Thread: cover yourself girl, you're turning the boys on! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029518
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I heard this from a 14 year old yesterday. The girls at the school are told 'thou shalt wear full sleeves and not show thy collar bones because it gives the boys boners'. I have strong opinions about this.
I have thought this is entirely unreasonable, and that one of the main developmental tasks of boys is to learn to control their hormonally governed behaviour, and that learning that is a mark of being the least bit civilized.
Are the boys not responsible for their own sexual arousal? Should we not demand of them self control?
My children are long grown, but I did have the discussion with my daughters at about grade 6 (age 12 or so) that they will notice that boys sometimes will stand up awkwardly from their desks and then play "pocket pool", because the poor lads haven't got control of their penises yet. The discussion also involved the problem of slow dancing at school dances, about which they developed pity versus intimidation about obvious boy arousal. I felt this located the problem where it belonged - with the boys - and allowed the girls to feel more powerful than they otherwise might be.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Boys that age will be aroused 2-3 times in every classroom hour (and out of class as well, of course) regardless of the presence of girls (however clothed), hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, other boys or even if completely alone.
THis rule is totally pointless (so to speak) from the perspective of stopping boys getting aroused, as well as sexist and a bunch of other things (do the boys have to watch what they wear to prevent the girls getting aroused?...sorry, forgot, girls don't get aroused, right?)
John
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
because the poor lads haven't got control of their penises yet.
Erm - when does conscious control of erections develop?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think several times an hour may be overstating things: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/833-male-puberty
[ 15. September 2015, 18:51: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My children are long grown, but I did have the discussion with my daughters at about grade 6 (age 12 or so) that they will notice that boys sometimes will stand up awkwardly from their desks and then play "pocket pool", because the poor lads haven't got control of their penises yet. The discussion also involved the problem of slow dancing at school dances, about which they developed pity versus intimidation about obvious boy arousal. I felt this located the problem where it belonged - with the boys - and allowed the girls to feel more powerful than they otherwise might be.
Just what the girls need, another girl-power talk to make them feel even more superior.
There's a whole generation of boys growing up who hear from first grade onward that girls are smarter, better behaved, and just plain nicer in every way. They hear it from the girls themselves, their parents and their teachers. It may seem to the adults that that's all just bringing balance in a "man's world." The trouble is those little boys never experienced that world where the men were all good at math and only men were doctors, lawyers and engineers. All they know about is that awesome girl-power thing, movies where the men are crude and foolish and TV commercials where the husband is usually a moron corrected by the much smarter wife. Their homes, schools and churches are most often dominated by women.
That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
I don't care what kind of clothes girls wear to school, I've always been in favor of uniforms myself, but this school's "explanation," for full sleeves and high necks is just one more nail in the coffin of the boys' self-esteem as it depicts them as not much more evolved than animals.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
But it doesn't hold them back once they make it to the workplace, despite their lower grades.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I heard this from a 14 year old yesterday. The girls at the school are told 'thou shalt wear full sleeves and not show thy collar bones because it gives the boys boners'. I have strong opinions about this.
It's a while since I've been a 14 year old boy, but as I recall, it didn't need anything nearly so licentious as an exposed collarbone to provoke a boner. 14-year old boys get aroused at the drop of a hat (probably because the girl has to bend down to pick it up).
In general, I'm a fan of school uniforms. If you don't want a uniform, I could support a dress code, but it has nothing to do with teenage arousal. It starts with the assumption that schools often require children to sit in close proximity, and it is courteous not to inflict contact with your bare flesh on people. So a shirt that covers your shoulders (no athletic shirts etc.) and shorts / trousers / skirt / leggings / whatever that extend past mid-thigh when seated ought to suffice for that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Back to Victorian times ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
From a teacher's perspective, a dress code that rules out short skirts and low cut tops (for staff or students) does give a modicum of protection against false accusations of perving, accusations which are very difficult to throw off once made. I agree that there isn't much you can do to deter a 14 year old's libido, but you can give a little bit of protection to staff in an age where, of necessity, child protection issues are taken very seriously indeed. It's not about blaming one gender for the arousal of another, simply about appropriate dress for the situation.
The difficulty is that such allegations and suspicions are more likely to be made and taken seriously by female students against male staff, so staff wariness naturally tends to be felt more heavily by female students. Most teachers will feel pretty comfortable (discreetly) telling a 12 year old boy that he needs to sort his trousers out because everyone can see his backside but male teachers will tend to shy away from any comment about how girls are dressed.
[ 15. September 2015, 20:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
From what I can see in my area, lots of secondary school girls are now allowed to incorporate the mini-skirt into their uniform, even at private schools. The alternative is to wear trousers, not skirts that cover the knees.
I don't know what the mini-skirt/black tights combo does for the boys, but I doubt that their opinion is asked for or required.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Here's a link that may help understand. APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. I don't buy the "poor boys" argument. I am male, I understand boys. I am a father, I try my darnedest to understand girls.
quote:
In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person).
The report goes on to discuss consequences for girls regarding decreased cognitive performance, lowered self esteem, sexual adjustment, among others. So I don't buy the defensiveness about this.
[tangent]
Generally in North America, there are no school uniforms, and no possibility of instituting this. I wouldn't support them: they seem elitist to western Canadian eyes. Private schools may have these, but outside of a few areas in a minority of provinces, very few people attend these. Publicly funded education is the rule and the standards are enforced by provinces. Almost no-one attends private schools.
[/tangent]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
From what I can see in my area, lots of secondary school girls are now allowed to incorporate the mini-skirt into their uniform, even at private schools. The alternative is to wear trousers, not skirts that cover the knees.
I don't know what the mini-skirt/black tights combo does for the boys, but I doubt that their opinion is asked for or required.
Having been a boy, I can assure you that they do nothing for the avoidance of impure thoughts in the youth.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I don't know what the mini-skirt/black tights combo does for the boys
It reminds them of the ethereal quality of the Universe, and of the intrinsic importance of their duty to dedicate themselves to their studies.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I wouldn't support them: they seem elitist to western Canadian eyes.
Whereas they are often defended on precisely the opposite grounds. Assuming your uniform isn't white tie and a tailcoat, having everyone wear the same thing is a great equalizer. It's not perfect, of course - nothing can be - but it does remove any social pressure to have the "right" brands of clothing / shoes etc.
There's a certain amount of signalling that goes on to do with how you wear the uniform, but it's very much more restrictive.
(I very much appreciated having to wear a school uniform - I was never a "cool" kid, and didn't have trendy clothes, but it didn't matter, because I wore the same uniform as everyone else.)
But if you associate school uniform with elitism because only elitist schools have a uniform, that might be too big an impediment to overcome.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The only way to curb teenagers sexual arousal involves a knife or a chemical substitute. If that it what you are trying to do, fine, but surely the the purpose of a school is to teach boys (and girls) to be mature, sensible, responsible members of society*.
It seems that the school is failing in its duty, by wanting the pupils to take responsibility for other pupils behaviour. That is not on.
*Unless it is Eton, of course.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
because the poor lads haven't got control of their penises yet.
Erm - when does conscious control of erections develop?
Augustine (City Of God, BkXIV, ChXXIV) cites lack of control over erections as evidence of human fallenness.
After all, he says, humans retain control over other physical functions, such as those who "can break wind backward so artificially that you would think they sung".
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And it is endless. Once collarbones are forbidden, we move on to wrists. Women's hair is known to emit rays that drive men mad -- would an ayatollah lie to us about this? What about those sexually provocative lips? And ankles? Even muffling women head to toe in black cloth is not enough, better cover their eyes (clearly engines of Satan) as well.
And still it is not enough. The simplest thing would be to remove women from tempting positions altogether. They don't need to go to school. Driving, pooh. If they aren't educated, their votes are cast in ignorance, might as well take those away.
And still! Nothing, as others point out, controls those boners!
So maybe it is a waste of time to try and fix it from the girls' end. Maybe it is time to address those boys.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
He must have been a terrible singer.
You can exercise some control. I always found that visualising Mrs Wood, my English Teacher, was usually a reliable means of enabling me to stand without embarrassment, no matter who I'd been thinking about whilst I was meant to be thinking about the ablative absolute. Ironically, actually thinking about the ablative absolute would also have been an effective mental bucket of water.
"Hardoni Thatcherus est/The erection having been overcome, the boy arose from his desk"
[ 15. September 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We have 2 school systems in many provinces in Canada, set out constitutionally and publicly funded by taxation. The "Separate" school system is Roman Catholic, and while it takes anyone who wants to register, has a unique approach. The "Public" system operates differently, shunning all religious education.
It's interesting the local RC high school bans cell phones, and the local Public high school requires responsible use. The two schools approach the sexuality question rather differently, with the RC school being the one in this instance that I would quibble with. But these decisions are made by the individual school administration, and then by the school boards, varying quite a bit. I expect to hear next of parents complaining that the school has it wrong, and this debate to continue.
We had a warm day a for the recent "Free the Nipple Day", with women topless in parks and some men wearing bras and bikini tops. With the point being that a social change is required. Is it possible to desexualize anatomy? Must a person get all horned up if a nipple, God forbid, an entire tit, should appear?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think several times an hour may be overstating things: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/833-male-puberty
I wish that kind of info had been available to me when I was a teen.
No Prophet I think the way you told your daughters about this was great. I remember a boy trying to coerce me into sex because of what I "had caused" and feeling guilty about saying no. I must admit I secretly felt really powerful that I had caused it, and to know the truth would have been helpful from that angle too.
Huia
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Several thoughts:-
First, why is this an issue of principle?
Second, I'd imagine most of us agree with the simple proposition that adolescents of both sexes need to be discouraged from flaunting their sexual charms at each other and taught to behave modestly?
Third, it's a long time since I was a teenager, and in those far off days most schools were segregated. However, I'd imagine that any right minded head wants to discourage their school from being a hotbed of seething hormones.
Fourth, it's a nineteenth century delusion, a version of 'men the beasts' to assume that the boys are all the problem. Plenty of teenage girls are right little madams.
