Schoolgirls at mixed secondary school are reduced to tears after headteacher tells them 'short skirts make them targets for sexual harassment'

First topic message reminder :

Parents have hit out at a headteacher who they say told girls that wearing shorter skirts would encourage sexual harassment.

Children returned to Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat School this month and sat through an assembly about their new school uniform. But acting headteacher Martin Henton has been criticised after the topic of discussion turned to 'sexual threats' and harassment. Parents say girls came home in tears after believing the message was that shorter skirts would encourage sexual predators.

Mr Henton has denied accusations of 'victim blaming', insisting the girls must have misunderstood the message of the assembly. Mother Ceri Robinson, 43, said she has no problem with the new skirt, but is 'stunned' it has been linked to sexual harassment.

She said: 'My daughter and her peers were told the longer skirt was aimed at keeping the girls safe from sexual harassment. I am quite stunned that this was deemed acceptable.

'The endorsement of the view in the 21st Century that women and girls have to protect themselves from sexual harassment can be the fault of the victim has a negative impact on the young people who should have trust in the school.

'Any victim of any kind of abuse should be confident in talking to a teacher. The message of this assembly undermines that.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6163911/Row-school-claiming-short-skirts-lead-sexual-harassment.html

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's best if girls are not seen as bimbos with no brain, is it not? If they portray themselves as nothing but an advert for attractive legs, they will be seen as bimbos.

I'm sure you have your own reasons as to why you want schoolgirls to wear short skirts Didge ...

Indeed. I fully agree.

I hope Didge doesn't say your opinion is "warped".

Well your in good company if that's being warped.

Raggamuffin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Indeed. I fully agree.

I hope Didge doesn't say your opinion is "warped".

I Couldn’t give a flying fuck what he says tbh.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I hope Didge doesn't say your opinion is "warped".

I Couldn’t give a flying fuck what he says tbh.

Thank you for your kind words Sexy

Anyway we have 2 posters agree with Rags


As Rags did say these girls could be asking for trouble wearing short skirts. Which is effectively saying that they are to blame if they are then raped and sexually abused

Raggamuffin wrote:
I think it could be asking for trouble.

Which I replied with.

"I mean i am really interested in this warped and quite frankly antiquated view point Rags here on how people are asking for trouble."

That is a very warped view normally held by sexist men to blame girls for what they wear, claiming they are asking for trouble

Do the other posters that agree with her, still stand by their view or share my view, that such a view is completely warped?

Lets see

I suggest people read the actual context of the entire thread before blindly following someone

What can I say eh?

What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here.

There is a time and a place.
Many schools have dress codes, if a student doesnt want to follow that they should find a school where they can dress any way they like.
I think uniforms are a good idea for primary and secondary school kids, and when worn they should follow the school requirements.

To compare normal school attire with what a girl would wear for swimming or games is just daft.

Syl wrote:There is a time and a place.
Many schools have dress codes, if a student doesnt want to follow that they should find a school where they can dress any way they like.
I think uniforms are a good idea for primary and secondary school kids, and when worn they should follow the school requirements.

To compare normal school attire with what a girl would wear for swimming or games is just daft.

Is it?

Sports wear and swimming wear is still school uniform

Well I think dress codes are born from a elitist sense of entittlement

As what other purpose does it serve and help children progress into adulthood?

What I would love to know Syl, is whether you think girls wearing short skirts could be asking for trouble?

Does this view point extend to the many victims of grooming gangs on what they wore?

Do you think that had any factor on what lengh of skirt they had?

I would really love to know what you think on that?

Didge wrote:What I would love to know Syl, is whether you think girls wering short skirts could be asking for trouble?

Does this view point extend to the many victims of grooming gangs on what they wore?

Do you think that had any factor on what lengh of skirt they had?

I would really love to know what you think on that?

No, I think girls should be able to walk in public dressed however they choose to dress and be safe.
The problem is always with the aggresor never the victim.

But I also think that girls should be aware that some men are looking for victims, so they should take measures to protect themselves, and that would apply whether they are wearing a mini skirt or a yashmak.

I have listened to you and others constantly tell me I have ruined debates and guess what. I started to listen to you and guess what happened here. Rags, sexy and Vintage saw this as a view to mock me saying that my view that. When a person says girls wearin short skirts could be asking for trouble. Had two responses.

