Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils

by Guest Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:27 am

First topic message reminder :

Comments by deputy principal have been criticised by students and academics

Teenage girls at a New Zealand high school have reportedly been told to lower their skirts to knee level so as not to “distract” male students and teachers.

Around 40 students in year 11 at Henderson high school in Auckland were called to a meeting and told by deputy principal Cherith Telford that their skirts would need to be lowered to knee level, Newshub reports.

Telford said the move was designed to “keep our girls safe, stop boys from getting ideas and create a good work environment for male staff”.

The comments have caused outrage among many students, parents and feminist commentators.

“I am very annoyed by this,” said Deborah Russell, a feminist commentator and lecturer at Massey University.
“It sends a message that young women are responsible for young men’s sexual behaviour, and also sends a bad message to young men that their sexual behaviour is uncontrollable.”

Debbi Tohill, executive director of Rape Crisis, said it was “appropriate” for schools to have dress codes but the instruction to lengthen skirts sent the message that the onus was on young women – teenagers – to stop male students and teachers getting “distracted”.

“We know that victim blaming is very common and this is a clear example of the responsibility on the girls to be responsible for their own safety,” Tohill said.

“In this instance, where the teacher is in a position of authority and control, the teacher has the responsibility to ensure a safe environment is created for all students. Teachers need to ensure that they have respectful relationships with their students.”

Sade Tuttle, a Henderson student who attended the meeting, said she did not object to the rule, but the thinking behind it.

“The rules themselves aren’t the problem; the problem is when these codes target girls specifically because their bodies are sexual and distracting,” she told Newshub.

Henderson told The Guardian that principal Mike Purcell was unavailable to comment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/schoolgirls-in-new-zealand-told-to-lower-skirts-to-stop-distracting-male-staff-and-pupils

Hey, what's going on, that's not like any Kiwi I used to work for. Perhaps he's a emigrated there from UK? And hold on, he's not a Muslim lol

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:12 pm

eddie wrote:No didge, it's teaching what's appropriate dress for whatever it is you're doing.
Subjective nonsense
As who decides what is appropriate?
That sort of nonsense was born from religious regressive beliefs
Short skirts do not improve a child's concentration so why would anyone have a problem with wearing a longer skirt if it means everyone is happier?
So they are forced to bow down to something which is not going to stop boys being distracted.
Again boys will be distracted by girls, no matter if they are wearing trousers or skirts
If you teach them instead not sexulaize women for what they wear but to respect them, then you are teaching them valuable life lessons.
You view is flawed because you are objectifying women for what they wear and not dealing with the problem of those who sexualize them

I know most parents agree with this.
Hearsay

Girls need to realise that dressing up for school isn't important.
Really, because you say so?

My son's school has just enforced that all girl's skirts should come to their knees.
No one moaned, no one took to social media and we've just had a newsletter, befroe Easter, to say grades have gone up in an already excellent school (it doesn't say why of course but it could be that making the kids get 'serious' about school has helped?)

Then your school is failing to teach boys to learn to respect girls and women.
Which is far more important than endorsing a view that how women dress to being at fault
Again your views are born from taking away responsibility where there problems lies.
In the mind of those who sexualize them
If a boy is attracted to a girl, it will have no relevance what she wears, as he is already distracted through being attracted to them.
He is not at fault for that either as we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, but you can certainly teach him to respect girls.
So the argument over what they wear is misleading and is completely objectifying women

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:29 pm

Hahahaha it's not about "teaching boys to respect girls" what sort of nonsense is that?? They can already respect them but they still look if it's hanging out!

Whatever didge. I think one thing you think another (and I don't know ONE male that agrees with you.....) so let's agree to differ as you're calling conversations I've had with other parents "hearsay" and with children still at school age, I reckon I'm more in the loop than you.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:11 pm

eddie wrote:No didge, it's teaching what's appropriate dress for whatever it is you're doing.

Short skirts do not improve a child's concentration so why would anyone have a problem with wearing a longer skirt if it means everyone is happier?
I know most parents agree with this.

Girls need to realise that dressing up for school isn't important.

My son's school has just enforced that all girl's skirts should come to their knees.
No one moaned, no one took to social media and we've just had a newsletter, befroe Easter, to say grades have gone up in an already excellent school (it doesn't say why of course but it could be that making the kids get 'serious' about school has helped?)

