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

[child of wonder]

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.

 

[chipwitch]

I would say that whoever wrote the flyer has not thoroughly thought out their position. Somewhere along the continuum from "Women who appear in public - assuming they're allowed to appear in public - must wear a burqa" to "Women are free to appear anywhere in public in any desired state of dress or undress, including completely naked, and men are required to avert their eyes and keep their thoughts pure" there needs to be a zone of compromise. And that zone will undoubtedly be different based on the specific circumstances that apply.

I'm sure that some women are incapable of understanding the need for compromise on this issue; but I'm sure that some men are also incapable of understanding the need for compromise on this issue.

Perhaps the most reasonable response made in this thread so far...

 

[Sonikku]

In NYC we let women go topless. Fair is fair!

 

[trenchfoot]

Dress codes are interpretive as seen through the eyes of the beholder, even up to and including the statement of intent for such codes.

Therein lies the contentious nature of rules: Some will always feel they are too restrictive "for their liking" while those same set of rules will have others feel that they are too loose "for their liking".

Throw in some fundamentalism and other such social mores and folkways, add in a pinch of Constitutional rights and guarantees and then plop in a heaping helping of avant garde populism that is constantly changing attitudes and the moral code in our version of society and voila!

Butting heads will forever prevail.

We all live by a certain general code of conduct that allows us to live with each other, each culture comfortable with their own, generally speaking and within those prescribed micro/macrocosms.

But the devil is in the details, where, in this battle of the sexes, the races, the cultures, the egos, the machismo, the traditionalists and revisionists, never the twain shall meet.

 

[glenn1]

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

You're not telling her that it's so "boys can have a distraction free learning environment," you're telling her that the rules still apply to her, dress code included. Indeed if I were the principal I'd increase the punishment for insubordination and for being a fucking idiot that's probably too stupid to be in school anyway given her inability to use critical thinking. Does she think that if it were a boy not conforming to the dress code (e.g. shirtless, etc.) that they would let that pass because that wouldn't likewise "create a distraction free learning environment"?

 

[realibrad]

I disagree:

You did read the entire sentence right?

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

He is not saying what was shown.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Part of growing up is learning to be responsible for and managing your urges. Other people are going to have boobs, deal with it.

So I guess teaching boys how to behave in civilised society is wrong and/or pointless, after all, they should be allowed to do what's natural to them, and everyone else should work around that "natural" behaviour?

Did your parents teach you not to stare?

Agree. That being said, why are people making excuses for Muslim men?

 

[realibrad]

Oh, I must have been out of class the day the professor lectured on 'logic' as a method of proving 'stupid'. Could you please send me your notes? I'd like to brush up.

The logic the OP is presenting, is that people should be able to wear what ever they want, and people should not look at them in a negative way. So, if a woman were to dress like a hooker, then people should not judge or look at her sexually.

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

 

[master_shake_]

is there a slight chance that the girl who was sent home violated the schools dress code or are dress codes part of the patriarchy?

 

[mikeymikec]

You did read the entire sentence right?

He is not saying what was shown.

Yup, that's exactly how I read it, then he proceeded to yell at clouds for a while.

He wasn't making any kind of argument for specifically dressing like a hooker, he just lumped everything into one bundle as if they're all the same.

Agree. That being said, why are people making excuses for Muslim men?

Are they? Most of the arguments regarding Muslim men on this forum are talking about how they're "all the same" (ie. rapists in the context of those 'discussions'). It's just as moronic as the OP deciding that the person who is the subject of the image in the OP was somehow related to "dressing like a hooker".

 

[Blue_Max]

So, if a woman were to dress like a hooker, then people should not judge or look at her sexually.

*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.

 

[realibrad]

Yup, that's exactly how I read it, then he proceeded to yell at clouds for a while.

He wasn't making any kind of argument for specifically dressing like a hooker, he just lumped everything into one bundle as if they're all the same.



Are they? Most of the arguments regarding Muslim men on this forum are talking about how they're "all the same".

He is taking the underlying logic of the issue, which is that people should not react to how a person dresses. He is then applying that logic to a different situation such as a person dressing like a hooker and that hooker being upset for how people would react.

So when you said you disagree when I said he was not saying this person dressed like a hooker, what you actually meant was that you agree?

 

[realibrad]

*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.

Well, who does not want to have it that way? Reality says you cant control people, but if you wanted to girlfriend, having non-hot girls hit on you wont help.

I think what I would say is that if you are going to put yourself out there to be seen, understand that people will see you. If you are putting yourself out there to get attention, understand that you may get attention from people you dont want it from.

That does not mean people can touch you, or do anything to you other than talk. If a girl walks down the street naked, she is in no way advocating people to touch her. I can say something, but I cannot do anything more. People have sovereignty over their body and unless consent is given, you cannot get around that.

That said, I hate the current SJW climate. Its bullshit and people need to call it out more.

 

[mikeymikec]

He is taking the underlying logic of the issue, which is that people should not react to how a person dresses.

He didn't say anything like that at all. His response was basically "rules is rules", which is as insightful as saying "red is not green".

- edit - my mistake, he did use those words, but only in a "but it's breaking the rules" context, which still makes no sense with regard to mentioning "dressing like a hooker".

He is then applying that logic to a different situation such as a person dressing like a hooker and that hooker being upset for how people would react.

So when you said you disagree when I said he was not saying this person dressed like a hooker, what you actually meant was that you agree?

No, my opinion is that he threw in a "hooker" comment because he thought that it would help validate his opinion that "rules is rules" is enough to convince anyone that he's right.