These responses took a blind view to follow Rags, Now i could claim victimization with any form of bullshit whether it be sexism, but I do not. What I see is how many on here simple want to prove me wrong and i do not mind that this is what motivates them.

Except what I pointed out was factually true. Some here seem to think, that they know better than others on schooling. I never claimed this, yet they tried to based on the lengh of a girls skirt?

Seriously

So when they use this and even worse say this could be asking for trouble is why then I mocked this view by showing how silly it was. As you might as well say that a Jew is asking for trouble joing the labour party. Or that a Asian Muslim is asking for trouble joining the UKIP party.

That is the extenct of the bullshit I have had to deal with here. When constantly people, including Gelico, cannot grasp a simple point

To ever make a claim that some how girls are asking for trouble based on what they wear. Is only empowering those that rape and abuse women

Period ( no pun intended)

So why are you so afraid to speak out against the views of say for example Rags here?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:What I would love to know Syl, is whether you think girls wering short skirts could be asking for trouble?

Does this view point extend to the many victims of grooming gangs on what they wore?

Do you think that had any factor on what lengh of skirt they had?

I would really love to know what you think on that?

No, I think girls should be able to walk in public dressed however they choose to dress and be safe.
The problem is always with the aggresor never the victim.

But I also think that girls should be aware that some men are looking for victims, so they should take measures to protect themselves, and that would apply whether they are wearing a mini skirt or a yashmak.

So you are saying that wearing a short skirt is a problem?

How do you apply that logic to girls that dress modestly and are sexually abused and raped?

So what measures should they take Syl?

carry an Ak47?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

No, I think girls should be able to walk in public dressed however they choose to dress and be safe.
The problem is always with the aggresor never the victim.

But I also think that girls should be aware that some men are looking for victims, so they should take measures to protect themselves, and that would apply whether they are wearing a mini skirt or a yashmak.

So you are saying that wearing a short skirt is a problem?

How do you apply that logic to girls that dress modestly and are sexually abused and raped?

So what measures should they take Syl?

carry an Ak47?

No, I just said they should be able to dress however they like and be safe.

What measures they should take to be safe are common sense. Keep your wits about you, dont wander off in the middle of the night alone, dont end up alone with a stranger and no means to contact others, dont get so drunk you cant look after yourself or if you do stay with friends....these are things girls and women have always done to stay safe.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you are saying that wearing a short skirt is a problem?

How do you apply that logic to girls that dress modestly and are sexually abused and raped?

So what measures should they take Syl?

carry an Ak47?

No, I just said they should be able to dress however they like and be safe.

What measures they should take to be safe are common sense. Keep your wits about you, dont wander off in the middle of the night alone, dont end up alone with a stranger and no means to contact others, dont get so drunk you  cant look after yourself or if you do stay with friends....these are things girls and women have always done to stay safe.

So you then must admit that Rags, vintage and sexy are wrong?

Correct?

I mean how else could someone form a view over what they wear is asking for trouble?

That is what I questioned and said was warped to claim

So again I ask, do you back that or do you stand against such a view

On the rest of your points I agree

What I love to see is some honesty here...

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

No, I just said they should be able to dress however they like and be safe.

What measures they should take to be safe are common sense. Keep your wits about you, dont wander off in the middle of the night alone, dont end up alone with a stranger and no means to contact others, dont get so drunk you  cant look after yourself or if you do stay with friends....these are things girls and women have always done to stay safe.

So you then must admit that Rags, vintage and sexy are wrong?

Correct?

I mean how else could someone form a view over what they wear is asking for trouble?

That is what I questioned and said was warped to claim

So again I ask, do you back that or do you stand against such a view

On the rest of your points I agree

What I love to see is some honesty here...

People have different viewpoints, no one has said it's the girls fault if she is attacked have they? It is always the attacker who is 100% guilty.

One would have to be in the mind of every sexual abuser who preys on females to give a definative answer....we are not, so its just our opinion.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you then must admit that Rags, vintage and sexy are wrong?

Correct?

I mean how else could someone form a view over what they wear is asking for trouble?

That is what I questioned and said was warped to claim

So again I ask, do you back that or do you stand against such a view

On the rest of your points I agree

What I love to see is some honesty here...