I agree with that. There's nothing wrong with a bit of decorum.

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:14 pm

eddie wrote:Hahahaha it's not about "teaching boys to respect girls" what sort of nonsense is that?? They can already respect them but they still look if it's hanging out!

Whatever didge. I think one thing you think another (and I don't know ONE male that agrees with you.....) so let's agree to differ as you're calling conversations I've had with other parents "hearsay" and with children still at school age, I reckon I'm more in the loop than you.

Well i see you are engaging the one brain cell today and not using the billions of others you have to rationalize how abused you are being.

I mean you then offer yet more nonsense over whether a consensus then proves your point, thus showing how little you believe in your own views that you need endorsement as if that then proves your point. So if others share your regressive views then all that shows is they are being irrational over this just as you are being.
So I reckon you need to come up to living in the 21st century

Again let m e dumb this down for you

Boys and girls are going to be distracted because you cannot control who you are physically attracted to.
You can however control whether to act on that attraction.
Which means teaching boys and girls o respect each other how they are dressed and to not sexualize each other.
So the reasoning again to ban a form of dress will do nothing to stop boys and girls being distracted

I mean what next Eddie, are you going to ban your son from going swimming, where he is meant to learn how to swim, concentrate on racing?
I mean he is going to be near naked apart from his swimming trunks and the girls?? Well they will be wearing a swimming costume that comes up in higher than a skirt, let alone shows up their figures?

Do you see how utterly absurd you are being?

Its called learning to be around each other and treating each other with respect and with your comments mocking respect, its hows you have no comprehension of its meaning

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:19 pm

No I don't see how utterly absurd I'm being.
Do you see how utterly absurd you are being?

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:23 pm

eddie wrote:No I don't see how utterly absurd I'm being.
Do you see how utterly absurd you are being?

Well its quite simple Eddie

I reason my points, you then laugh it off, think a consensus proves your point, which is a sure sign of lacking any belief in your view and fundamentally not being able to rationalize your points ir counter mine.
To top this off you fail to see where girls and boys already wear far less when learning and are already distracted through attraction

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:39 pm

didge wrote:
eddie wrote:No didge, it's teaching what's appropriate dress for whatever it is you're doing.
Subjective nonsense
As who decides what is appropriate?
That sort of nonsense was born from religious regressive beliefs
Short skirts do not improve a child's concentration so why would anyone have a problem with wearing a longer skirt if it means everyone is happier?
So they are forced to bow down to something which is not going to stop boys being distracted.
Again boys will be distracted by girls, no matter if they are wearing trousers or skirts
If you teach them instead not sexulaize women for what they wear but to respect them, then you are teaching them valuable life lessons.
You view is flawed because you are objectifying women for what they wear and not dealing with the problem of those who sexualize them

I know most parents agree with this.
Hearsay

Girls need to realise that dressing up for school isn't important.
Really, because you say so?

My son's school has just enforced that all girl's skirts should come to their knees.
No one moaned, no one took to social media and we've just had a newsletter, befroe Easter, to say grades have gone up in an already excellent school (it doesn't say why of course but it could be that making the kids get 'serious' about school has helped?)

Then your school is failing to teach boys to learn to respect girls and women.
Which is far more important than endorsing a view that how women dress to being at fault
Again your views are born from taking away responsibility where there problems lies.
In the mind of those who sexualize them
If a boy is attracted to a girl, it will have no relevance what she wears, as he is already distracted through being attracted to them.
He is not at fault for that either as we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, but you can certainly teach him to respect girls.
So the argument over what they wear is misleading and is completely objectifying women

I'm seeing a mental pattern, generated by so many of Didgy-Doo's continual posts about 'what/how/why' the female gender need to accept his specific ideology Suspect

I'm of the firm convection that he's a 'SHE' trapped in a man's body!

Even the 'FEMINIST', Deborah Russell...in the OP'ed piece stated > > >

“I am very annoyed by this,” said Deborah Russell, a feminist commentator and lecturer at Massey University.
“It sends a message that young women are responsible for young men’s sexual behaviour, and also sends a bad message to young men that their sexual behaviour is uncontrollable.”