Finally, No Prophet, why does this matter so much to you? Nobody is requiring you to send your daughter or son to this school?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
He must have been a terrible singer.
[/QUOTE]
This was before Hillsong.
You had to make the most of what you had available.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
A few weeks ago this little hussy was sent home for wearing a top that exposed her (gasp!) collarbone. The principal blamed it on her giving him "attitude," but she never should have been called to his office in the first place.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it possible to desexualize anatomy? Must a person get all horned up if a nipple, God forbid, an entire tit, should appear?
Obviously it's possible - in tribal societies where bare breasts are normal, you don't see all the men wandering around pointing forwards. If exposed breasts were commonplace, I imagine we'd have the same thing, and people would notice a pretty pair in much the same way as they notice a pretty face.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
But it doesn't hold them back once they make it to the workplace, despite their lower grades.
We are still in an era shaped by the remnants of a bygone world where structural advantages highly favored men over women. Wait twenty years and I would be extremely surprised if men are not doing just as poorly in the workplace as they currently are in the educational system.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Finally, No Prophet, why does this matter so much to you? Nobody is requiring you to send your daughter or son to this school?
The young person is a well-loved member of my extended family, whose parents are less apt to discuss such matters than nutbars like me are.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
'thou shalt wear full sleeves and not show thy collar bones because it gives the boys boners'.
"I have a left shoulder blade that is a miracle of loveliness. People come miles to see it. My right elbow has a fascination that few can resist".
The Mikado
Seems you can't be too careful.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
In Oz, we mostly wear school uniforms. 99% of schools demand it.
That seems to help in the realm of school dress codes.
Generations of us have worn them, with no apparent pyschological damage.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, you have to set some sort of standard for all kids of whatever gender, or some of them will keep pushing, pushing, pushing until they show up at English with nothing but body paint on.
And some parents can't be trusted to carry a clue in a paper bag. (Could have done a Pap smear exam on one girl at church a little while ago without her taking her pants off--I think she was 13)
But none of this is going to control libidos of any sort. It will hopefully avoid the more ridiculous excesses of fashion* and give both genders a fighting chance to notice their schoolwork ("What's that, a book? Oh an iPad, I missed when they introduced them").
* Fashions can destroy concentration in other ways than lust. We had an adult woman show up at church once in bunny ears with flashing LED lights on top.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Hardoni Thatcherus est/The erection having been overcome, the boy arose from his desk"
Whereas my 'arising' from my desk actually caused me to remain seated.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Finally, No Prophet, why does this matter so much to you? Nobody is requiring you to send your daughter or son to this school?
The young person is a well-loved member of my extended family, whose parents are less apt to discuss such matters than nutbars like me are.
You could go to the media with this story. I'm sure they'd be very interested in teachers warning short-sleeved schoolgirls about 'boners'. That'd certainly give everyone something to 'discuss'!
[ 16. September 2015, 01:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Here is an idea: just tell the kids that the period between 12 and 16 will be a time where a lot of things will be happening to them sexually. It is just the way things are. No one is responsible for what is happening to another person, but if that person is having a hard time encourage them to talk to a trusted adult.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm not a teenager anymore, but I do think that this emphasis on erections is a bit exaggerated. It would be perfectly possible for me to find someone attractive and even try to get a second glimpse (discretely), without immediately having a boner and imagining doing the complete Kama Sutra with her.
But maybe I'm atypical.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
if that person is having a hard time encourage them to talk to a trusted adult.
That may be when they want to remain seated at their desks.
I think there is a problem, because this is the age when we teach our young people about their own personal sexuality and its significance. There is a danger that we teach boys that they cannot control themselves and girls that they are the temptresses. These ideas will persist and damage people (rather, they do persist, and people are damaged by them).
There is a part of me that want to say to boys "this is what a naked women looks like. Now go off and have a good wank, because it is natural to be attracted to them*. And remember that the desire to spurt off is YOUR problem not THEIRS".
For the girls, a similar approach "this is what a naked man looks like. He has a massive stiffy that he wants to stick in you. It is your choice whether he does or not. Now go off and have a wank."
*Which is not to say that not being attracted to them is not natural, of course. The discussion needs to be rather longer than this summary.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I wore a school uniform. It was a matching navy blue skirt and sweater outfit that I wore every Monday/Wednesday/Friday with an alternate, less cute, number on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I just wish the other kids had worn one, too.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Erm - when does conscious control of erections develop?
Augustine (City Of God, BkXIV, ChXXIV) cites lack of control over erections as evidence of human fallenness.
After all, he says, humans retain control over other physical functions, such as those who "can break wind backward so artificially that you would think they sung".
That's fantastic - what a quote. I only beg to differ from the great man in that ISTM that conscious control of erections does indeed develop - when one reaches an age at which acquiring and maintaining one requires feats of concentration which would have astonished one's 14-yr-old self.
Must just be that my sanctification is coming along so nicely...
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
It all sounds like an argument for increasing the number of single-sex schools. A less distracting environment in many ways.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think several times an hour may be overstating things: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/833-male-puberty
Not as far as I can remember. Much more than 3 or 4 per hour.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wore a school uniform. It was a matching navy blue skirt and sweater outfit that I wore every Monday/Wednesday/Friday with an alternate, less cute, number on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I just wish the other kids had worn one, too.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
no prophet wrote - quote:
I heard this from a 14 year old yesterday. The girls at the school are told 'thou shalt wear full sleeves and not show thy collar bones because it gives the boys boners'....
I don't for a minute doubt what you were told, np - the question I would have is "to what extent is this a faithful representation of the facts?". Particularly that bit after "because..." - did the school really explain things this way, or was this added for your benefit as an explanation?
I've just been reading the article linked to by Pigwidgeon. In subject matter it looks very similar. But have you read the context? "Look at my daughter! Don't you think she's cute? Press that "like" button now!" And it's in a style mag. dammit. The school claims that collarbone rules are purely there for measuring, which I'm inclined to believe unless there's been an outbreak of unreported clavicular lust.
Learning how you live with dress codes is actually part of growing up, something a few middle-aged people could also profitably learn. And please don't bother with the "expressing individuality" nonsense. All these pupil choices are dress codes, except ones that are driven by concerns of other groups, frequently what peers regard as fashionable.
Organizational dress codes are likely to figure more largely if you don't do school uniforms. They are bound to have a large element of arbitrariness to them. Tough luck. This is a real first-world problem.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
There's a whole generation of boys growing up who hear from first grade onward that girls are smarter, better behaved, and just plain nicer in every way.
Can you give us some examples to work with?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
Erm - when does conscious control of erections develop?
Augustine (City Of God, BkXIV, ChXXIV) cites lack of control over erections as evidence of human fallenness.
After all, he says, humans retain control over other physical functions, such as those who "can break wind backward so artificially that you would think they sung".
That's fantastic - what a quote. I only beg to differ from the great man in that ISTM that conscious control of erections does indeed develop - when one reaches an age at which acquiring and maintaining one requires feats of concentration which would have astonished one's 14-yr-old self.
Must just be that my sanctification is coming along so nicely...
That's very good. If you have any tips, gratefully received.
Reminds me of the old saying about premature ejaculation - when you're young, you desperately think of things to stop it, e.g. Margaret Thatcher, when you're old, you're overjoyed if you can manage it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It all sounds like an argument for increasing the number of single-sex schools. A less distracting environment in many ways.
For all but, what, 10%.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
While I fully approve of sensible* dress codes, I don't like school uniforms or single-sex schools. Children have to learn to deal with the real world. I once had a summer job with (mostly) girls from various schools. You could spot the ones who went to a parochial school with uniforms from a mile away. Never having to choose their own clothes, and never being allowed to wear make-up, they looked like a bunch of hookers when they were given the freedom to dress as they wanted. Single-sex schools also don't prepare them for when they graduate and face real life.
*"Sensible," of course, meaning what I think is proper! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It all sounds like an argument for increasing the number of single-sex schools. A less distracting environment in many ways.
Yeah, because they won't see each other outside of this and there is no hyper-sexualisation occurring outside school.
Common sense dress code and decent sex-Ed.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
and imagining doing the complete Kama Sutra with her.
Like getting married and division of chores? Sexual positions contribute only 20% of the Kama Sutra.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Never having to choose their own clothes, and never being allowed to wear make-up, they looked like a bunch of hookers when they were given the freedom to dress as they wanted.
Parents are the problem here, not school uniforms. Where school uniforms are simply something one wears at school, IME, this isn't a problem. Where school uniforms represent a a particular philosophy, it is.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, because they won't see each other outside of this and there is no hyper-sexualisation occurring outside school.
Common sense dress code and decent sex-Ed.
They won't see each other within school hours in the school environment (unless of course they sneak out at lunchtime to meet up). What they do outside school is their own problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Single-sex schools also don't prepare them for when they graduate and face real life.
Of course, no people at single-sex schools have siblings of the opposite sex or active social lives outside school. I would say that most of the girls I was at school with were very well prepared for "real life".
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For the girls, a similar approach "this is what a naked man looks like. He has a massive stiffy that he wants to stick in you. It is your choice whether he does or not. Now go off and have a wank."
You might make a slight amendment to the girls' version--the sight of a naked man (not one's own man!) with a massive stiffy does nothing in my experience but make girls giggle.
I know it's unfair.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, because they won't see each other outside of this and there is no hyper-sexualisation occurring outside school.
Common sense dress code and decent sex-Ed.
They won't see each other within school hours in the school environment (unless of course they sneak out at lunchtime to meet up). What they do outside school is their own problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Single-sex schools also don't prepare them for when they graduate and face real life.
Of course, no people at single-sex schools have siblings of the opposite sex or active social lives outside school. I would say that most of the girls I was at school with were very well prepared for "real life".
And you undermine your own case, IMO. Children and teens will be distracted in school no matter.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For the girls, a similar approach "this is what a naked man looks like. He has a massive stiffy that he wants to stick in you. It is your choice whether he does or not. Now go off and have a wank."
You might make a slight amendment to the girls' version--the sight of a naked man (not one's own man!) with a massive stiffy does nothing in my experience but make girls giggle.