People have different viewpoints, no one has said it's the girls fault if she is attacked have they? It is always the attacker who is 100% guilty.

One would have to be in the mind of every sexual abuser who preys on females to give a definative answer....we are not, so its just our opinion.

Oooooh man alive, that is such a copout

Rags specifically said, they could be asking for trouble

So stop bullshitting me, seriously

Do you agree where rags says it could be asking for trouble?

Yes or no

If this was Eddie, she would have given me a straight answer from the very start

That is why I respect her?

In fact do not bother

Honesty and up front and why your view to tred on egg shells is your failing

As I have never minded you taking me to task and yet here you make excuses not to actually condemn a poor comment by rags

Now you understand why is so wrong to not be upfront Syl

I do not care how you now answer

I have seen all I needed to see

Unlike you, I am not afraid to take people to task

I have backed sexy countless times over many years and yet she slated me here. I guess more to do with my support of Israel. Which is just plain stupid, as I respect the girl and have many tims defended her. Even though we now be at odds, I still would

You have no need to say anymore Syl

Goodnight and all the best

I have learned loads tonight

x

I gave my view ....if you dont like it tough.
Night.

Syl wrote:I gave my view ....if you dont like it tough.
Night.

No, you completely avoided my main question to appear diplomatic and neutral

That was never being neutral and honest Syl

Seriously

Take care, still love you loads

all the best

x

Didge, why are you using me to harangue Syl? There was nothing "poor" about my comment. I have a different opinion to you, but that doesn't make my opinion "poor". When are you going to learn that your opinion is just an opinion?

That's how you ruin debates - by harassing people until they agree with you. You can't make them do that though, so you get increasingly histrionic and abusive.

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, why are you using me to harangue Syl? There was nothing "poor" about my comment. I have a different opinion to you, but that doesn't make my opinion "poor". When are you going to learn that your opinion is just an opinion?

That's how you ruin debates - by harassing people until they agree with you. You can't make them do that though, so you get increasingly histrionic and abusive.

Not using Syl at all. As all I did was to ask her to answer a question, which she continually avoided.

I am afraid I disagree with your view, they could be asking for trouble

I found it completely poor, to say the least and reasoned why.

So now you want to use me, to get out of your poor views

Happy with that

Anyway care to answer?

What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, why are you using me to harangue Syl? There was nothing "poor" about my comment. I have a different opinion to you, but that doesn't make my opinion "poor". When are you going to learn that your opinion is just an opinion?

That's how you ruin debates - by harassing people until they agree with you. You can't make them do that though, so you get increasingly histrionic and abusive.

Not using Syl at all. As all I did was to ask her to answer a question, which she continually avoided.

I am afraid I disagree with your view, they could be asking for trouble

I found it completely poor, to say the least and reasoned why.

So now you want to use me, to get out of your poor views

Happy with that

Anyway care to answer?

What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here

I didn't say you were using Syl, I said you were using me to harangue Syl, which you were. You also had a go at Vintage and SM, and accused them of blindly following what someone else said. That wasn't true.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not using Syl at all. As all I did was to ask her to answer a question, which she continually avoided.

I am afraid I disagree with your view, they could be asking for trouble

I found it completely poor, to say the least and reasoned why.

So now you want to use me, to get out of your poor views

Happy with that

Anyway care to answer?

What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here

I didn't say you were using Syl, I said you were using me to harangue Syl, which you were. You also had a go at Vintage and SM, and accused them of blindly following what someone else said. That wasn't true.

So are questions not allowed now, when they catch people out

Most amusing

Actually sexy was rude, I simple pointed out how they clearly did not read the thread and blindly followed your view, after you were trying to stir things up and you knew you were. As had not even made a comment to sexy

You see this all stemed from you rags by asking if sexy if I thought her view was warped. She replied she did not fucking care what I say

So best thought I would clear up how in fact it was you doing your usual attempts to start trouble on here and are still doing so.

Now I will try again for this to get back on track and if you whinge about me again, I will simple side step you and get the thread back on track

Up to you

Anyway care to answer?

What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say you were using Syl, I said you were using me to harangue Syl, which you were. You also had a go at Vintage and SM, and accused them of blindly following what someone else said. That wasn't true.