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 Dope-slap

Guess all those centuries of 'hormonal studies' of {books/manuscripts/seminars/actual case work} are just worthless paper and should be tossed out --- Rolling Eyes

To lecture the adults about yet, another human fact of life...well it only leaves you standing with 'egg on your face'... Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 3852033631

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 3852033631

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:43 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
didge wrote:

Then your school is failing to teach boys to learn to respect girls and women.
Which is far more important than endorsing a view that how women dress to being at fault
Again your views are born from taking away responsibility where there problems lies.
In the mind of those who sexualize them
If a boy is attracted to a girl, it will have no relevance what she wears, as he is already distracted through being attracted to them.
He is not at fault for that either as we cannot control who we are physically attracted to, but you can certainly teach him to respect girls.
So the argument over what they wear is misleading and is completely objectifying women
I'm seeing a mental pattern, generated by so many of Didgy-Doo's continual posts about 'what/how/why' the female gender need to accept his specific ideology I'm of the firm convection that he's a 'SHE' trapped in a man's body!
Nothing on the debate just poor insults

Even the 'FEMINIST', Deborah Russell...in the OP'ed piece stated > > >
“I am very annoyed by this,” said Deborah Russell, a feminist commentator and lecturer at Massey University.
“It sends a message that young women are responsible for young men’s sexual behaviour, and also sends a bad message to young men that their sexual behaviour is uncontrollable.”
Guess all those centuries of 'hormonal studies' of {books/manuscripts/seminars/actual case work} are just worthless paper and should be tossed out ---
So she agrees with me, which backs my points, talk about an owngoal

To lecture the adults about yet, another human fact of life...well it only leaves you standing with 'egg on your face'...

So nothing that counter my points

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:48 pm

You have ZERO POINTS...and that's a fact-jack!
But do carry on claiming that you do --- it's quite redundant and could well be used as your SIGNATURE!
Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 859118666

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 859118666

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:50 pm

4EVER2 wrote:You have ZERO POINTS...and that's a fact-jack!
But do carry on claiming that you do --- it's quite redundant and could well be used as your SIGNATURE!

So after two posts not countering a single point I have made, you are instead looking to start a confrontation.
I suggest you wind your neck in before you get reported for disruption

Your choice

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:09 pm

Oh, little Didgy-Doooo...life is always about CHOICE and the methods for making those CHOICES.

You've hung your #1 pointed rational upon a misguided/preconceived notion that we aren't a hormonal driven species!
And that keeping our young bodies as camouflaged as possible would 'NOT' aide in keeping that young minded better focused upon their studies!

You did have a 'NORMAL' childhood, RIGHT? Wink

BTW - if you can't handle the adult rejoinder then feel free to by-pass the posts & topic all together --- it is about SEXUAL URGES AND DISTRACTIONS! Embarassed

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:10 pm

4EVER2 wrote:Oh, little Didgy-Doooo...life is always about CHOICE and the methods for making those CHOICES.

You've hung your #1 pointed rational upon a misguided/preconceived notion that we aren't a hormonal driven species!
And that keeping our young bodies as camouflaged as possible would 'NOT' aide in keeping that young minded better focused upon their studies!

You did have a 'NORMAL' childhood, RIGHT?
BTW - if you can't handle the adult rejoinder then feel free to by-pass the posts & topic all together --- it is about SEXUAL URGES AND DISTRACTIONS!

Reported

All my points have been reasons around attractions and sexual urges, I suggest you read them and counter them

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:15 pm

4EVER2 wrote:Oh, little Didgy-Doooo...life is always about CHOICE and the methods for making those CHOICES.

You've hung your #1 pointed rational upon a misguided/preconceived notion that we aren't a hormonal driven species!
And that keeping our young bodies as camouflaged as possible would 'NOT' aide in keeping that young minded better focused upon their studies!

You did have a 'NORMAL' childhood, RIGHT?
BTW - if you can't handle the adult rejoinder then feel free to by-pass the posts & topic all together --- it is about SEXUAL URGES AND DISTRACTIONS!

Never claimed that humans are not hormonal, but by that stance are you claiming they cannot control them?
I suggest you ask why in a nudist camp people walk around freely without sexual urges
Rendering your point moot

All my points have been reasons around attractions and sexual urges, I suggest you read them and counter them

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:18 pm

eddie wrote:There is nothing to report here - I don't see anything other than a poster answering the thread but I will ask 4ever to keep it polite please.

So in the first two posts they made, what points did they counter Eddie

Nothing, they were being disruptive and antagonistic looking to start a confrontation.