I know it's unfair.
That is my experience, but I didn't know it was general.
But whatever - the principle is there. And yes, the parents who have driven their kids the 400yrds to school in a 4x4 will kick up a fuss about their little Alberta being corrupted. I think the duty of educating Alberta should override this.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Single-sex schools also don't prepare them for when they graduate and face real life.
Nor do mixed schools - unless you think that "real life" consists of associating with a large number of people exactly the same age as you.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I know I come at this issue from a culturally different place. My father's family was from a liberal western European family, living in Germany and a stones throw to France and a little farther to Belgium and Netherlands. Growing up, when we were changing with family, say in a hotel or when camping, you simply turned your back. I saw enough nakedness to de-eroticize it all before I had any idea of anything erotic. I do admire beauty, but find precious little titillates me about bodies (I like the word titillate).
I have felt that the minimal social contract is that people should conduct themselves such that they don't bother others, which means dressing reasonably and not ogling both. I probably also project the cat calling and inappropriate, rude comments I know women endure into this topic.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Actually, the issue of single-sex schools is an interesting one. I'm sure my daughters benefited from attending mixed-sex schools. I'm also pretty convinced that some of those present may have been better served at single-sex schools.
Ho hum. Not everybody has problems interacting with the other sex. Some people find it easy.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have felt that the minimal social contract is that people should conduct themselves such that they don't bother others, which means dressing reasonably and not ogling both.
I agree. My definition of "reasonable" includes covered shoulders and thighs (to prevent unwanted skin contact when sitting next to someone on a bench etc.) It says nothing at all about collarbones.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Actually, the issue of single-sex schools is an interesting one. I'm sure my daughters benefited from attending mixed-sex schools. I'm also pretty convinced that some of those present may have been better served at single-sex schools.
There is some research that claims that girls in New Zealand do better in a single sex school, boys in a co-educational school, but I think it's more of an individual thing.
Huia
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But who gets to define 'reasonable'? If someone says that a full burqua is reasonable (anything less being unbearably temptuous), by what authority can you say that he is unreasonable?
That's the problem with the Pauline rule: not doing things that will lead others into sin. Some others are absolutely rabid about being led into sin, and will insist on seeing it no matter what is done to placate them. At some point you have to say, pal, you are a loon, and let it go.
In New York City there are women campaigning for toplessness. It is illegal for women to go bare above the waist, but not men. They are doing this by going bare, but taping a photocopy of a man's nipple over their own -- demonstrating how silly it is.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I know I come at this issue from a culturally different place. My father's family was from a liberal western European family, living in Germany and a stones throw to France and a little farther to Belgium and Netherlands. Growing up, when we were changing with family, say in a hotel or when camping, you simply turned your back. I saw enough nakedness to de-eroticize it all before I had any idea of anything erotic. I do admire beauty, but find precious little titillates me about bodies (I like the word titillate).
I have felt that the minimal social contract is that people should conduct themselves such that they don't bother others, which means dressing reasonably and not ogling both. I probably also project the cat calling and inappropriate, rude comments I know women endure into this topic.
When I was in high school I was in a play that featured a lot of costume changes. It was a typical public school stage, which meant it really wasn't a great space for performing plays. There was the stage and there was a minimal backstage with no dressing room.
In this particular play, one of my friends was in charge of helping me through all my costume changes. Every boy in the cast and crew made up an excuse for why they needed to be backstage while I was changing. We occasionally tried to chase them off because there was an element of voyeurism and lying that was bugging me about them being there. But in the end I figured they just needed to get over themselves because we all have bodies and we're all naked sometimes and it wasn't my fault the only naked women they'd seen were in porn magazines.
Didn't change the need for a really specific dress code that all the teachers could enforce equally on all the students during the school day.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But who gets to define 'reasonable'? If someone says that a full burqua is reasonable (anything less being unbearably temptuous), by what authority can you say that he is unreasonable?
By the authority of the community. If the community has decided that skirts and dresses need to be knee-length (or two inches above the knee, or fingertip length) so that the teachers and students standing at the front of the classroom don't get an eye full of underwear when they look out at the class, and a few fundamentalist Christians require their children to wear skirts and dresses that are at least ankle-length, it remains obvious that anyone following the official dress code is being reasonable by the standards of the community. It's not that hard.
(I'm guessing they've given up teaching 'custody of the eyes' as too religious a concept to be taught in public school.)
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...That's the problem with the Pauline rule: not doing things that will lead others into sin. Some others are absolutely rabid about being led into sin, and will insist on seeing it no matter what is done to placate them....
I have never understood the attitude that says that women must cover up completely (with the burqa being the theory taken to its illogical extreme) just because men have dirty minds. Clean it up, creeps, and leave us to dress in a comfortable fashion.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I sometimes think that guys who want to force women to cover up completely should just wear blindfolds.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think there is a lot of black-or-white thinking that goes on concerning this topic. Either you want women to wear burqas, or it should be anything goes. Any dress code at all that has any kind of modesty motivation is taken as proof that males just can't control themselves, and women are seen as temptresses.
This kind of thinking is as juvenile as the kids whose clothes we are discussing, but without the excuse of actually being juveniles.
And the argument, "Well they're supposed to be learning to control themselves" is fine, as far as it goes. But it is taken too far. They're supposed to be learning to be adults, BUT THEY AREN'T YET. God forbid we give them a little bit of a break for not being all grown up yet at 14.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it possible to desexualize anatomy?
Do we want to desexualize anatomy? What a dull world it would be.
quote:
Must a person get all horned up if a nipple, God forbid, an entire tit, should appear?
What if it's not in their control whether or not certain things turn them on? I mean I suppose one could go all Zen and spend years perfecting the kind of apathy of the world that would totally quench sexual arousal. But to expect that of 14 year olds is a bit much.
Why is it too much to ask that school children don't dress like it's July on the beach at Daytona? Is it really so evil to cover up one's shoulders and thighs? Will that lead in a slippery slope, like thinking leads to apostasy, to the full burqa? Teenage boys can control their boners better than some people can control their rhetoric.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You might make a slight amendment to the girls' version--the sight of a naked man (not one's own man!) with a massive stiffy does nothing in my experience but make girls giggle.
I know it's unfair.
Love your parenthetical! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I have to admit that the male body in general still cracks me up, years after my wedding night. I mean, you poor guys, you have no hips to speak of--I think my giggling remark to Mr. Lamb was "You have no bones!"
No wonder y'all have to wear belts and suspenders. You're like, straight up and down.
(Yes, he took it in good part.)
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have to admit that the male body in general still cracks me up, years after my wedding night. I mean, you poor guys, you have no hips to speak of--I think my giggling remark to Mr. Lamb was "You have no bones!"
No wonder y'all have to wear belts and suspenders. You're like, straight up and down.
(Yes, he took it in good part.)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Oh, you mean braces... 'suspenders' has an entirely different meaning this side of the Atlantic.
Then again, within the context of a loving committed relationship, pretty much anything goes: whatever works for you really. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
AFZ
P.S. What Mousethief said.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief Why is it too much to ask that school children don't dress like it's July on the beach at Daytona?
This. I was a teacher for a while in a school in the Netherlands, where they don't have school uniforms. One day, a teenage girl came to school in very skimpy shorts and a top that just about covered her breasts. The school direction sent her home and asked her to come back dressed a bit more appropriately.
To me, this isn't even about erections. There's a moment for everything. I don't think there's a need to dress for school the same way you dress for a discotheque. (Or a house party? Wherever kids go these days.) In my experience, most schools are capable to have a common-sense guidance in this, without losing themselves in minutia of how many millimetres of collar bone can be shown.
quote:
Brenda Clough: In New York City there are women campaigning for toplessness.
Far be it from me to take away their freedom, but I can't say I'm a big supporter of this. When I'm with a woman and we bare our bodies for each other for the first time, part of the fun is that this isn't for everyone to see.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
I shall always remember the mischievous reply my dear first wife gave to one of the elders of a very patriarchal church we attended for a while. They were discussing women's fashion and what would or wouldn't be appropriate in church.
The elder said he found ladies' legs very distracting, and advocated long skirts. To which she replied "Well, please would you ask all the men to wear gloves, particularly when serving communion, because I find men's hands very sexy".
#respect!
Similarly, there was a student at Bible College who would have made St Paul drool, and many of the guys gave her a lot of stick about her make up and what she wore. Distressed, she went to the Principal with the intention of leaving the college, and he told her to stay just as she was - it was the guys' problem, not hers.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
For three years I went to school with the same people I went to the beach with, for at least six months of the year. A simple matter of recall rendered school uniform rules pretty pointless, so instead we had tough rules on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For three years I went to school with the same people I went to the beach with, for at least six months of the year. A simple matter of recall rendered school uniform rules pretty pointless, so instead we had tough rules on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
That can't have been in Wales. It may be the west coast, and not as bracing as Skeggy. But there's nowhere in Wales where one can expose one's flesh on the beach for six months of the year.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Single sex schools.
I was later in boarding school. All boys. From that experience, I would never ever encourage single sex schools. While no doubt some operate differently many decades later. Those who did well were those who were prepared to stand their ground, were bigger, or allied with the bigger. Which I did learn, and also how to channel rage. The best thing for a smaller student to do in such circumstances is to aim for the nose, and think of punching through the face. Save that, an ear. Sort of a sports psychology visualization. If there is more than one tormentor, pick one, the easiest one and act quickly. You will get beaten up after, but it tends to promote their avoidance of you after a while.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Felafool: quote:
The elder said he found ladies' legs very distracting, and advocated long skirts. To which she replied "Well, please would you ask all the men to wear gloves, particularly when serving communion, because I find men's hands very sexy".
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
In that case, perhaps I should start a campaign for men to be silent in church; I find (some) men's voices very sexy.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Sexy eyes are my downfall. I'll be nice and require all men to wear sunglasses to church -- no need for blindfolds.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 17. September 2015, 13:23: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is clearly unfair for women to bear all the onus on this point. Some work has to be done by men.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Sexy eyes are my downfall. I'll be nice and require all men to wear sunglasses to church -- no need for blindfolds.