So are questions not allowed now, when they catch people out

Most amusing

Actually sexy was rude, I simple pointed out how they clearly did not read the thread and blindly followed your view, after you were trying to stir things up and you knew you were. As had not even made a comment to sexy

You see this all stemed from you rags by asking if sexy if I thought her view was warped. She replied she did not fucking care what I say

So best thought I would clear up how in fact it was you doing your usual attempts to start trouble on here and are still doing so.

Now I will try again for this to get back on track and if you whinge about me again, I will simple side step you and get the thread back on track

Up to you

Anyway care to answer?

What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here

SM may well have read the thread, and how do you know she blindly followed my view? She agreed with one of my posts, but that doesn't mean she blindly followed my view, it just means she agreed with that post. You had rudely told me that my view was warped so I wondered if you would say the same to her.

Didge wrote:What I would really like to know. Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs. To then enforcing them to be wearing tracksuit bottoms instead? Why are they not asking for them to wear a Burkini, an olympic aerodynamic swim costume or a swimming costume from the begining of the 20th century when swimming in school competitions, training, synchronised swimming, water polo, or simple having fun in the pool ?



I mean if people think that the problem of exposing the thighs of girls is a problem and some here clearly think with a warped view its asking for trouble. Then why has their arguments not extended to all forms of school clothing? Including  sports and swimwear?

I mean we are talking about mixed schools here.

Anyone care to answer?

As to the question, girls would get hot doing sports so it makes sense to wear shorts. If it was cold and they were standing around a lot during sports, it would make sense to wear something which covered their legs. I don't think that burkinis are very good for swimming, and neither are those early swimming costumes.

Raggamuffin wrote:As to the question, girls would get hot doing sports so it makes sense to wear shorts. If it was cold and they were standing around a lot during sports, it would make sense to wear something which covered their legs. I don't think that burkinis are very good for swimming, and neither are those early swimming costumes.

Oh so you would apply the same then when the weather is hot for girls then?

Tht would make sense right?

So you clearly do not object to them exposing thighs, you want to force this on them for no valid reason when at certain times in school

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:As to the question, girls would get hot doing sports so it makes sense to wear shorts. If it was cold and they were standing around a lot during sports, it would make sense to wear something which covered their legs. I don't think that burkinis are very good for swimming, and neither are those early swimming costumes.

Oh so you would apply the same then when the weather is hot for girls then?

Tht would make sense right?

So you clearly do not object to them exposing thighs, you want to force this on them for no valid reason when at certain times in school

No, I would not expect girls to wear shorts or a swimming costume to attend lessons in hot weather.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh so you would apply the same then when the weather is hot for girls then?

Tht would make sense right?

So you clearly do not object to them exposing thighs, you want to force this on them for no valid reason when at certain times in school

No, I would not expect girls to wear shorts or a swimming costume to attend lessons in hot weather.

No i mean when they are not playing sports and its hot

So that would make sense right?

Anyway, this head teacher has said that two issues were addressed - the new school uniform and sexual harassment - as two separate issues. Some girls appear to have misunderstood. It's not clear how the new school uniform differs from the old one.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I would not expect girls to wear shorts or a swimming costume to attend lessons in hot weather.

No i mean when they are not playing sports and its hot

So that would make sense right?

I know what you meant - when they're attending lessons, as I said. No, it would not make sense as they have a school uniform.

Well he clearly is not very good at getting his point across, if girls came home upset and many misunderstood

Didge wrote:Well he clearly is not very good at getting his point across, if girls came home upset and many misunderstood

If you read the comments, you'll see that other girls said he didn't say anything like that.

The point is that people should be able to wear what they want but they have to understand that whatever they wear it could lead to attention. This attention can be welcome, unwelcome or downright dangerous, dangerous because there are some strange people out there that see an invitation where there is none or feel entitled to do what they want. In theory a person especially a woman should be able to walk naked down a street at 2am without being molested
but it doesn't work that way does it.

Vintage wrote:The point is that people should be able to wear what they want but they have to understand that whatever they wear it could lead to attention. This attention can be welcome, unwelcome or downright dangerous, dangerous because there are some strange people out there that see an invitation where there is none or feel entitled to do what they want. In theory a person especially a woman should be able to walk naked down a street at 2am without being molested
but it doesn't work that way does it.