In the third post they get personal, but I guess you never read that part

Hey, if it means hitting back so be it

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:18 pm

didge wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:Oh, little Didgy-Doooo...life is always about CHOICE and the methods for making those CHOICES.

You've hung your #1 pointed rational upon a misguided/preconceived notion that we aren't a hormonal driven species!
And that keeping our young bodies as camouflaged as possible would 'NOT' aide in keeping that young minded better focused upon their studies!

You did have a 'NORMAL' childhood, RIGHT?
BTW - if you can't handle the adult rejoinder then feel free to by-pass the posts & topic all together --- it is about SEXUAL URGES AND DISTRACTIONS!

Reported

All my points have been reasons around attractions and sexual urges, I suggest you read them and counter them

There is nothing to report here - I don't see anything other than a poster answering the thread but I will ask 4ever to keep it polite please.

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:19 pm

eddie wrote:
didge wrote:

Reported

All my points have been reasons around attractions and sexual urges, I suggest you read them and counter them

There is nothing to report here - I don't see anything other than a poster answering the thread but I will ask 4ever to keep it polite please.

So in the first two posts they made, what points did they counter Eddie

Nothing, they were being disruptive and antagonistic looking to start a confrontation.

In the third post they get personal, but I guess you never read that part

Hey, if it means hitting back so be it

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:19 pm

Im referring to the past you reported
I see nothing wrong with it

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:21 pm

eddie wrote:Im referring to the past you reported
I see nothing wrong with it

I am referring to all of the replies

Does not matter Eddie, you are allowing where earlier I showed your views to be silly to get in the way of stopping a thread descending into a confrontation.

You see what you only want to see, which is no problem

Lessen learnt, dont ask you in the future where you got the arse in the debate

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:23 pm

didge wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:Oh, little Didgy-Doooo...life is always about CHOICE and the methods for making those CHOICES.

You've hung your #1 pointed rational upon a misguided/preconceived notion that we aren't a hormonal driven species!
And that keeping our young bodies as camouflaged as possible would 'NOT' aide in keeping that young minded better focused upon their studies!

You did have a 'NORMAL' childhood, RIGHT?
BTW - if you can't handle the adult rejoinder then feel free to by-pass the posts & topic all together --- it is about SEXUAL URGES AND DISTRACTIONS!

Never claimed that humans are not hormonal, but by that stance are you claiming they cannot control them?
I suggest you ask why in a nudist camp people walk around freely without sexual urges
Rendering your point moot

All my points have been reasons around attractions and sexual urges, I suggest you read them and counter them

No answer 4ever2??????

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:24 pm

What??
Oh shut up didge with your fussiness! What does it matter whether I'm in the debate or not?
Unlike you? I don't hang my own personality on whether I win or lose a forum debate, so if 4ever was wrong I'd say so. I've asked her to be polite.

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:30 pm

eddie wrote:What??
Oh shut up didge with your fussiness! What does it matter whether I'm in the debate or not?
Unlike you? I don't hang my own personality on whether I win or lose a forum debate, so if 4ever was wrong I'd say so. I've asked her to be polite.

Well Eddie I find you very dishonest
The posts made except the last one which made a false assertion, showing they had not even read my comments and were just trying to antagonise
The rest were going on about me

Comments like this are about the thread or about me Eddie?

4EVER2 wrote:I'm seeing a mental pattern, generated by so many of Didgy-Doo's continual posts about 'what/how/why' the female gender need to accept his specific ideology Suspect I'm of the firm convection that he's a 'SHE' trapped in a man's body!

You did have a 'NORMAL' childhood, RIGHT?

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:31 pm

You didn't report that post did you didge?

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:34 pm

eddie wrote:What??
Oh shut up didge with your fussiness! What does it matter whether I'm in the debate or not?
Unlike you? I don't hang my own personality on whether I win or lose a forum debate, so if 4ever was wrong I'd say so. I've asked her to be polite.

I'm done...as after all of my other posts in this single thread {none that HE could be bothered to read}; once again the Didgy-dooo gets his wee-little feelings hurt because he is unable to BULLY the members into swallowing his vile/bile opinions!

Done, with another of Didgy-doos tantrums for today Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:35 pm

eddie wrote:You didn't report that post did you didge?

OMG I reported the thread and if you have missed that i was, which you clearly have, then you were mistaken.

