It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[Meghan54]

Next time, don't editorialize in your title, link to a source, and provide your thoughts on the matter in your OP. Other than that . . .

Perknose
Forum Director

Well, hell, you just took away every avenue of his selective "reasoning".

 

[master_shake_]

the only source i found was on tumblr.

i won't link to tumblr

 

[Ackmed]

Sounds like a parent got upset because they allowed her girl to dress wrong, and got disciplined for it. Wah.

If an attractive male wore revealing clothing would he, too, be asked to go home and change? And by "revealing" I mean something outside the bounds of typical school attire, not just shorts or a neckline slightly below a t-shirt.

If the answer is "yes," then we don't have a problem. If the answer is "no," then whoever wrote the note has a point. I'd put my money on the former.

I'd say you're right. I have a kid in high school and middle school. They both have a dress code. Dress code is there for a reason and is far from harsh. Several rules apply, and are very fair. Basically no short short. This isn't a fucking club, showing ass checks is not allowed. No yoga pants, pants with holes, see through shirts, etc. Wearing a t short and jeans meet all criteria and is pretty damn common. The middle school even has different color shirts for different grades they're supposed to wear.

This is the dress code for our schools, which seems very fair to me;

1. Pants must be worn at the waist. No sagging allowed.
2. Shirts, blouses, and dresses must completely cover the abdomen, back, shoulders and
must have sleeves. Shirts or tops must cover the waistband of pants, shorts, or skirts with no
midriffvisible.
3. Head apparel, except for religious or medical purposes, must not be worn inside the school
building.
4. Footwear is required and must be safe and appropriate for indoor and outdoor activity. Flip-
flops and shower-type shoes are examples of inappropriate footwear for school.
5. Clothing and accessories such as backpacks, patches, jewelry, and notebooks must not
display (1) racial or ethnic slurs/symbols, (2) gang affiliations, (3) vulgar, subversive, or
sexually suggestive language or images; nor, should they promote products which students
may not legally buy; such as alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs.
6. Skirts, dresses, and shorts must be beyond fingertip length.
7. Prohibited items include (1) large, long and/or heavy chains, (2) studded or chained acces-
sories, (3) sunglasses, except for health purposes, (4) sleepwear, and (5) skin-tight outer
materials such as spandex.
8. Coats and jackets exceeding fingertip length are not to be worn in the building.

I have zero sympathy for parents who oppose this or think that their child is discriminated against. I'm sure their daughter was dress inappropriately.

 

[chipwitch]

Other than his post, and the title are you basing his views on? All I see is a response post, the title, and the pic.

LOL... My only claim about the OP was that he created a straw man and presented no evidence to support the claim (inference) that there was an actual girl that dressed like an actual hooker and was actually forced to change as a result.

That's it. Your use of excessive pronouns I found ambiguous. Happens to the best of us. I honestly didn't know to what you were referring. You said the OP was using logic. I see no example of it. So, I could only assume you were speaking of the flyer.

Otherwise, I don't really know what the OP's views are... it would seem slipping the "hooker" comment into the title was a passive aggressive way to criticize the flyer in the photo.... but, I was really only complaining about the straw man. Logic really has no place in this conversation. It's a non-entity.

 

[chipwitch]

First, I did not say it was his view.

Um, actually YOU DID!

See post #33

Where you said:

I have not taken a position, just stating a fact of his view.

Or is the meaning of 'fact' just as elusive as 'logic'?

 

[chipwitch]

Sounds like a parent got upset because they allowed her girl to dress wrong, and got disciplined for it. Wah.



I'd say you're right. I have a kid in high school and middle school. They both have a dress code. Dress code is there for a reason and is far from harsh. Several rules apply, and are very fair. Basically no short short. This isn't a fucking club, showing ass checks is not allowed. No yoga pants, pants with holes, see through shirts, etc. Wearing a t short and jeans meet all criteria and is pretty damn common. The middle school even has different color shirts for different grades they're supposed to wear.

This is the dress code for our schools, which seems very fair to me;


I have zero sympathy for parents who oppose this or think that their child is discriminated against. I'm sure their daughter was dress inappropriately.

YOu know what's too bad is we could have had a nice discussion (like your comment) on a wide range of subjects based on the OP. We could have disagreed with one another, but still walked away with a valuable exchange of ideas and social interaction... left and right.

Inflammatory remarks like the title, deprive us of that kind of intellectual discourse. This thread never had a chance at that.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm speaking of some of the male Muslim refugees in Europe, not all Muslim men. And as someone already posted a link stating how some indeed ARE telling women over there to mind how they dress and some on here have indeed tried to downplay the problems they're having in Europe, my point is quite valid.

As far as school dress codes go - if a kid (boy or girl) violates said dress code, they need to suck it up and learn to follow the rules.

If people dress in a manner that attracts attention, they will most likely get said attention; it's just a fact of life. But it's also part of being a civilized person in a civilized society to control ones urges if one sees said provocatively dressed person. It's all about taking personal responsibility for one's behavior.

