dress codes

[Fidelia]

Hmm… Don’t know. I think if one is not sexualised, one can take an honest look and appreciate what he sees to some extent. But my dad was a painter and sculptor (and some more), so I may be different. What puts me off is the saggy kind because it’s sexualised, as well as the really low ones because they are absurd (what need for that exists, rationally?). As a rule, if the cleavage is “sexy”, it’s bad. But if it’s comfy (don’t know, air circulation, light summer clothing, whatever), I don’t care. I’m not offended by trousers and a bikini top at all, whereas I totally can’t stand the “fishing” designs.
not sure wht all those things re that you’re talking about lol.

As for guys, you have no idea how it puts me off when they remove shirts at parties. Come on. Mine stays on unless I’m sunbathing on the beach or working physically in such conditions that I could stain clothing and have no rough clothes at hand (translates as unexpected cleaning up into normal language, I guess). But buttons? I believe the top button should not be done unless a tie is worn. I just hate done-to-the-last-button collars without a tie (I won’t be caught dead wearing that). I’ll sometimes undo two buttons especially in the summer. But I guess it’s different when guys with a lot of chest hair undo half the buttons in a city space.

yea, if it would look funny without a tie, that is understandable, but if sometimes a guy shows so much chest it’s like the equivalent of cleavage.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

The same I’d say to Goth_Catholic. A normally sensible and especially sensitive person would never behave like that. It’s not like I’m oh so mellow about clothes myself, I’ll grant you that, but what you write about is horrific. It wouldn’t have happened at my highschool. Considering myself Catholic and an old-fashioned gentleman (who does have a clothes pet peeve), I’d cut that kind of talk in mid-word and in no tentative tone if I were present at it.

What, crying? I’m emotional person, especially when I’m suffering from PMS. But I useally do react more rationally. It was just the wrong day, the wrong time, and the wrong people when this happened.

 

[SeekerJen]

What, crying? I’m emotional person, especially when I’m suffering from PMS. But I useally do react more rationally. It was just the wrong day, the wrong time, and the wrong people when this happened.

I think he was referring to the extremely insensitive and unprofessional nurse’s behavior, not yours.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Oh.

 

[chevalier]

yea, if it would look funny without a tie, that is understandable, but if sometimes a guy shows so much chest it’s like the equivalent of cleavage.

Yup. I’m not sure I believe those scientists who say male chests have the same effect on females as the other way round, but guys ought to be more careful. There’s a bit of a double standard expecting women to be more watchful about their clothes and more mindful about their own gaze than men are expected to be.

not sure wht all those things re that you’re talking about lol.

Erm… Basically, I was trying to say that looking pretty and looking sexy were two different things and that practical reasons are different from sexual reasons. If it’s pretty, I may give it the benefit of the doubt, if it’s practical, then there’s most likely no reason to dwell on it. But if it’s sexual, it needs to be cracked down on.

I think he was referring to the extremely insensitive and unprofessional nurse’s behavior, not yours.

Yes, I was. I’m sorry for the confusion. There was a birthday in my family yesterday and I had a bit of a headache when I was posting a couple of hours ago. :angel1: The nurse’s behaviour was very unprofessional and I generally cut those people’s rants short no matter how noble they think they are being. I just don’t like people being treated like that. She should have known better. The nurse, of course.

 

[maryjk]

Much less expensive, no fights over what to wear in the mornings, and I know the girls in his class will be dressed appropriately too.

When my son was in a private school, they talked about uniforms. I voted against them because they were so much MORE expensive.

Assuming that you are not buying into the party line that children need the latest and most expensive clothes not having uniforms is cheaper.

Here’s why:
My child can wear jeans and shirt to school, not change when he gets home, and he can play in them. Now, this does not work if your child is still in the mud pie stage, but most of the time my son would be riding his bike, playing tag or playing hide and seek, outside. Inside, he would play with toys or be on the computer.