Ordinary glasses are sufficient. I have very sexy eyes such that on the rare occasions that I wear contacts I tend to get complimented on them a lot.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Sadly, mostly by middle-aged women...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Anyway, the point remains, that my ordinary glasses seem to hide my eyes.
AFZ
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I think this is not unrelated to the discussion about suit-wearing on the Jeremy Corbyn thread.
The clothes we wear (or don’t wear) send out all kinds of messages to other people. Society has frequently come to more or less of a consensus about what those messages are (the consensus that turning up to a job interview in jeans and trainers is not the thing to do, for example). I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to buck those messages in all circumstances, but it’s naïve not to realise that’s what you’re doing.
Mostly I think regulations around clothing in school shouldn’t be about the effect they’re having on the other horny teenagers, but whether you’ve turned up looking like you’re taking school seriously and are there in the hopes of learning something. For example, in my stepdaughter’s (FWIW, private, Catholic*) school, the kids aren’t allowed to wear trainers – they have to have proper shoes. This supposedly is more of a “taking school seriously” kind of look. Similarly an outfit like the one LeRoc describes (shorts and skimpy top) isn’t going to be interpreted by most people as taking school seriously.
I’m very much in favour of school uniforms, personally. My parents more or less financially crippled themselves to send me to an elite private girls’ school. Many of the other students came from very wealthy families and if I’d had to face the teenage keeping-up-with-the-Joneses of all the most expensive brands, it would have been misery. Our uniform was fugly, but at least we all wore the same fugly clothes together.
*Many, if not most, parents sending their kids to Catholic schools in France these days are not Roman Catholics and have no serious intention of becoming so. They choose these schools because they are perceived to be healthier pedagogical environments.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
However would they manage during sports and swimming lessons, then??! Presumably nobody segregates these by sex any more??
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For three years I went to school with the same people I went to the beach with, for at least six months of the year. A simple matter of recall rendered school uniform rules pretty pointless, so instead we had tough rules on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
That can't have been in Wales. It may be the west coast, and not as bracing as Skeggy. But there's nowhere in Wales where one can expose one's flesh on the beach for six months of the year.
Cyprus. My Dad was in the RAF and he was at Akrotiri for three and a half years. I was aged 14-17 then. School until 13:15, home and down to the beach for the afternoon!
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
The elder said he found ladies' legs very distracting, and advocated long skirts. To which she replied "Well, please would you ask all the men to wear gloves, particularly when serving communion, because I find men's hands very sexy".
Taking the opportunity to remind people of this enjoyable discussion from the past.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Some fellows can even find the eyes of a female peeping out of a full-body Burka to be alluring, or sexy (for want of a better word).
Are we now living in such an upside-down world that male and female aren't allowed to find each-other desirable in a non specific way?
Re. OP If schoolboys are being hindered by third stage erections at the sight of their counterpart's collar bone, then I think it's high time they put bromide in the school milk.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I have only ever seen one woman in Christchurch in a full burqua and her eyes were stunning
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
However would they manage during sports and swimming lessons, then??! Presumably nobody segregates these by sex any more??
This misses the point spectacularly. It is appropriate to wear gym clothes to gym class. It is appropriate to wear swim suits at the pool. From this it in no wise follows that there can be no rule on what is appropriate in the classroom.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
A couple of things
Same Sex Schools--I can't speak for them or against them, but the idea reminded me of my son's soccer team. It was the only team in their league that was co-ed. There were not enough girls to have their own team. Likewise there were not quite enough boys to fill out their team either. The league allowed the team to go co-ed.
I could say after a couple of practices the kids (all middle school age) got over the sex thing. They were just team players. I do think a couple of the kids did pair up after practice, though.
The problem came when we played other teams. The opponents were really tough on the girls thinking they would be easy targets--pushovers, the weak links in the game.
After a particularly rough game--the girls were getting fouled a lot--the girls were about to give up. I spoke with them. I told them while they were feeling beat up the experience with the co ed team was actually preparing them to be better players when they eventually joined the same sex team in high school.
My prophecy bore out. All four girls eventually became stars in their high school team. Two of them even got athletic scholarships to their universities.
Other point:
We have a fairly large Muslim community (for a small town in the USA). I have to say some of the women have developed unique ways of being alluring even with conservative dress.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Re. OP If schoolboys are being hindered by third stage erections at the sight of their counterpart's collar bone, then I think it's high time they put bromide in the school milk.
I think it's much more likely that the school has a a very specific dress code which is strictly enforced in order to eliminate the 'we're wearing the exact same shirt and you're only punishing me and not her because I have big boobs' variable.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
After a particularly rough game--the girls were getting fouled a lot--the girls were about to give up. I spoke with them. I told them while they were feeling beat up the experience with the co ed team was actually preparing them to be better players when they eventually joined the same sex team in high school.
My prophecy bore out. All four girls eventually became stars in their high school team. Two of them even got athletic scholarships to their universities.
Other point:
We have a fairly large Muslim community (for a small town in the USA). I have to say some of the women have developed unique ways of being alluring even with conservative dress.
I really respect how you reframed this, Gramps. Those girls were lucky to have someone like you to talk them through the situation.
And agreed about modest Muslim fashion. It can be quite lovely.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Re. OP If schoolboys are being hindered by third stage erections at the sight of their counterpart's collar bone, then I think it's high time they put bromide in the school milk.
Perhaps. But then you'd have to put the whole male enrollment on the bromide (and I doubt there's any school milk.)
I am reminded of words put into the mouth of one of the male characters in the TV version of Buffy the Vampire Killer many year ago. Male person is asked by female person if the sight of all the guns in the armoury they're walking through makes him horny. REply: I'm a 16-year-old boy. Looking at linoleum makes me horny.
Seems to me the school rule is trying to do the impossible (stop teenage boys from getting hard), probably because the phenomenon makes the (my guess is predominantly female) teachers feel uncomfortable. A dress code for the girls won't help.
Not that there's anything wrong with a dress code for the girls, so long as there's an equivalent dress code for the boys. I dare say there are at least some girls aroused by the way some boys could dress. But of course the teachers won't see that arousal.
This is really about the teachers, not about the boys or the girls.
John
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think there is a lot of black-or-white thinking that goes on concerning this topic. Either you want women to wear burqas, or it should be anything goes. Any dress code at all that has any kind of modesty motivation is taken as proof that males just can't control themselves, and women are seen as temptresses. ...
Let me clarify, then: My thinking is not black-or-white. I have no problem with a reasonable dress code.
But when men think it's their job to hand one down to women, I say they can just put bags over the heads and leave us alone.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
See, for the preschool set, the standards for a dress code are pretty easy-- wear something that allows easy movement, some protection from the elements, and that won't be mourned if doused in paint. This actually accidentally guides the parents into clothing that might be termed "modest" -- a kid can't move easily in tight anything, will be uncomfortable in clothing that keeps slipping off, will be exposed to too much UVA if clothing is too beachy, brimmed hats are required some places for outdoor play, high heels and sandals are usually forbidden for safety reasons...
Is their any way to reframe this idea for a dress code for kids who are old enough to choose their own wardrobe? It is not the fashion aspect that is the problem ( we can say), it is functionality-- school should be a place where you dress ready to work in a variety of cognitive and physical ways, and overly " dressy" clothes ( on boys *and* girls) require too much attention that is better focused on work.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think there is a lot of black-or-white thinking that goes on concerning this topic. Either you want women to wear burqas, or it should be anything goes. Any dress code at all that has any kind of modesty motivation is taken as proof that males just can't control themselves, and women are seen as temptresses. ...
Let me clarify, then: My thinking is not black-or-white. I have no problem with a reasonable dress code.
But when men think it's their job to hand one down to women, I say they can just put bags over the heads and leave us alone.
I thought this thread was about schoolchildren.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I think it's much more likely that the school has a a very specific dress code which is strictly enforced in order to eliminate the 'we're wearing the exact same shirt and you're only punishing me and not her because I have big boobs' variable.
Young folk must be much more sexualised these days than when I was at school in the 70 s. School uniform was enforced and no collar bones were on display. But yeah some of the girls were more ample in the boob department than others. During hot weather some liked to untuck their shirts and tie it in a knot under the rib cage. Yet the sight of that never gave me the bone, nor did any of my mates as far as I,m aware.
Now, smooching someone you,ve had an attraction to throughtout your school life at the end-of-term discos? Ah well that's an entirely different matter.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Young folk must be much more sexualised these days than when I was at school in the 70 s. School uniform was enforced and no collar bones were on display. But yeah some of the girls were more ample in the boob department than others. During hot weather some liked to untuck their shirts and tie it in a knot under the rib cage. Yet the sight of that never gave me the bone, nor did any of my mates as far as I,m aware.
Now, smooching someone you,ve had an attraction to throughtout your school life at the end-of-term discos? Ah well that's an entirely different matter.
I'm fairly certain most of the guys I went to school with fell in the 'I'm a 16-year-old boy, looking at linoleum makes me think about sex' category.
School uniforms (whether bought from the school or district or a standard 'you must wear a blue button up shirt with a collar and khaki or navy slacks') are a lot easier than trying to come up with a series of rules for every rule-pushing variation kids will come up with.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And you need to think about the minimum standard, and then design the uniform with the leeway for the pupils to push against the rules without breaking your standard. So, if you think skirts two inches above the knee are what you want, insist on kneelength.
Our college PE skirts, royal blue, felty fabric, worn over bright red knickers (what were they thinking?) were supposed to be ordered as four inches above the knee, measured at the front, kneeling. I wasn't the only one who measured at the back, and I was never called out on it. (This was before miniskirts, just. We weren't allowed to cross the road to the beach with our knees showing, either. Or to wear trousers.)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Tormenting children and youth with uniforms I am perfectly fine with. We assail them with algebra, after all. But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way. And complaints that girls are tempting boys with those collarbones should be countered harshly.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
Clothing, by itself, controlling lust? I've never heard someone suggest that.
quote:
And complaints that girls are tempting boys with those collarbones should be countered harshly.