People get unwanted attention no matter what they wear Vintage.

Vintage wrote:The point is that people should be able to wear what they want but they have to understand that whatever they wear it could lead to attention. This attention can be welcome, unwelcome or downright dangerous, dangerous because there are some strange people out there that see an invitation where there is none or feel entitled to do what they want. In theory a person especially a woman should be able to walk naked down a street at 2am without being molested
but it doesn't work that way does it.

I agree with that post.

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:The point is that people should be able to wear what they want but they have to understand that whatever they wear it could lead to attention. This attention can be welcome, unwelcome or downright dangerous, dangerous because there are some strange people out there that see an invitation where there is none or feel entitled to do what they want. In theory a person especially a woman should be able to walk naked down a street at 2am without being molested
but it doesn't work that way does it.

People get unwanted attention no matter what they wear Vintage.

I can only agree with that, I doubt there's many women that have got to my age who haven't received all kinds of unwanted attention from annoying to downright frightening and worse. It's still a sad fact though that girls need to understand the risks and by all means take them if they wish to until we manage to educate everyone that it isn't a right to try it on with anyone and that no means no.

Vintage wrote:

Didge wrote:


People get unwanted attention no matter what they wear Vintage.

I can only agree with that, I doubt there's many women that have got to my age who haven't received all kinds of unwanted attention from annoying to downright frightening and worse. It's still a sad fact though that girls need to understand the risks and by all means take them if they wish to until we manage to educate everyone that it isn't a right to try it on with anyone and that no means no.

I get what you are saying, but surely the view should be to empower girls and women on what they wear. To not then be cowed into dressing a way they do not want to, based off some mindless sexist men? I get the point to understand the risks, but is it then not sending the wrong message to the girls, with empowerment and freedom, to deny them choice? Now I do not think any form of dress should be banned or restricted, including the hijab and burka. I am simple against the belief system, that requires that women should wear. Hence I reason against that and not the right of people on what to wear.

So its very important to educate young girls and boys of the risk and to educate how to respect others, no matter what they wear.  That means to me you empower them to wear what they want and how they feel good about themselves. AS they are not the problem. Its others who are the ones giving the unwanted attention.

Anyway I am not a fan of uniforms for school children as many people know. I think they should be as comfortable as possible when studying


Anyway I saw this interesting story

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6161817/Rastafarian-boy-12-wins-discrimination-case-dreadlocks-ban.html

What do you think Vintage?

I think this is a good compromise that really didn't shouldn't have needed legal recourse. I think Rastafarianism is a recognised religion/belief system, young Hindu/Sikhs are allowed to wear a topknot, so why not dreads, provided they are under control so to speak, this should also be a rule for girls with long hair I think, you don't want to be flicking hair out of the way when trying to take notes or read. There is usually a suitable compromise if people cooperate in good faith.

Vintage wrote:I think this is a good compromise that really didn't shouldn't have needed legal recourse. I think Rastafarianism is a recognised religion/belief system, young Hindu/Sikhs are allowed to wear a topknot, so why not dreads, provided they are under control so to speak, this should also be a rule for girls with long hair I think, you don't want to be flicking hair out of the way when trying to take notes or read. There is usually a suitable compromise if people cooperate in good faith.

I have given you a thanks and +1 for that post

Great post Vintage

Completely agree with you

Thanks, this is an interesting thread.

Didge wrote:Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs.

While I don't necessarily agree with dress codes, a thought that comes to mind with respect to revealing gym clothes, is that gym classes are usually sex segregated. For practical reasons: girls develop differently, and require different forms of exercise than boys.

Our secondary schools had a boy's gym and a girl's gym, separate playing fields, etc. And the outfits were hardly flattering..so I find the argument that girl's were showing their legs for purposes of enticing the boys, doubtful.

That was the way we understood it, so many years ago.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Where some here are objecting to girls at school wearing short skirts. That why are they then not arguing for these same girls during sports. Who will be either be genrally wearing short skirts or shorts exposing their thighs.

While I don't necessarily agree with dress codes, a thought that comes to mind with respect to revealing gym clothes, is that gym classes are usually sex segregated.  For practical reasons: girls develop differently, and require different forms of exercise than boys.

Our secondary schools had a boy's gym and a girl's gym, separate playing fields, etc.  And the outfits were hardly flattering..so I find the argument that girl's were showing their legs for purposes of enticing the boys, doubtful.