 

[realibrad]

He didn't say anything like that at all. His response was basically "rules is rules", which is as insightful as saying "red is not green".

He did not say it explicitly, but it is understood anyway. See, in your response you did not say that you disagree with me explicitly, but you did say he did not say that. Implicitly you are saying you disagree with me.

He does not need to say explicitly that he is not saying that particular girl dressed like a hooker for him to have conveyed that idea. This is like basic language 101.

His insight about following the rules I disagree with though. Rules should have a valid reason for following them. I hate people that follow blindly.

No, my opinion is that he threw in a "hooker" comment because he thought that it would help validate his opinion that "rules is rules" is enough to convince anyone that he's right.

Partly agree. I think he took the underlying logic and took it to a more extreme place to make people have a stronger reaction.

Either way, he did not say this girl dressed like a hooker which is what you disagreed with.

 

[chipwitch]

The logic the OP is presenting, is that people should be able to wear what ever they want, and people should not look at them in a negative way. So, if a woman were to dress like a hooker, then people should not judge or look at her sexually.

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

LOL... logic has fuckall to do with the OP. The OP is inferring that girls are dressing like hookers (read the thread title). THAT is the position is positing. And THAT is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL! It's a straw man.

Now, if you are speaking of the person who posted the flyer. Well, that's a different matter altogether. Since we don't know what the girl was wearing, what the dress code policy is or even if the flyer might have been posted by the OP him/herself for the purpose of supporting his/her own effed up opinion.

 

[chipwitch]

is there a slight chance that the girl who was sent home violated the schools dress code or are dress codes part of the patriarchy?

Rush Limbaugh could have posted the flyer and Shawn Hannity took the photo for all we know... as the OP posted no real information about it.

 

[mikeymikec]

LOL... logic has fuckall to do with the OP. The OP is inferring that girls are dressing like hookers (read the thread title). THAT is the position is positing. And THAT is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL! It's a straw man.

This.

Now, if you are speaking of the person who posted the flyer. Well, that's a different matter altogether. Since we don't know what the girl was wearing, what the dress code policy is or even if the flyer might have been posted by the OP him/herself for the purpose of supporting his/her own effed up opinion.

Agreed.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

Yup, that's exactly how I read it, then he proceeded to yell at clouds for a while.

He wasn't making any kind of argument for specifically dressing like a hooker, he just lumped everything into one bundle as if they're all the same.



Are they? Most of the arguments regarding Muslim men on this forum are talking about how they're "all the same" (ie. rapists in the context of those 'discussions'). It's just as moronic as the OP deciding that the person who is the subject of the image in the OP was somehow related to "dressing like a hooker".

 

[zinfamous]

isn't the op the same person who railed against women who stay home and take care of the house and kids, claiming it wasn't hard work?

op's credibility = Ø

I swear this guy is on some sort of fluctuating/improper dose of meds. His posts are so randomly caustic.

 

[glenn1]

The logic the OP is presenting, is that people should be able to wear what ever they want, and people should not look at them in a negative way. So, if a woman were to dress like a hooker, then people should not judge or look at her sexually.

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

If we used this girl's logic then she would have no basis for complaint if someone wore something that distracted her, such as a shirt emblazoned with "rape is good" or "women are objects" or even "(girl's name) is a slut." Because it isn't his fault for dressing that way, it's her fault for being offended.

 

[chipwitch]

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

I'll happily accept the label of 'stupid' from any man who possesses a modicum more self control than a capuchin to not ejaculate his shorts just because I happen to be wearing shorts. Geesh, aren't conservatives the ones always preaching about how people are so superior to animals? Yet, half the arguments they use to support their claims all revert back to the baseness that we're all nothing but apes, incapable of self-control.

 

[zinfamous]

Well they basically are. The more skin and curves a (normally functioning) male sees, the more sperm and semen he produces. It is a natural biological process. As these volumes of liquid increase, he spends more and more time worrying about having to stand up at the "wrong moment" or worse, making a mess in his pants. This obviously reduces the quality of his education. Some might argue that masturbation prevents a lot of this but then that creates its own issues which are potentially worse in the long run than a momentary embarassment. To state it in feminazi terms: Why should boys be forcefully subjected to these microaggressions? The reason dress codes make sense is because you can easily define a dress code and easily regulate it. You cannot so easily regulate the production or quantity of male reproductive fluids. Some simply produce more than others, and it can be very distracting and even crippling in some instances. It is too distasteful and impractical to attempt to regulate the levels of those bodily fluids, so we must settle for regulating them indirectly.

Perhaps you prefer the Madrassa model of education?

 

[chipwitch]

No, my opinion is that he threw in a "hooker" comment because he thought that it would help validate his opinion that "rules is rules" is enough to convince anyone that he's right.

Seconded

 

[realibrad]

LOL... logic has fuckall to do with the OP. The OP is inferring that girls are dressing like hookers (read the thread title). THAT is the position is positing. And THAT is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL! It's a straw man.

First, I did not say it was his view. He is presenting the logic as she see it from that person's view. He believes that the argument is that people should be able to wear what ever they want, and that nobody should react. The hooker thing is just an example of using that logic and how he think its stupid to not judge a hooker.

He is not inferring that the girls were dressing like hookers. He clearly said...

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.

Seems like the OP is clearly saying it could be anything, unless you think he thinks that hooker activity is showing ankles

flyer. [/I]Well, that's a different matter altogether. Since we don't know what the girl was wearing, what the dress code policy is or even if the flyer might have been posted by the OP him/herself for the purpose of supporting his/her own effed up opinion.

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.