Oddly enough, even though at one point in my life I was called 'the foul temptress,' I've never heard a complaint that girls are tempting boys with their collarbones. It's always about the violation of the dress code and whether or not a particular item constitutes a distraction.
That some people read meaning into it that may not be there in order to make it all about the boys and their boners is unfortunate.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
How about the burqa? Probably one of the most depersonalizing garments to have been invented.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Tormenting children and youth with uniforms I am perfectly fine with. We assail them with algebra, after all. But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way. And complaints that girls are tempting boys with those collarbones should be countered harshly.
Agreed. The message should be, you are more than your clothes, and our uniform/ standard apparel requirements are meant to relieve you of the burden of worrying about what to wear and how people judge what you wear. We'll start the clothes thing on even ground so you can distinguish yourself through talent and achievement.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[QUOTE]]I'm fairly certain most of the guys I went to school with fell in the 'I'm a 16-year-old boy, looking at linoleum makes me think about sex' category.
Not disagreeing with what you wrote in this, but to clarify the example -- he said that looking at linoleum made him feel horny, not made him think about sex. A subtle difference, but key for this age group... horny (at this age) may be about sex, but it may be the body deciding to do something for no good reason at all. I'd bet that most men can remember being in a class and getting horny in the middle of a maths problem or a latin lesson being led by a fully clothed male or 60+ female teacher when sex was the very last thing in the mind.
I've heard it said that at this age listening to the wind blow can make a boy get hard. And so far as I know, there's nothing sexy about the wind blowing. YMMV, of course.
John
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Many years ago I knew a man who thought that a muumuu was a very sexy garment.
Moo
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Not disagreeing with what you wrote in this, but to clarify the example -- he said that looking at linoleum made him feel horny, not made him think about sex.
Actually (to be nitpicky) the quote is about wanting to have sex.
quote:
A subtle difference, but key for this age group... horny (at this age) may be about sex, but it may be the body deciding to do something for no good reason at all. I'd bet that most men can remember being in a class and getting horny in the middle of a maths problem or a latin lesson being led by a fully clothed male or 60+ female teacher when sex was the very last thing in the mind.
I've heard it said that at this age listening to the wind blow can make a boy get hard. And so far as I know, there's nothing sexy about the wind blowing. YMMV, of course.
John
And I don't disagree with any of that. I know teen-aged boys don't necessarily choose to get erections so much as they choose what to do with them once they have them*.
*Somewhere around age 14-15 I innocently inquired of the boys in my class why they were always pulling their t-shirts down when they talked to me. Eventually someone explained it to me.
Being a girl it was a lot easier to hide sexual feelings that arose in the middle of trying to complete a math problem on the chalkboard.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
How about the burqa? Probably one of the most depersonalizing garments to have been invented.
That is just horrible. But I think I've said on these boards before how one day I saw in the street a Muslim woman, covered head to foot and veiled so that only her eyes were visible- but such eyes as made my head spin for a brief moment! Which I suppose just goes to show that try as you might to keep it off the subject of sex, the mind sometimes has a will of its own. So it's for the observer to deal with, not the observed.
[ 18. September 2015, 21:57: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
However would they manage during sports and swimming lessons, then??! Presumably nobody segregates these by sex any more??
This misses the point spectacularly. It is appropriate to wear gym clothes to gym class. It is appropriate to wear swim suits at the pool. From this it in no wise follows that there can be no rule on what is appropriate in the classroom.
No, I don't think this is missing the point at all. If boys can control their reactions to girls not wearing much in the gym or the swimming pool, then they can control their reactions in other circumstances where girls are not wearing much. Anything else is just an excuse.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
[QUOTE] If boys can control their reactions to girls not wearing much in the gym or the swimming pool, then they can control their reactions in other circumstances where girls are not wearing much. Anything else is just an excuse.
If boys could control their reactions you would be right. The group we're talking about (14-16 years old) largely can't. That is, they can't control whether or not they get an erection. And getting an erection is only sometimes a reaction to girls and what they are or aren't wearing. They can of course (and should, and almost always do) control what they then do about it.
I have to say that in the context of the school classroom, the most embarrassed person when a boy has to stand up with an erection is the boy. Then the other boys, many of whom could be "catching" it, then the teachers who don't know which way to look. i suspect that any girls who notice it are simply amused.
John
[ 19. September 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
However would they manage during sports and swimming lessons, then??! Presumably nobody segregates these by sex any more??
This misses the point spectacularly. It is appropriate to wear gym clothes to gym class. It is appropriate to wear swim suits at the pool. From this it in no wise follows that there can be no rule on what is appropriate in the classroom.
No, I don't think this is missing the point at all. If boys can control their reactions to girls not wearing much in the gym or the swimming pool, then they can control their reactions in other circumstances where girls are not wearing much. Anything else is just an excuse.
It's NOT ABOUT BOYS CONTROLLING THEIR ERECTIONS. It's about what's appropriate and not appropriate. Why are people so fixated on erections?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But look at the title of the thread: Cover yourself, girl, you're turning the boys on. It is not about appropriateness. It really does seem to be about erections.
Appropriateness is a separate thing. We can agree that soccer togs are appropriate for soccer but not for work -- that's easy. We agree on this.
What's hard (as it were) is that everything makes it hard. There is nothing girls can do, up to and including full burquas, to prevent excitement in boys. We agree on this too (linoleum).
The answer does not lie with the girls. It is totally up to the boys. So what should the boys do? NOT the girls, remember. The boys.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The "turning the boys on" is pure interpolation by the person misrepresenting the school's policy. Because I can guarantee you that no school has anything about turning boys on in its dress code. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The thread title is based on a lie.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I, too, agree that the policy would not say such a thing. So what's your opinion about why the school has something against girls' collarbones? What does covering girls' collarbones achieve? Does North American culture generally think collarbones are inappropriate for school?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I, too, agree that the policy would not say such a thing. So what's your opinion about why the school has something against girls' collarbones? What does covering girls' collarbones achieve? Does North American culture generally think collarbones are inappropriate for school?
I doubt very much it mentions collarbones. It probably is meant to discourage the flaunting of cleavage, which in a middle school is vulgar, just as boys showing their boxers (or butt cracks) is vulgar. Neither are allowed in my school, but the language in the dress code is strictly unisex. So to keep it unisex you have rules-of-thumb about thighs and upper arms and chests (or I should say necklines), stated as non-titillatingly as you can because we're talking 14 year olds.
[ 19. September 2015, 03:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
The article that Pigwidgeon linked to on the girl sent home from a Kentucky high school does mention collarbone display as a dress code infraction.
Yes, flaunting cleavage is vulgar in school because it's titillating (butt cracks not so much ) ie turns people on and distracts students from paying attention to their studies. Going into classes in session merely to nab young women for collarbone offenses is also distracting.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What's hard (as it were) is that everything makes it hard. There is nothing girls can do, up to and including full burquas, to prevent excitement in boys. We agree on this too (linoleum).
The answer does not lie with the girls. It is totally up to the boys. So what should the boys do? NOT the girls, remember. The boys.
What should the boys do to control getting erections? Nothing. That's like asking water to stop being wet.
Your question presupposes that the boys are choosing to get erections. At least in class, not so (well, in the overwhelming majority of cases).
In any case, what's your suggestion for what a boy can do when he suddenly, for no apparent reason, gets hard as a teacher asks him to stand up? Propound, if you please.
The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
[ 19. September 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The article that Pigwidgeon linked to on the girl sent home from a Kentucky high school does mention collarbone display as a dress code infraction.
I stand corrected. I wonder that they couldn't have achieved the same effect without mentioning collarbones.
quote:
Yes, flaunting cleavage is vulgar in school because it's titillating (butt cracks not so much ) ie turns people on and distracts students from paying attention to their studies.
I suppose. I just think that in our culture it's a level of display that doesn't belong in school. As you say buttcracks are not so terribly titillating, but are still inappropriate for a school setting.
quote:
Going into classes in session merely to nab young women for collarbone offenses is also distracting.
In our school nobody goes into classes. If a teacher thinks a student's attire is not up to code, s/he sends the student either to their locker to get something to cover up, or to the office. It can be done quietly and discreetly, if the student doesn't make an ass of him/herself.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
That's why God invented the codpiece.
[ 19. September 2015, 15:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
... The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
Actually, I don't remember erections. I do remember an adorable saxophone player with blue eyes and black hair who was a terrible distraction in Grade 10. And the two boys in math in Grade 8. And the boy who wasn't in any of my high school classes but lived two streets over. Mmmm .... Come to think of it, there were a lot of boys who were distractions in high school. John is right: cover them up.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Why do you think gigantically baggy jeans are so popular with young men?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
John Holding: In any case, what's your suggestion for what a boy can do when he suddenly, for no apparent reason, gets hard as a teacher asks him to stand up? Propound, if you please.
My solutions for this was once to place a chair in front of me in a rather, erm, strategic position.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Brenda: quote:
But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
You're kidding, right?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
A kilt would do, wouldn't it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Brenda: quote:
But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
You're kidding, right?
I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The article that Pigwidgeon linked to on the girl sent home from a Kentucky high school does mention collarbone display as a dress code infraction.
Yes, flaunting cleavage is vulgar in school because it's titillating (butt cracks not so much ) ie turns people on and distracts students from paying attention to their studies. Going into classes in session merely to nab young women for collarbone offenses is also distracting.
And yet I thought the principal was pretty clear about the fact that it's not about the collarbones themselves, but about having a measure-able dress code. It's easier to enforce 'no skirts more than two inches above the knee' than it is to enforce 'no skirts that are too short.' Similarly, it's easier to enforce 'no shirts that reveal anything beneath your collarbones' than 'no shirts that reveal too much cleavage.'
That said, a few weeks ago I was wearing a sundress and sitting on the curb outside the laundrymat reading. A guy who had his pants deliberately buttoned under his nice, round ass (of the type I envy because no matter how many squats I do I will never have an ass like that) told me to stop sitting with my legs that far apart.
IME schools tend to enforce dress codes fairly equally on boys and girls.