That was the way we understood it, so many years ago.

I think you will find its more the case they are becoming more and more mixed Quill such sports. Espically in mixed schools

I even posted a video where the winning goal kick in American football, was kkicked by the Prom Queen

Your secondary schools were clearly a very long time ago and not knocking

Girls and boys are involved in many sports together today and thatis a good thing. Where for many its not even showing off their thighs, though I am sure it is to some. As they want to feel good about themselves. What people should do though is respect them.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

While I don't necessarily agree with dress codes, a thought that comes to mind with respect to revealing gym clothes, is that gym classes are usually sex segregated.  For practical reasons: girls develop differently, and require different forms of exercise than boys.

Our secondary schools had a boy's gym and a girl's gym, separate playing fields, etc.  And the outfits were hardly flattering..so I find the argument that girl's were showing their legs for purposes of enticing the boys, doubtful.

That was the way we understood it, so many years ago.

I think you will find its more the case they are becoming more and more mixed Quill such sports. Espically in mixed schools

I even posted a video where the winning goal kick in American football, was kkicked by the Prom Queen

Your secondary schools were clearly a very long time ago and not knocking

Girls and boys are involved in many sports together today and thatis a good thing. Where for many its not even showing off their thighs, though I am sure it is to some. As they want to feel good about themselves. What people should do though is respect them.

I saw your wonderful post about the Prom Queen/kicker.  It was all over the news here, too.  While gender cross-over is always a popular theme, it is generally not practical.

First, girls and boys do not share the same dressing/locker rooms, bathrooms or shower facilities, for obvious reasons.  So physical education begins with gender segregation.

Second, notwithstanding your kicker/Prom Queen, inter-gender competitive sports is not practical for reasons of contrasting strength and body differences.  Notice your kicker/Prom Queen was held out of the contact portion of football.  Frankly, her female body could hardly stand line-play in the trenches, nor would she be very successful at it.

Third, girls and boys have different physical education health needs and programs, and frankly they are not eager to share such subjects as menstruation, wet dreams and premature ejaculation with the opposite sex, particularly at that early, discovery age.

So no, I do not find that physical education is trending toward greater physical, gender togetherness.  Kids tend to reserve that kind of thing for Friday night dating, and the back seats of Dad's Chevy.  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

I think you will find its more the case they are becoming more and more mixed Quill such sports. Espically in mixed schools

I even posted a video where the winning goal kick in American football, was kkicked by the Prom Queen

Your secondary schools were clearly a very long time ago and not knocking

Girls and boys are involved in many sports together today and thatis a good thing. Where for many its not even showing off their thighs, though I am sure it is to some. As they want to feel good about themselves. What people should do though is respect them.

I saw your post about the Prom Queen/kicker.  It was all over the news here, too.  While gender cross-over is always a popular theme, it is generally not practical.

First, girls and boys do not share the same dressing/locker rooms, bathrooms or shower facilities, for obvious reasons.  So physical education begins with gender segregation.

Second, notwithstanding your kicker/Prom Queen, inter-gender competitive sports is not practical for reasons of contrasting strength and body differences.  Notice your kicker/Prom Queen was held out of the contact portion of football.  Frankly, her female body could hardly stand line-play in the trenches, nor would she be very successful at it.

Third, girls and boys have different physical education health needs and programs, and frankly they are not eager to share such subjects as menstruation, wet dreams and premature ejaculation with the opposite sex, particularly at that early, discovery age.

So no, I do not find that physical education is trending toward greater physical, gender togetherness.  Kids tend to reserve that kind of thing for Friday night dating, and the back seats of Dad's Chevy.  

Quill have you even understood my point at all?

Where some are arguing over girls being restricted on the lengh of their skirts?

Where they view the exposure of the thigh as a problem

Where this is never applied to school sports wear which exposes ffar more leg

Do you understand this before we continue?

I am not bothered about what you think is gender togetherness

Its now a reality

Hence this is about the view on the exposure of the leg, not your antiquated views on whether women can compete in phsyical sports with men

They can

Granted they are not as phsyical strong or ever come to beat men in certain sports. That is not being the point made here, but more and more they are participating together, which is the points I am raising. Espically in school, where they train and compete together.