Stop making excuses for bad behavior - whether it's breaking rules or not controlling one's actions.

Grow the f*ck up.

Is this post specifically aimed at my post that it quotes? I'm still a bit incredulous, but it makes even less sense if I try to read it any other way.

Ok. I'll start with the basics and move from there. I would condemn anyone who engages in non-consensual sexual behaviour. However, unlike many on this forum, I think it is wrong and is in no way justified to assume that most (or a large enough number of) Muslims, refugees or otherwise, want to engage in this kind of behaviour and judge and subsequently treat them en-masse. IMO it is as absurd as assuming that most Americans are cool with the idea of celebrities (sports players, etc) engaging in non-consensual sexual behaviour because I've heard plenty of stories involving American citizens putting such people on pedestals and complaining that victims speaking out are "ruining their careers/lives" (ie. the perpetrator's).

If you consider an anti-prejudicial attitude towards a multitude of people is "downplaying", then frankly I think you need to examine your own prejudices, and I honestly wonder whether some people need some kind of official public announcement that says "guess what, most people do not think it is OK anymore to disparage group X of people in some irrelevant way to what defines that group of people".

I do not subscribe to the logic of common victim-blaming tactics, and frankly I find the idea hair-raising that the major of a civilised town/city would dare to advise such avoidance tactics. IMO the only way to counter such criminal behaviour is to confront it directly and discourage it from happening in future. There's no excuse for it.

I won't respond again to the "rules is rules" point because I and others have already said what ought to be said on that topic IMO.

I completely agree with the paragraph that starts "If people dress in a manner that attracts attention...", though some might start with such a paragraph and then move on to saying things like "this is why women should dress conservatively / not walk home alone / etc", which I'm not saying you believe, but it's such a common line of reasoning that I thought I should point it out. A woman should be able to do all the things a man can do without fear that some men can't keep their rapey nature to themselves.

I'm not sure what conclusion you came to that resulted in the insult, which is partly why I was wondering whether this post was specifically aimed at me. If there's a huge mix-up, PM me and we can decide how to alter the posts.

 

[Capt Caveman]

how is this P&N?

The OP likes to complain about women complaining. Yes, the irony. I'm guessing he gets so much crap for acting like a women in OT that he needed to find a place to complain.

 

[MajinCry]

I doubt most of the posters even looked at the image.

"...Force her to change clothes or send her home because her shorts are too short or her bra straps are visible..."

We can thusly conclude that the girl in question was sent home because her bra straps could be seen through her shirt, and her shorts were too short.

Bra straps being visible? Big deal.

Now, if the shorts were akin to knickers, alright fine. But if the shorts are, well, short? What did you bloody expect shorts to be? Long!?


And my oh my, what's with some of the posters here? It's a lass' fault if she gets a bunch of greasy men touchin' 'n' grunting at her if she looks attractive? You what?

Blue Max needs to ease up on the crazy and the red mist.

 

[OutHouse]

What is AT P&N's thoughts on this ingenious rational?

to me it sounds like the mother who wrote that is single and is ok with letting her daughter dress like a slut and have zero modesty. its me me me and how dare you try to make me or my princess conform to your sexist rules.

 

[realibrad]

Um, actually YOU DID!

See post #33

Where you said:



Or is the meaning of 'fact' just as elusive as 'logic'?

His view on what their belief is. Not his view as his belief. I have seen your other posts, and I know you are smart enough to get this. You are viewing what I have been saying through a filter that is making you misunderstand.

His view on what they believe is not the same as his belief.

 

[chipwitch]

The OP likes to complain about women complaining. Yes, the irony. I'm guessing he gets so much crap for acting like a women in OT that he needed to find a place to complain.

Is there something wrong with the way women act? Something that makes a person inferior?

 

[chipwitch]

His view on what their belief is. Not his view as his belief. I have seen your other posts, and I know you are smart enough to get this.

You are viewing what I have been saying through a filter that is making you misunderstand.

It's entirely possible. It's human flaw from which I've been previously unable to extricate myself completely. Nevertheless, even this post is ambiguous as I don't see one sentence where the 'who' is clear except where you use the pronoun "I". Too many pronouns makes for misunderstanding. Is that your goal? Try communicating with fewer "He, she, him, her, it, they... there is NO way to interpret your words with any level of certainty without presuming to read your mind. I'll leave that to the god-botherers.

His view on what they believe is not the same as his belief.

 

[realibrad]

It's entirely possible. It's human flaw from which I've been previously unable to extricate myself completely. Nevertheless, even this post is ambiguous as I don't see one sentence where the 'who' is clear except where you use the pronoun "I". Too many pronouns makes for misunderstanding. Is that your goal? Try communicating with fewer "He, she, him, her, it, they... there is NO way to interpret your words with any level of certainty without presuming to read your mind. I'll leave that to the god-botherers.

How would you say it then? My statement seems perfectly clear to me.

 

[chipwitch]

How would you say it then? My statement seems perfectly clear to me.