I reported the last post based on my previous post

As what did that say

Forget it Eddie, you are a waste of space

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:36 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
eddie wrote:What??
Oh shut up didge with your fussiness! What does it matter whether I'm in the debate or not?
Unlike you? I don't hang my own personality on whether I win or lose a forum debate, so if 4ever was wrong I'd say so. I've asked her to be polite.

I'm done...as after all of my other posts in this single thread {none that HE could be bothered to read}; once again the Didgy-dooo gets his wee-little feelings hurt because he is unable to BULLY the members into swallowing his vile/bile opinions!

Done, with another of Didgy-doos tantrums for today

And yet now after Eddie has endorsed her to disrupt, she continues to do so.

Bravo eddie

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:40 pm

didge wrote:
eddie wrote:You didn't report that post did you didge?

OMG I reported the thread and if you have missed that i was, which you clearly have, then you were mistaken.

I reported the last post based on my previous post

As what did that say

Forget it Eddie, you are a waste of space

Ohhhhh, having a GO at the MODERATORS is a

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 Strong-no-smiley-emoticon

You've forgotten LordFouls decree --- already?

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:42 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
didge wrote:

OMG I reported the thread and if you have missed that i was, which you clearly have, then you were mistaken.

I reported the last post based on my previous post

As what did that say

Forget it Eddie, you are a waste of space

Ohhhhh, having a GO at the MODERATORS is a You've forgotten LordFouls decree --- already?

And you are being nothing more than a disruption

And are continuing to do so

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:43 pm

Well all I can say is now the thread is no longer a debate

I shall leave my points for someone to at least debate them, where there is not a continual disruption as has now happened.

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:06 pm

Another thing that one has to take into consideration, is how children hold a lot of power today, a teacher only has to brush agaisnt someone accidentally and that child can claim anything....so to ask for girls to be covered up (and boys too, they shouldn't be shirtless in school for example) is just a way to ensure the teacher is completely safe.
It's a minefield, working with minors. Unless you work with them you can't know the thousands of rules involved.

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:09 pm

eddie wrote:Another thing that one has to take into consideration, is how children hold a lot of power today, a teacher only has to brush agaisnt someone accidentally and that child can claim anything....so to ask for girls to be covered up (and boys too, they shouldn't be shirtless in school for example) is just a way to ensure the teacher is completely safe.
It's a minefield, working with minors. Unless you work with them you can't know the thousands of rules involved.

Irrelevant to the point at hand, we are talking here about females being objectified and to blame for that they wear.
We are talking about the reasoning behind why the school blamed girls as being at fault
That is not teaching boys anything, where they should be normalizing how they dress and to respect that.
At every turn you fail to grasp that

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:12 pm

It's not irrelavent. You saying it is, doesn't make it so.

I don't like seeing school girls in short skirts. Do you?
I think it looks tacky and I'd not send my daughter to a school where this was allowed.

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:15 pm

eddie wrote:It's not irrelavent. You saying it is, doesn't make it so.

I don't like seeing school girls in short skirts. Do you?
I think it looks tacky and I'd not send my daughter to a school where this was allowed.

Its utterly irrelevant

The article is on and centered on the reasoning behind the schools decision
I suggest you read it again and understand that is what and why it was even in the news
You do not like girls in short skirts because you are sexualizing them, I do not sexualize them and I am not looking or need to look at their legs, as I talk to people at eye level
Who cares what you think, you buy into natural remedies and conspiracy crap

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:22 pm

If you don't care what i think don't read my posts you silly Billy!
And who cares what you think, you buy into Sam Wankface Rolling Eyes

Oh oh oh oh - don't reply......! Don't you dare!!

Psssst! Can you resist it....? Can you??

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:26 pm

eddie wrote:If you don't care what i think don't read my posts you silly Billy!
And who cares what you think, you buy into Sam Wankface

Oh oh oh oh - don't reply......! Don't you dare!!

Psssst! Can you resist it....? Can you??

I do care about the nonsense you post up, when you think its based on any reason, when its not.
Again sadly people like you objectify people and fail to even understand that you are, even worse you seem to hold some moral and ethical view that everything should be based on your standards, without ever once rationalizing a reason behind them.
So if you post some really daft points, they have to be shown up for how bad they are.
But as a bases caring over what you think or feel, well you come from the school of wackadoodles

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:04 pm

I love being a whackadoodle. It beats being a mindless....... Ah, I can't think of a word..... study

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:10 pm

eddie wrote:I love being a whackadoodle. It beats being a mindless....... Ah, I can't think of a word.....