You want to talk about being a dinosaur, then I think you missed the last ship that landed 65 billion years ago

Didge wrote:Quill have you even understood my point at all?

Where some are arguing over girls being restricted on the lengh of their skirts?

Yes, I've been following the thread. I prefaced my comments by saying that I don't always approve of dress codes.

Didge wrote:Where this is never applied to school sports wear which exposes ffar more leg

I believe you brought it up, for reasons that I don't agree. I took exception to it, and now we are having that sub-topic discussion.

If you are caught up, I will make one further point. Kids, especially girls at a post-pubescent age, generally like the separation. Not only for privacy reasons, but because it increases the mystery in a courtship ritual both are playing.

Adjusting hemlines is a small way of modulating that mystery. It's an ageless game, in which guys are attracted to sex, and girls are attracted to guys who are attracted to them. Not polar opposites, it's what makes things interesting. It's the reason why guys like porn, while girls are more complex, opting for intriguing plots in an interacting dance.

Obviously, parents and authorities want to shoo sex out the door for the problems it causes. Hence, dress codes and pinched beaks over styles. Having once been a stud, but having raised three daughters, I understand both sides.

School is not the place to flaunt your wears, if thats the reason the girls were wearing short skirts.
I maintain that most 11 to 16 year olds wear certain clothes because they are fashionable, and girls like to impress other girls as well.

School uniforms are worn so there is a sense of community within the school, also to stop one upmanship with the latest designer gear....the head is right to want to maintain a certain dress code.

Whether he phrased his words clumsily or not, imo he had the girls best interest at heart.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Quill have you even understood my point at all?

Where some are arguing over girls being restricted on the lengh of their skirts?

Yes, I've been following the thread.  I prefaced my comments by saying that I don't always approve of dress codes.

Didge wrote:Glad to here

I believe you brought it up, for reasons that I don't agree.  I took exception to it, and now we are having that sub-topic discussion.

Didge wrote:Get to the point

If you are caught up, I will make one further point.  Kids, especially girls at a post-pubescent age, generally like the separation.  Not only for privacy reasons, but because it increases the mystery in a courtship ritual both are playing.

Didge wrote:Based on what evidence?

Sorry but psychologically its actually the opposite, because they are coming of age being inquisitive of attraction with both boys and girls

So I think you are basing this soley on your perceived views and not the reality of how many girls feel today in this day and age

Hence you lack emphatic intelligence mate

Adjusting hemlines is a small way of modulating that mystery.  It's an ageless game, in which guys are attracted to sex, and girls are attracted to guys who are attracted to them.  Not polar opposites, it's what makes things interesting.  It's the reason why guys like porn, while girls are more complex, opting for intriguing plots in an interacting dance.

Didge wrote:Well the reason why guys like porn and also a number of women do, is it provides excitment and titillation. A world free from rejection or having someone say no to you. I mean your hand is never going to say no to your desires are they Quill?. Which is not even the point here as porn only drives fantasies for people based off a particular sexual like they have

Obviously, parents and authorities want to shoo sex out the door for the problems it causes.  Hence, dress codes and pinched beaks over styles.  Having once been a stud, but having raised three daughters, I understand both sides.

Once been a stud?



I do love your candor Sir, as i am sure this is based on your own head swelling and not of the penis kind. I am sure some females have found you attractive, but your views on females are in the past and not advanced to how people are today Quill.

So I would find it very unusual if girls of teen years of today would agree with you. If anything, girls are more open than boys and becoming bolder by the day

You are sadly living in a fantasy bygone age mate

Schools should be somewhere you can relax and learn without worrying if your hair and makeup is ok and if your clothes are looking good. Plenty of time for that at weekends and after school. Probably not possible these days.

Vintage wrote:Schools should be somewhere you can relax and learn without worrying if your hair and makeup is ok and if your clothes are looking good. Plenty of time for that at weekends and after school. Probably not possible these days.

So do you agree that children should be as comfortable as possible when learning Vintage?

We have just seen that people from certain religious families do well at school, which is more down to a kind of upbringing

Which makes the view point on schools and uniforms redundent

Its about an ethos that is instilled by a parent or parents to do well and work hard

So what this means is the uniform is irrelevant or any measure to say how long a skirt can be