Life, not so much.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Appropriateness is a separate thing. We can agree that soccer togs are appropriate for soccer but not for work -- that's easy. We agree on this.
What's hard (as it were) is that everything makes it hard. There is nothing girls can do, up to and including full burquas, to prevent excitement in boys. We agree on this too (linoleum).
The answer does not lie with the girls. It is totally up to the boys. So what should the boys do? NOT the girls, remember. The boys.
I have to say, this sounds a little like you would like the boys to somehow transcend biology and stop actually being adolescent boys.
And while I agree that there's nothing girls can do to prevent adolescent boys from getting erections, you must have attended different schools than I did if you didn't see girls deliberately do things that they knew were likely to arouse the boys.
If you ask me, the annual conversation over dress codes is all wrong. I have an issue with the sexualization of pre-pubescent girls who are frequently imitating the dress, body language, dance moves, etc. of pop stars without really knowing what they are doing. But 17-year-old girls are sexual beings (even if there's a limit to how physically intimate they are willing to get). Pretending otherwise - pretending that their sexualization is something that is somehow being imposed by adults or the media - is just silly.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
A few years ago a school in a conservative community in Utah got into a lot of trouble with the parents and kids when they choose to photoshop a number of the girls pictures because in the high school annual because, in the school administration's opinion the tops the girls were wearing were "inappropriate" some cleavage showing and bare shoulders.
I believe these were senior class pictures.
The parents were upset because the kids had bought their outfits for the pictures and had been told previously the tops were appropriate. The kids were upset because they did not like the photoshop results.
It sometimes carries over into adult life too. I was a pastor of a rural high desert congregation in California. On the wall of the fellowship hall there were pictures of all previous pastors--they all wore Roman Collars. Not me. My picture had me wearing a tie. Some people were disappointed.
Then I usually wore simple sports shirts and slacks when I worked or made calls. I had no problem making calls, like at hospitals, because most other pastors were also informal. Then, one of the "elders" objected--going on into five years at the church. He brought it to the council. My response was that as long as I did not violate California nudity laws (exposing private parts in a public place so as to offend...), I will continue to wear what I had been wearing in the previous four years.
Petty
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
A kilt would do, wouldn't it?
Better ask Hamish and Dougal:
...are you familiar with the Edinburgh tattoo?
-Aye, I think i saw it that windy day when your kilt blew up
-No no, I mean the great national spectacle
-So do I!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
But it doesn't hold them back once they make it to the workplace, despite their lower grades.
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!!
Of course, it is not right to tell, teach or infer that any child is inferior to another child, based on gender. If any sex knows the truth of this it's the female sex, who have been told this for millenia. I think, Twighlight, you're confusing a little bit of Western cultural ambiguity over sex and gender roles, with the still-present reality of misogyny being experienced to greater and lesser degrees across the globe.
I would want to say very strongly, however, that undermining boys and men simply because they are boys and men - if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise - is every bit as evil, wrongheaded and damaging as it was (and continues to be) when practised against the female sex.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!!
THESE boys haven't hit the job market yet. The tide is still turning. It may be that when today's 8th graders graduate from college, the boys will still dominate the girls in the job sweepstakes. This is no reason to make light of what is happening to boys in our schools (when and where it's happening). That's despicable. We need to build a world where boys and girls can find meaningful work in their adult lives and be free from bias in any direction. That won't happen if we say "fuck you" to 8th grade boys because men 20 years older than them get paid more than women 20 years older than them.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Yes, Mousethief, some tides turn very slowly! And better not to compensate for one form of injustice and oppressive behaviour with another. We're all created in God's image and should be valued and affirmed for who we are.
As it happens, ref: showing collar-bones. My secondary school uniform, for the girls, included an open necked blouse. Alternatively we could wear a polo-neck jumper; but not beneath the open-necked blouse. Of course, this was back in the dark ages when girls were routinely sent home to wipe the make-up off their face, remove dangly earrings, put on longer/shorter skirts etc.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Mousethief: quote:
In our school nobody goes into classes. If a teacher thinks a student's attire is not up to code, s/he sends the student either to their locker to get something to cover up, or to the office. It can be done quietly and discreetly, if the student doesn't make an ass of him/herself.
That is a much more sensible policy for enforcement than examples of shaming described in some of the articles.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Burkhas for boys? Sounds great, but I think the coverall was first invented by monks. The habit covers a multitude of sins, or so an aged abbot described it when we visited his monastery.
John Holding, I think you have just won the uniform contract.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Meanwhile, how about this?
British schoolboy uniforms
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Yes, Mousethief, some tides turn very slowly! And better not to compensate for one form of injustice and oppressive behaviour with another.
Which appears to be what is happening with the way boys are treated in primary and secondary schools these days. We are compensating for unequal pay by destroying a generation of boys.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Mousethief: quote:
In our school nobody goes into classes. If a teacher thinks a student's attire is not up to code, s/he sends the student either to their locker to get something to cover up, or to the office. It can be done quietly and discreetly, if the student doesn't make an ass of him/herself.
That is a much more sensible policy for enforcement than examples of shaming described in some of the articles.
I have to admit I'm suspicious of many of the examples of shaming in the annual dress code violations wars. In the event of a dress code violation, most of the schools I know have had a policy of either sending the kids to their lockers for something to cover up with, or sending them to their gym lockers and office to get their gym shirts* and a pair of gym sweatpants (unless they owned their own, but that was mostly confined to athletes).
* a standard outfit you were required to buy from the county for use during gym
A lot of the shaming stories seem to be about girls (or their mothers) who refuse to accept the dress code and also refuse to accept any consequences for violating it and know exactly how to make their story go viral.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which appears to be what is happening with the way boys are treated in primary and secondary schools these days. We are compensating for unequal pay by destroying a generation of boys.
I find it hard to make this all about sex/gender.
For all the lofty rhetoric about 'think of the children' as a society we seem intent on destroying them.
But why worry about a student being arrested for bringing a home-made clock to school when we can get upset over a student sent home for the day for refusing to obey the dress code?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
This was just reported on a Spokane WA TV Station.
Local School institutes strict Homecoming Dance Dress Code.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
What's the birthrate there?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
What's the birthrate there?
Everything's about sex with you people, isn't it?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Brenda: quote:
But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
You're kidding, right?
I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
Socks with sandals are the reason the Roman Empire crumbled.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Socks with sandals are the reason the Roman Empire crumbled.
Quite right, absolutely nothing to do with Barbarian hordes. No matter how much gladiator blood they slipped into their wives cornflakes it was useless in the face of the SWS turn-off.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Yes, Mousethief, some tides turn very slowly! And better not to compensate for one form of injustice and oppressive behaviour with another.
Which appears to be what is happening with the way boys are treated in primary and secondary schools these days. We are compensating for unequal pay by destroying a generation of boys.
To be sure, I'm not much in touch in recent years with, at least, British schools policy, so I'm not aware that primary and secondary school boys are, as a matter of course, institutionalized by government educational policy to think of themselves as inferior to girls.I shall try to observe the boys and young men of my own family acquaintance a little more closely!
It's certainly very sad and, in these times of supposed equality, at least strange to think that a whole generation of boys are being trained and educated by their mentors and teachers to think of themselves as less than they are. Certainly something to be fought against.
It took girls and women the best part of 6,000 years to begin to recover from that sort of bullshit (and in some regions and countries the recovery hasn't even begun) so hopefully our young men will be more fortunate in fighting that kind of institutionalised and social oppression.
However, perhaps we can be optimistic? Having attained and maintained the ascendancy in 'the battle of the sexes' for many millenia, there is at least something of a precedent for boys and men to think sufficiently well of themselves. So perhaps the damage being done by comedy/clueless-dad style advertizing, as referred to by Twighlight, and other lazy stereotyping will be more easily resisted? It would be good to aim for a situation where we can affirm the worth, value and equality of the opposite sex without it being at the expense of the other.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
What I observed while teaching was a peergroup instigated denigration of the "boff" among boys. It was certainly not there when I started to teaching. It was certainly not something I encouraged - I liked the way boys used to engage with learning. I did encourage girls to do the same.
I don't know where it comes from. It isn't as if school has to have either boys doing well or girls, but not both. But if people want girls to shut up to enable the boys to succeed, which is what some seem to want out in the wide world, that is what they are implying, and it's daft.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Everything's about sex with you people, isn't it?
No, just the unattractiveness quotient. Socks-with-sandals is right down there with bulging guts insufficiently covered by gross-logo-bearing T-shits, cigar smoking, and nose-picking, at least in my estimation. That's why I wondered.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Everything's about sex with you people, isn't it?
No, just the unattractiveness quotient. Socks-with-sandals is right down there with bulging guts insufficiently covered by gross-logo-bearing T-shits, cigar smoking, and nose-picking, at least in my estimation. That's why I wondered.
Clearly people in the PNW don't have your sense of ugly. So to speak.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It would be good to aim for a situation where we can affirm the worth, value and equality of the opposite sex without it being at the expense of the other.
I would never say otherwise. But there appears to be an imbalance in some places, as a result of which boys are getting the short end of the stick. I don't know all the details and I don't know how to fix it. But pretending it doesn't happen, or that the patriarchy will take care of them, doesn't seem to be the way forward. For one thing we should be dismantling the patriarchy, not hoping for it to catch boys falling through the cracks.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There's been a lot about boys underachieving in the UK press for a number of years. This article suggests that it is more nuanced than just boys versus girls. White working class boys in the UK in particular are identified as underachieving. According to one of the students I've been working with - he's mixed race, black Caribbean father, white mother - if it was up to his mother he would get away without attending school, which suggests there are cultural issues in play, plus the too cool for school, refusal to work vibe.
Another issue is the pressure on achieving grades, if boys can't see they will achieve well they don't see the point and will concentrate on things they do think they can achieve at - like being the class clown or disruption as avoidance.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Part of the issue is that the definition of "underachieving" has changed. As the article Curiosity linked states, the 11+ exam used to have a lower pass mark for boys, because otherwise, those passing would be overwhelmingly female. The assumption was that boys matured later than girls, and the fact that girls out-performed boys at 11 simply reflected this. I.e. at 11, girls were only one year off puberty, whereas boys were still three years off puberty; it would have been unfair to treat them as equals. The assumption was that boys would have caught up by O level / A level, at which point the passmark was the same for both male and female.
