also help with the middle school youth program at my church, and a few weeks ago while everyone else was singing praise and worship songs, I wen to use the rest room and two girls were in there in mini skits and spagetti straps putting on make up. For a church event! And these girls did not look like eighth graders, I think they were probably in 7th at the oldest.

In that case, I'll tell you that I am one, and that he was talking out his ass. In no way does a miniskirt or whatever effect the degree of sexual attraction I feel toward any given person, adult or child.

How do we know that? >.>
You have a lolicon? >.>

This whole situation is terribly sad to me. Kids are just growing up too fast. And 11 I was horribly afraid to even admit I sorta "like liked" my best guy friend, but now I see kids even younger than that hugging and kissing their bf/gf.

I also run an advice board on relationships and have had several 9-11 year olds ask me how to ask their crush out, or kiss them, or what do do if they're not allowed to date. It's awful.

And more to the dressing bit, the freshmen at my school are just too much of everything. Too low shirts, too high skirts, too much make up.

And I also help with the middle school youth program at my church, and a few weeks ago while everyone else was singing praise and worship songs, I wen to use the rest room and two girls were in there in mini skits and spagetti straps putting on make up. For a church event! And these girls did not look like eighth graders, I think they were probably in 7th at the oldest.

Shocking isn't it?

Yeah they are. If they don't want to get seen as a potential target..don't dress like one.

For the record I'm not saying all rape victims are slut-wannabes my aunt being one herself.

Just to add on to that thought, and this is a quote from a book: "If you dress like a piece of meat you're going to get thrown down on the BBQ" [in reference to young girls in school or out and about]

I also am not saying rape victims are sluts. Just talking about girls who dress skimpy, then complain about not getting respect.

Just to add on to that thought, and this is a quote from a book: "If you dress like a piece of meat you're going to get thrown down on the BBQ" [in reference to young girls in school or out and about]

I also am not saying rape victims are sluts. Just talking about girls who dress skimpy, then complain about not getting respect.

finally someone agrees with me lol

That's fine. That's why I clarified in my second sentence.

I'm just saying rapists will look at a line of girls and if they are dressing like a slut wouldn't you think its more likely that girl is going to be victimized over the other?

BUT! Rape victims are not to blame for what happened to them IN NO WAY am I saying that. But if you dress like that you are asking for trouble in so many ways, besides rape. Such as...teen pregnancy? STD's?

No. Absolutely NOT TRUE! rape is not about sexual attraction, it's about power. That's why rapists go for small children, because they can't defend themselves. I'll admit that a 10 year old in mini-skirts is going way to far, but women somehow get the idea in their heads that if you don't dress provocatively, you'll never get noticed. So before you guys point fingers at the girls who dress that way, think about the pressure MEN are putting on women.

Just to add on to that thought, and this is a quote from a book: "If you dress like a piece of meat you're going to get thrown down on the BBQ" [in reference to young girls in school or out and about]

I also am not saying rape victims are sluts. Just talking about girls who dress skimpy, then complain about not getting respect.

I feel the same way.
When you dress like that you are attracting the WRONG kind of attention. How many shy/caring guys are going to go out with a girl who dresses like a slut and flaunts her body off as best she can and get away with it. That wrong kind of attention can be devastating.

No. Absolutely NOT TRUE! rape is not about sexual attraction, it's about power. That's why rapists go for small children, because they can't defend themselves. I'll admit that a 10 year old in mini-skirts is going way to far, but women somehow get the idea in their heads that if you don't dress provocatively, you'll never get noticed. So before you guys point fingers at the girls who dress that way, think about the pressure MEN are putting on women.


*Dance, puppets, DANCE!* Very good start, but I think we need more people...Someone care to link to the post in question in a more popular thread? I'm tired of these characters...

No. Absolutely NOT TRUE! rape is not about sexual attraction, it's about power. That's why rapists go for small children, because they can't defend themselves. I'll admit that a 10 year old in mini-skirts is going way to far, but women somehow get the idea in their heads that if you don't dress provocatively, you'll never get noticed. So before you guys point fingers at the girls who dress that way, think about the pressure MEN are putting on women.


I realize that but isn't a slut wannabe going to attract more attention then the next woman?

Power has alot to do with it but the rape victim has to get the attention of the rapist first intentionally or not.