LOL.... you can't possibly think I could show you how to say what you think? If I knew what you were trying to say, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[realibrad]

LOL.... you can't possibly think I could show you how to say what you think? If I knew what you were trying to say, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am saying that the underlying logic the OP presented was not one of his belief, but the belief of the person who posted the note. The OP is the one who made this thread, so he was the one who presented the logic.

He then applied that logic to a different situation aka hooker.

 

[Iron Woode]

seems that this poster on the door is just a mass produced propaganda piece to push an agenda, rather than someone's complaint about an incident that occurred.

following rules is difficult for teens because they believe the world revolves around their wants and desires.

I did the same thing as a teen but learned that I wasn't the center of the universe.

 

[JSt0rm]

 

[MrPickins]

*sigh* That's my whole problem with this whole thing... zero accountability.

The girl WANTS to dress provocatively for the attention and power over male sexuality it gives her. She wants certain men to look at her exposed skin and get excited, give her attention and goodies.

She does NOT want the "wrong" men (the ones she doesn't find attractive) to do the same thing. This is akin to putting a nice poster on the wall of a public space and saying, "Only people of 8/10 attractiveness are allowed to look at this poster."

Further, she does not want to deal with any possible negative outcomes for her choice, or anyone who might get frustrated or angry at her attire, her behaviour, her actions, her words, sneers, looks, shames, etc...

In other words, she wants the positive without the negative that exists as a whole when you dress "sexy". She likes the power it gives her, but wants everyone else in the world to change their very human biology to eliminate the negative side - just for her.

That's a little too "special snowflake princess" for me.

If she GOT her wish and all of human biology changed to not get excited over the sight of an attractive body, she would also lose the whole positive reason to dress provocatively in the first place. No one would be interested.

Once again, the 'progressive' stance is a stupid one.

That's an awfully specific narrative you've made up there (with absolutely no evidence).

You should really seek help for your issues with women.

 

[chipwitch]

I am saying that the underlying logic the OP presented was not one of his belief, but the belief of the person who posted the note. The OP is the one who made this thread, so he was the one who presented the logic.

He then applied that logic to a different situation aka hooker.

That was clearer. Thank you. The first sentence cleared up most of it. Still the flyer in the OP is a poor example of "logic" if at all. It's merely value judgements based on someone's ideas of morality and personal responsibility. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it.

HOWEVER, the OP used hyperbolic inflammatory language deriding the aledged poster of that flyer. The OP's position on it is not altogether obscure.

 

[realibrad]

That's an awfully specific narrative you've made up there (with absolutely no evidence).

You should really seek help for your issues with women.

Wait, what?

You are disagreeing with the idea that women want to attract some men but not others with how they dress? Its a specific narrative, but its not really a crazy one is it?

 

[buckshot24]

You wouldn't by chance be one of those right wing nut jobs who finds it offensive to reduce humans to the level of animals incapable of controlling their behavior, are you? Or, are you left-leaning and just being sarcastic? Because it's really funny either way!

Very insensitive of you.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It doesn't matter what it is that was shown. It doesn't matter if its her tits, her underwear, her bra strap, or her ankles. Rules are rules. You obey the rules of the school, especially considering you are a minor. If you disagree with rules in life than you bring it up as an issue to address/debate. That doesn't mean you can disobey a rule that you do not agree with. And in this case it's not even the heart of the issue. It's an underlying way of essentially agreeing that they are breaking the rules, but justifying it by saying no one should notice it and ignore it. Brilliant Watson!

Is someone going to go into an office dressed in short shorts or her bra hanging out and then blame the company when she is fired for not meeting the standard dress code? It's the hilarious reverse logic of Feminazis that is poisoning logical thought process, proper rational, and overall - simply not being a complete dumbass.

Instead people your this shit like it is he fault of everyone else in life. Then you wonder why you grow up with a generation of entitled brats that want everything handed to them in life.

It's not my fault I can't get a job! It's all these companies that are against me!

????

 

[realibrad]

That was clearer. Thank you. The first sentence cleared up most of it. Still the flyer in the OP is a poor example of "logic" if at all. It's merely value judgements based on someone's ideas of morality and personal responsibility. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it.

HOWEVER, the OP used hyperbolic inflammatory language deriding the aledged poster of that flyer. The OP's position on it is not altogether obscure.

I believe now you are stuck on my use of logic. You seem to be under the idea that "logic" has only one use which would likely be "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".

Because the note was not adhering to that definition, it is not logical. Logic has many definitions. English can be annoying that way.

The note has reason, even if you find it to be flawed (I do). Thus the logic is the ideas and the reasoning of the note. That would be, that women can wear what they want, and it should be okay.

As for the "hyperbolic inflammatory language", its what many do on this forum. Who is going to read a thread of, "note gets posted on door and I disagree with its message"?

 

[rga]

I didn't read that poster in the OP as shaming. I inferred that it had something to do with not following uniform guidelines. If that is the case, then I 100% believe that a guy who wore a tank top and board shorts to class would have been sent home under the same circumstances.