But nowadays, girls and boys sit the same exams with the same pass marks for both sexes throughout their schooling, and boys are identified as "failing" at an early age.
There was a saying in Victorian education - "gold gleams duller than tinsel". The idea was that a dull boy was gold, whereas his brighter sister was mere tinsel. Nobody now boosts an academically underachieving boy by assuring him that he is "gold."
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Now that bright girls no longer have to contend with evidence of their intelligence being regarded as "tinsel" they have to cope with their clothing choices being regarded as evidence of frivolity. Revealing a collarbone? Not a serious student. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Now that bright girls no longer have to contend with evidence of their intelligence being regarded as "tinsel" they have to cope with their clothing choices being regarded as evidence of frivolity. Revealing a collarbone? Not a serious student.
The majority of that sort of thing works itself out through peer-group pressure. Or at least that was the reported view of both my daughters. The pressures they came under (appearance, choice of academic subjects etc.) were mostly not from teachers, society or the boys. They were from other girls. Though who knows where they in turn got it from, but the point is that it would have been at one remove.
If that's generally true there are probably parallels with the examples of pressures on boys mentioned by Curiosity killed... a couple of posts back. The "too cool for school" thing especially. Parental disengagement and societal expectations form a perfect backdrop in which to practice that sort of nonsense.
But this is getting a bit away from the OP, though I'm certain you could probably find examples of all these pressures in the example cited. And I'm with mousethief on the naivety of taking the girl's statement at face value.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I suspect some of the argument about the 11+ pass marks were necessary to justify there being fewer grammar places for girls anyway, for historical reasons.
In Dartford, the boys' grammar still insists on being "The Grammar School", while the girls is "The Grammar School for Girls". For historical reasons. But it does rather convey the idea that girls receiving selective education is an optional extra.
The peer group pressure thing may be a side effect of the group leaders not being those who excel at school work. With boys, sport skills are the ones which mark out the one that is followed, possibly the bully. With girls, I have seldom seen queen bees who shone at anything involving work directed thinking. How to diminish your victims thinking, yes. And then all the hangers on will go along with it because if not that victim, then them.
[ 21. September 2015, 10:19: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
And then there is the custom of the "Senior Salute" at certain boarding school in New England that has drawn national attention.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/boarding-school-sex-scandal-when-bro-culture-becomes-rape-culture.html
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Clearly people in the PNW don't have your sense of ugly. So to speak.
I think I forgot the stem-to-stern tattoos.
Every region has its own sense of ugly, but at least we here in the (frequently less than tasteful) Nation's Heartland are spared the pure-D fugliness of socks-n-sandals. Deo gratias for that much.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
In the Fifties and Sixties here, you could always tell the English migrants - they were the ones who wore socks and sandals.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Re sandals and socks:
isn't it true that everything disparaged as nerdy, geek, stupid, hillbilly eventually becomes "in". I noticed this first when rap music stars, and then so many young people, started wearing "ass pants" (which might be called "ass trousers" some places). The style was to have colourful gotch (underwear) while wearing falling down pants/trousers. When I was growing up, this was the uniform of the unwashed plumber who smelled of cess and sewer, and anyone who dressed like that would be the butt of jokes.
Also the ball hats, with a completely straight brim. This signified "just off the farm" and certain intellectual impairment when I was young.
Thus I suspect a future trend will feature socks and sandals as trendy.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And then there is the custom of the "Senior Salute" at certain boarding school in New England that has drawn national attention.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/boarding-school-sex-scandal-when-bro-culture-becomes-rape-culture.html
This is disgusting. The school could be sued out of existence, because they must have had some ideas that this was occurring. For the raping student in this case, the guidelines for criminal sentence for a penetration sex offence starts at ~4 years in my jurisdiction, with most sentenced to about 6, which is hardly enough. The sentence for the rape victim is lifetime. Incitement charges should be considered against everyone involved. No second chances, no leniency.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
But it doesn't hold them back once they make it to the workplace, despite their lower grades.
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!!
Of course, it is not right to tell, teach or infer that any child is inferior to another child, based on gender. If any sex knows the truth of this it's the female sex, who have been told this for millenia. I think, Twighlight, you're confusing a little bit of Western cultural ambiguity over sex and gender roles, with the still-present reality of misogyny being experienced to greater and lesser degrees across the globe.
I think you are determined to make today's little Western boys pay a price for all the mistreatment of women around the world past and present. You give a rote "of course it's not right to tell them they are inferior," but then roll you eyes at the reports that it's already happening, because, I guess in your mind, the chance of a higher paycheck some day should offset a total lack of self-esteem and an ever present sense of guilt laid on them by people who can't quit telling them about how horrible men are while holding them responsible for themistreatment of women in other countries or anytime in the past.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
That's not right Twilight, it's not even wrong.
Following is a meta-analysis of studies, Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement from Psychological Bulletin, 2014.
quote:
results showed that the magnitude of the female advantage was not affected by year of publication, thereby contradicting claims of a recent “boy crisis” in school achievement.
The article tells us that this "female advantage" has been in place for years, with study inclusion beginning in 1941.
quote:
To put the present findings in perspective, an effect size of 0.225 would reflect approximately a 16% nonoverlap between distributions of males and females (Cohen, 1988). Thus, a crude way to interpret this finding is to say that, in a class of 50 female and 50 male students, there could be eight males who are forming the lower tail of the class marks distribution.
We have to ask ourselves, if there is a small but consistent effect which shows that in s sample of 100, 8 boys are potentially left behind, how is it that women are under-represented in many professions? At the local university only 11-17% of engineering students are women year to year. On the other hand, 40-60% of physicians in training are women year to year. We have thought that favouring professions emphasizing interpersonal skills is an issue.
The article discusses a series of moderator variables, including attribution of performance to ability in boys and to effort/motivation in girls. The conventional wisdom I hear from high school guidance counsellors is that girls' self esteem is lower than boys, notwithstanding that girls have better social skills and are at least as smart. there are tremendous socialization effects at play that wash-out the mild but consistent results of better achievement for girls.
This link: A New Look at Adolescent Girls, if you scroll down to "gender and self esteem" and open the item, confirms this:
quote:
Both girls' and boys' self-esteem decreases during the high school years; but girls' self-esteem tends to drop more over time.
There is additional research since this was proposed to study, which confirms the issues.
So the crisis, Twilight, is not boys' self esteem as a group, but with girls' self esteem as a group. With individual boys and individual girls needing to be considered individually in regard to their personal situation, such that some boys certainly do have low self esteem, lower than most girls. But something is going on that girls' higher achievement in schools is not reflected in their success as measured by employment nor paycheque.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Well good then. Let the misandry roll on. I suppose it can't just be that businesses are slow to change and paying what they can get away with.
[ 22. September 2015, 11:38: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
No Twilight. Not misandry. Unequal. Which points at structural social flaws.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression. It's like saying that educated white women like Anselmina shouldn't get those high salaries, since they're still making more money than the average black person, who has been oppressed for the same 6000 years.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Twilight wrote quote:
The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression.
I'm really struggling to see how you read that into what Anselmina said, Twilight. No doubt she'll be along shortly to refute or confirm, but I don't see it.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Twilight wrote quote:
The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression.
I'm really struggling to see how you read that into what Anselmina said, Twilight. No doubt she'll be along shortly to refute or confirm, but I don't see it.
You don't see any sarcasm or "now they're getting what they deserve" in this?
Anselmina: quote:
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!! [Roll Eyes]
Of course, it is not right to tell, teach or infer that any child is inferior to another child, based on gender. If any sex knows the truth of this it's the female sex, who have been told this for millenia. I think, Twighlight, you're confusing a little bit of Western cultural ambiguity over sex and gender roles, with the still-present reality of misogyny being experienced to greater and lesser degrees across the globe.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Well, you've omitted her final paragraph that says:- quote:
I would want to say very strongly, however, that undermining boys and men simply because they are boys and men - if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise - is every bit as evil, wrongheaded and damaging as it was (and continues to be) when practised against the female sex.
- which looks unambiguous to me.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I see sarcasm, Twilight. But not delight. What I see in her words is the refutation that these lower scoring boys are at all disadvantaged. Her sarcasm was, IMO, directed at this.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Well, you've omitted her final paragraph that says:- quote:
I would want to say very strongly, however, that undermining boys and men simply because they are boys and men - if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise - is every bit as evil, wrongheaded and damaging as it was (and continues to be) when practised against the female sex.
- which looks unambiguous to me.
I'm replying to what she directed specifically at me. Mousethief got her to back pedal quite a bit and even there it's qualified with the "if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise." I think the first response, directed angrily at me for voicing concern about boys, was the gut level response -- thus the misandry.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
In the years I've been on the ship, the times my posts have caused an argument to come off the rails have always involved an attempt at sarcasm or irony. Both regularly involve saying something you don't mean in the literal sense. I try to avoid them these days for that reason. But I would reiterate that you have to look at the whole argument if you want to get the measure of what someone really means.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is disgusting. The school could be sued out of existence, because they must have had some ideas that this was occurring.
What guidelines should mixed sex boarding schools or colleges/ universities have when it comes to their students' sex lives? What punishments should be applied for a violation of these policies?
Personally I've been advocating for same-sex dorms and curfews but no one seems interested.
quote:
For the raping student in this case, the guidelines for criminal sentence for a penetration sex offence starts at ~4 years in my jurisdiction, with most sentenced to about 6, which is hardly enough. The sentence for the rape victim is lifetime. Incitement charges should be considered against everyone involved. No second chances, no leniency.
Now, I'm no fan of this particular cultural tradition - particularly since the age of consent in New Hampshire is 16, and you'd think someone would have pointed out that almost everyone engaging in this practice was in fact breaking the law.