Little things please little minds, but its important to rubbish and ridicule wackadoodles for the dangerous and damging nonsense they portray. As they tend to advise people on matters which can endanger others lives, especially medical wise.

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:12 pm

Yes yes, you're right Doctor Dolittle Didge
Until you're proven wrong by the scientists again. Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 2300614393

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 2300614393

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:13 pm

eddie wrote:Yes yes, you're right Doctor Dolittle Didge
Until you're proven wrong by the scientists again.

No I cannot talk to animals Eddie, that again is just a fictional story for children......

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:15 pm

didge wrote:
eddie wrote:Yes yes, you're right Doctor Dolittle Didge
Until you're proven wrong by the scientists again.

No I cannot talk to animals Eddie, that again is just a fictional story for children......

.....but.....is it????? Suspect

I hear tell of horse whisperers......

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:17 pm

eddie wrote:
didge wrote:

No I cannot talk to animals Eddie, that again is just a fictional story for children......

.....but.....is it?????
I hear tell of horse whisperers......

No Tinkerbell is not whispering things into your ears either, she is also fictional

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:21 pm

Fairies do exist. Scooby Doo told me so.

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:24 pm

eddie wrote:Fairies do exist. Scooby Doo told me so.

After 4 Whiskeys or 9?

by eddie Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:40 pm

didge wrote:
eddie wrote:Fairies do exist. Scooby Doo told me so.

After 4 Whiskeys or 9?

Usually 4

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:09 pm

note to didge

are you saying that fairie folk dont exist??...you are making that a definite statement????

by Guest Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:55 pm

didge wrote:
eddie wrote:It's not irrelavent. You saying it is, doesn't make it so.

I don't like seeing school girls in short skirts. Do you?
I think it looks tacky and I'd not send my daughter to a school where this was allowed.

Its utterly irrelevant

The article is on and centered on the reasoning behind the schools decision
I suggest you read it again and understand that is what and why it was even in the news
You do not like girls in short skirts because you are sexualizing them, I do not sexualize them and I am not looking or need to look at their legs, as I talk to people at eye level
Who cares what you think, you buy into natural remedies and conspiracy crap

Odd how the reasoning from {I'll go out on that limb and assume that there's an adult male in this thread} a adult male has kept pushing his POV about a topic and problem that a teacher/head master/principal made a rational judgment call to provide some circumspect modification to the clothing that the young people are wearing; and the POV is that the teacher/headmaster/principal is going at it ALL WRONG!

A.) Didge is not a teacher
B.) he's not in the school room daily
C.) He's a grown man {hopefully} and thinks with a grown man's opinion and judgement
D.) Has hammered away at anyone and everyone that disagrees with his stance
E.) and now his asinine attitude and response is to yet again attack a fellow members personal life style choices --- as if that matters in regard to this TOPIC

While I have {and others as well} argued that you can't put your ADULT opinion into play here when you seem to have null & voided the thought processes of a hormonal teenager and the #1 thing that propels their sexual urges =
a.) everything they see
b.) everything they smell
c.) everything that moves their involuntary erection {yes, those pubescent young men suffer from involuntary hard-ons}
d.) everything that they day dream about
e.) everything that they talk about

You've been out of the arena far too long and if as your 'NORMAL' method of brow beating the topic into the mud --- I'll ask yet again;
Did you have a NORMAL childhood??? And since you deem it necessary to report/whine/cry about my ability to question --- you've insulted and attacked nearly everyone that has tried to engage you with this one thread.

Frankly --- that's why they Do Not Care...but I'm curious as to your understanding of the meaning about >>>

A eunuch is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. In some ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, asexual, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate or achieve sexual satisfaction.
Eunuch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A hormonal teenager is as far from that as the pendulum can swing --- but you seem to negate that comprehension of basic biology! Evil or Very Mad

by Irn Bru Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:44 am

What's wrong with a dress code something like this?

Dark skirt to be on or below the knee

Shirts/Blouses (no garish colours)

Tights/stockings which should be natural tan

Plain leather shoes with heels no higher than say 65mm

Nothing wrong in that is there?