I am, however, curious about your willingness to severely punish one person for what was obviously a common practice; what makes you comfortable making this person responsible for all the sins of the culture? Or does the desire to punish everyone who participated with incitement charges mitigate the goating of this student?
Do you have any sense of what you are calling for? In the US, the fact that the student was charged (regardless of what the verdict is) will likely ruin the rest of his life.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
An example must be set when it can be set. This is the principle of general deterance. Set an example and deter others from doing this. There was a rape. That is a very serius offence. Rape as an outcome if such a tradition is foreseeable.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
An example must be set when it can be set. This is the principle of general deterance. Set an example and deter others from doing this.
Deter others from doing what? Hooking up? Having sex? Trying to get as many notches in their bedpost as they can?
I repeat my question about boarding schools and colleges and what policies you would put in place to deter whatever you have determined to be unacceptable sexual activity.
quote:
There was a rape. That is a very serius offence. Rape as an outcome if such a tradition is foreseeable.
That has yet to be determined:
quote:
On cross-examination, the alleged victim conceded that she lifted up her arms so Labrie could take her shirt off and raised her hips so he could pull off her shorts. She also told the police, when they interviewed her soon after the incident, that “other than me saying no to the first part, I don’t think he would have known for a fact that I would not want to do that.”
The alleged victim and accused dispute whether penetration occurred. Unless the definition of rape has changed considerably, if there was no penetration, there was no rape.
What are you hoping others are going to learn as a result of this students' troubles?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The alleged victim and accused dispute whether penetration occurred. Unless the definition of rape has changed considerably, if there was no penetration, there was no rape.
What are you hoping others are going to learn as a result of this students' troubles?
And a health care worker who examined the alleged victim at the time said there were signs of forceful penetration. So it's NOT just a he-said, she-said kind of deal. There's other evidence.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The alleged victim and accused dispute whether penetration occurred. Unless the definition of rape has changed considerably, if there was no penetration, there was no rape.
What are you hoping others are going to learn as a result of this students' troubles?
And a health care worker who examined the alleged victim at the time said there were signs of forceful penetration. So it's NOT just a he-said, she-said kind of deal. There's other evidence.
In the quoted link, the health care worker is quoted as saying there was a laceration that would be consistent with penetration having occurred. That's far from saying that there was penetration, or that it was forceful. What will be relevant though, is the evidence at trial.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression. It's like saying that educated white women like Anselmina shouldn't get those high salaries, since they're still making more money than the average black person, who has been oppressed for the same 6000 years.
As you don't seem to know the first thing about me, Twilight, I'll treat your accusations of misandry and 'revenge' wish-fulfilment with the contempt they deserve. I can only assume you either have an unconscious predisposition to misconstrue my posts, or a private agenda against myself, in posting such despicable tripe. Either way, your problem, not mine.
I don't think there's anything by way of sarcasm impeding my clear meaning. So when I write that it is wrong for children - boys or girls - to be undermined in their education or social progress simply because they are boys or girls, any reasonable reader can assume that's what I precisely intend to be understood. My stance on justice alone would compel me to abhor and stand against the very idea that boys in the classroom, or at home being socialized, are being put down simply because they are boys.
I will admit that it could be argued I've drawn a rather broad comparison between the recent-day difficulties some boys and men of the modern world experience, in contrast to the millenias' worth of subjugation experienced (and still experienced) by women. But even a cursory glance at history by the dullest observer can result in that conclusion without assistance, so I'm hardly stating anything new. It might appear to a monochrome mind that this is somehow 'delighting' in the male sex 'getting what they deserve'. I don't think so. I think it's about understanding the context of the issue, learning from past injustices and mistakes, and by doing so ensuring it doesn't happen all over again to anyone else, female or male.
I'm tickled that you think I 'back-pedalled'. Suffice to say I responded to Mousethief as I would to any poster capable of presenting and understanding the nuances of this complex and emotive issue; with, I hope, in my answer to him some nuance and acknowledgement of this complexity.
And, JFTR, you're quite right to say I'm educated. At least, after a fashion. If I can persist with my current part-time studies with the Open University, I will gain by 2019 my first and probably my last ever degree. My diploma in theology was obviously necessary for ordination, during my early thirties. When I left school in 1982 at age 16, I had 3 O Levels and the benefit of the careers advice all girls like me got: 'you can type, so get an office job'.
High salaries? Currently, I'm unemployed and because I'm not eligible for any benefits, am enjoying an income of precisely zero pounds, zero pence. And my previous job brought in the princely sum of about £150 per week. When I get over this illness, and return to working life, I'll earn even less. But I have to stress these are my choices (more or less), and I'm not complaining in the least. I'm actually in not a bad place at the moment. And am rather enjoying the freedom of my situation.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Ah, very disingenuous, Anselmina. Asking why I'm singling you out when you called me out by name first over worrying about the boys being told they were less than, then claiming not to be sarcastic by quoting a very different post than the one that seemed sarcastic to me, i.e. this one: quote:
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!! [Roll Eyes]
I was under the impression that you were pastor of an Anglican church, so I admit I got that wrong.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I do not want to be unnecessarily annoying, but the laws of different states in the US vary on the precise definition and terminology of sexual assault. It's not clear to me from the postings if we are talking about New Hampshire law.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Ah, very disingenuous, Anselmina. Asking why I'm singling you out when you called me out by name first over worrying about the boys being told they were less than, then claiming not to be sarcastic by quoting a very different post than the one that seemed sarcastic to me, i.e. this one: quote:
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!! [Roll Eyes]
I was under the impression that you were pastor of an Anglican church, so I admit I got that wrong.
Where did I claim not to use sarcasm? I remember saying that there was nothing by way of sarcasm to prevent someone understanding the clear meaning of my posts. Perhaps you've read this statement as meaning something else. Maybe despite my wish for clarity, I wasn't clear enough.
With regard to the quote above, yes, I was waspish over your, in my opinion, over-simplistic analysis of that particular situation. I could almost hear the weeping violin in the background! And you don't have to take that as an insult about your debating technique, you know! You can just accept it as my perception of what you wrote, and tell yourself my perception is rubbish.
So, yes,I thought your post was lacking perspective and context, which is why the quote above included a link which I hoped would add a little balance. But I was also clear in asserting that a real problem existed and should be addressed. It is possible to admit how vitally important something is without over-stating one side of the debate at the expense of the other side, which is what I thought you were doing.
And did I really ask why are you singling me out? I wasn't aware that you were. I see that I've given an opinion - admittedly speculative - as to why you seem unable to construe my posts correctly. Am I being disingenous? I'm not sure I can honestly say 'no' to that accusation. I don't think so, but we're all good sometimes at deceiving ourselves.
There's no reason why you should've known I had 'retired' from full-time stipendiary ministry. I'm not sure a Church of England vicar's stipend would qualify as a 'high salary'! But it is quite true that as a Church of Ireland Rector - my last full-time post - earning well over £10,000 more, I would've considered that as 'high'.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
Twilight/Anselmina
Both of you are getting too personal. Please stick to the issue here. Personal irritation (whether you are expressing it or trying to provoke it) belongs in Hell.
Eliab
Purgatory host
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
do the boys have to watch what they wear to prevent the girls getting aroused?
No, they have to watch what they wear to avoid dirty old men getting aroused. Or at least, it seems they do, even when it is impractical. No more abbreviated Speedos. Swimwear is reminiscent of photos from 100 years ago. "Shorts" now go down almost to the knees or even lower.
Mind you, I've never heard of a boy actually voicing this rationale. They just wear what is sold in the stores, or what their friends wear, or what their parents buy for them. (I was often indifferent to what I wore at that age and didn't enjoy shopping for clothes). But I have no doubt that the fashion industry is quietly playing upon such fears with these changes in the past 10-15 years.
Might as well impose it on the girls, too.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't know about "playing upon such fears," at least with regards to Speedos. I've simply never met a woman who enjoyed looking at them, no matter how well built the guy is, and fashion tends to respond to that. If my group was representative, then it's not surprising the fashion would change.
And it isn't fashion driving me to say so, either--I've been idly talking about Speedos on and off with my girlfriends for forty years, and the consensus has never changed. Yecch. Anecdata, of course.
[ 29. September 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
What guidelines should mixed sex boarding schools or colleges/ universities have when it comes to their students' sex lives?
Schoolchildren are mostly underage, and even for those who are over the age of consent, there are often significant power differentials that make consent difficult. No sex, and strict segregation of sleeping quarters by sex, is I think the expectation of the parents of schoolchildren.
Of course, kids will be kids, and sex will be had. If they get caught, they should be suspended or expelled just like they would for any other serious breach of school rules (assuming there are no criminal charges in play).
College students are adults. They get to have whatever sex they want, and the university should have no rules about it at all.
I would not have chosen to live in a same-sex dorm, as I'm not particularly interested in the laddish frat-house culture that tends to develop in those places. Some of my female friends preferred to live in women-only areas; some didn't.
quote:
Personally I've been advocating for same-sex dorms and curfews but no one seems interested.
Because undergraduates are adults.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Mind you, I've never heard of a boy actually voicing this rationale. They just wear what is sold in the stores, or what their friends wear, or what their parents buy for them.
All the high school boys who are on swimming teams own speedos - it's what they wear to race in. None of them ever wear them otherwise, and I have often heard them precisely claiming not wanting to have their lunchbox on display as the reason. (It's more about girls and the other boys seeing them than pervy old men, though.) I know a few boys who are fine swimmers, but don't take part in high school swimming because they don't want to wear speedos.
Personally (as a swimmer with all the sleek elegance and efficiency of a sack of bricks), I wear speedos to swim, because I don't like the feeling of swimming with cloth around my thighs. I'm pretty much guaranteed to get sniggers from groups of teenage girls.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
From a former high school girl's perspective, Speedos are just plain embarrassing. They draw the eye whether one wants to look or not, and then the blushes and giggling start. Nobody needs that. The closest thing I can compare it to is girls wearing tight, tight, tight trousers of the camel's toe variety. Just blind me now.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Speedos?
Try Yoga pants for the girls. Some of them are very revealing.
And around the university shorts that reveal butt cheeks are quite common (as least here in America)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0