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 13, 2016 1:36 am

didge wrote:
eddie wrote:It's not irrelavent. You saying it is, doesn't make it so.

I don't like seeing school girls in short skirts. Do you?
I think it looks tacky and I'd not send my daughter to a school where this was allowed.

Its utterly irrelevant

The article is on and centered on the reasoning behind the schools decision
I suggest you read it again and understand that is what and why it was even in the news Because Pervy Old men get off and reading about it and trying to 'white knight' school girls in a totally unrealistic and uneducated way that Highlights to anyone that has worked with teens that the Old perve has NO CLUE and never dealt with real teens.
You do not like girls in short skirts because you are sexualizing them, I do not sexualize them and I am not looking or need to look at their legs, as I talk to people at eye level thus Admitting You have never been in front of a class room... they are all seated and you are often standing THEY are not a eye level, it is not 1 to 1 coversation you are not talking to a person, you are presenting to a group of 30, which is very different, and many school desks are too small arranged in a way that you can see their legs
Who cares what you think, you buy into natural remedies and conspiracy crap

Plus typical monocultralist
Faiery folk are not part of HIS beleifs so they dont exist, cause Saint Sam wankface doesn't beleive they exist and we never question saint wankface Rolling Eyes

doesn't matter that
they are 10,000's of years old from almost every contient, but Wankface the Whiteman knows best NO Questions NO Dissent allowed. Evil or Very Mad

death to all those that don't immediately surrender their free will and ability to think to saint wankface.
soapbox

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 3201073460

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 13, 2016 1:37 am

eddie wrote:If you don't care what i think don't read my posts you silly Billy!
And who cares what you think, you buy into Sam Wankface

Oh oh oh oh - don't reply......! Don't you dare!!

Psssst! Can you resist it....? Can you??

Love this post

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 1481518877

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:27 am

eddie wrote:
didge wrote:
eddie wrote:Fairies do exist. Scooby Doo told me so.

After 4 Whiskeys or 9?

Usually 4

Schoolgirls in New Zealand told to lengthen skirts to stop distracting male staff and pupils - Page 2 Must-see-imagery-whiskey-whispers

by Guest Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:00 am

4EVER2 wrote:
didge wrote:

Its utterly irrelevant

The article is on and centered on the reasoning behind the schools decision
I suggest you read it again and understand that is what and why it was even in the news
You do not like girls in short skirts because you are sexualizing them, I do not sexualize them and I am not looking or need to look at their legs, as I talk to people at eye level
Who cares what you think, you buy into natural remedies and conspiracy crap

Odd how the reasoning from {I'll go out on that limb and assume that there's an adult male in this thread} a adult male has kept pushing his POV about a topic and problem that a teacher/head master/principal made a rational judgment call to provide some circumspect modification to the clothing that the young people are wearing; and the POV is that the teacher/headmaster/principal is going at it ALL WRONG!

A.) Didge is not a teacher
Irrelevant
B.) he's not in the school room daily
Irrelevant
C.) He's a grown man {hopefully} and thinks with a grown man's opinion and judgement
Irrelevant
D.) Has hammered away at anyone and everyone that disagrees with his stance
Irrelevant
E.) and now his asinine attitude and response is to yet again attack a fellow members personal life style choices --- as if that matters in regard to this TOPIC
Irrelevant

While I have {and others as well} argued that you can't put your ADULT opinion into play here when you seem to have null & voided the thought processes of a hormonal teenager and the #1 thing that propels their sexual urges =
a.) everything they see
b.) everything they smell
c.) everything that moves their involuntary erection {yes, those pubescent young men suffer from involuntary hard-ons}
d.) everything that they day dream about
e.) everything that they talk about

You've been out of the arena far too long and if as your 'NORMAL' method of brow beating the topic into the mud --- I'll ask yet again;
Did you have a NORMAL childhood??? And since you deem it necessary to report/whine/cry about my ability to question --- you've insulted and attacked nearly everyone that has tried to engage you with this one thread.

Frankly --- that's why they Do Not Care...but I'm curious as to your understanding of the meaning about >>>

A eunuch is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. In some ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, asexual, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate or achieve sexual satisfaction.
Eunuch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A hormonal teenager is as far from that as the pendulum can swing --- but you seem to negate that comprehension of basic biology!

Not a single point that countered mine

by Sponsored content