Four pair of jeans, about four or five shorts, a dozen shirts, a set of sweats and church clothes and my so could be set for a year.

If he needed to wear uniforms, they would be in addition to what he already had. Because he would need clothes to change into after school and he would also need clothes for the weekend.

After I thought about the fact that these uniforms would be in addition to his other clothes, I could never figure out how someone would save money by having uniforms.

 

[Fidelia]

Yup. I’m not sure I believe those scientists who say male chests have the same effect on females as the other way round, but guys ought to be more careful. There’s a bit of a double standard expecting women to be more watchful about their clothes and more mindful about their own gaze than men are expected to be.
I wasn’t saying they all had the same effect. But someitmes a guy with his shirt slightly open looks quite attractive. That isn’t to say seeing a shirtless guy across the street is exactly the same as if I was a guy and there was a shirtless woman.

Erm… Basically, I was trying to say that looking pretty and looking sexy were two different things and that practical reasons are different from sexual reasons. If it’s pretty, I may give it the benefit of the doubt, if it’s practical, then there’s most likely no reason to dwell on it. But if it’s sexual, it needs to be cracked down on.
ah ok. But a girl could be wearing some tight-cleavage-showing top, and say “But it’s hot out.” And not to be racist, but sometimes ethnicity can contribute a little bit to what a person deems acceptable.

 

[Fidelia]

When my son was in a private school, they talked about uniforms. I voted against them because they were so much MORE expensive.

Assuming that you are not buying into the party line that children need the latest and most expensive clothes not having uniforms is cheaper.

Here’s why:
My child can wear jeans and shirt to school, not change when he gets home, and he can play in them. Now, this does not work if your child is still in the mud pie stage, but most of the time my son would be riding his bike, playing tag or playing hide and seek, outside. Inside, he would play with toys or be on the computer.

Four pair of jeans, about four or five shorts, a dozen shirts, a set of sweats and church clothes and my so could be set for a year.

If he needed to wear uniforms, they would be in addition to what he already had. Because he would need clothes to change into after school and he would also need clothes for the weekend.

After I thought about the fact that these uniforms would be in addition to his other clothes, I could never figure out how someone would save money by having uniforms.

I agree. unless you had one uniform and washed every day, but then we are talking about having to buy more detergent and pay more water bill. And then three’s what to do with them when the kids grows out of them, and how often you have to buy more uniform clothes on top of their regular clothes. And since it’s a uniform, you can even make a hand-me-down out of it either if it is in a good enough condition, unless a sibling or cousin goes to the same school and could fit in it.
But a dress code is a good thing to have I think. That seems easier to fit into a kid’s wardrobe.

 

[chevalier]

Fidelia:

I wasn’t saying they all had the same effect. But someitmes a guy with his shirt slightly open looks quite attractive. That isn’t to say seeing a shirtless guy across the street is exactly the same as if I was a guy and there was a shirtless woman.

Hmm… Attractive isn’t the same as sin-inducing. Just that we’re attracted to someone doesn’t mean we’re fantasising or something.

**

ah ok. But a girl could be wearing some tight-cleavage-showing top, and say “But it’s hot out.” And not to be racist, but sometimes ethnicity can contribute a little bit to what a person deems acceptable.

**

Depends on the top. If it’s both tight and cleavage-showing, I suppose it’s at the very least naive to wear (I guess a sports bra or even a bikini top would be more decent while technically considered a grade below). However, people have legitimate reasons to reduce the amount of clothing they wear in certain conditions and if it weren’t for the omnipresent hypersexualisation in our culture, there would be no problems with it. Those ethnicities you talk about may be the ones which are less affected by the porn industry, for instance, or more affected by heat. For example, there are such parts of the world where being half-naked is the norm and no one of the local ethnicity is tempted by that any more than we are by what we see around. The Western European nations also seem to care less than Americans do (though when they start pretending that topless sunbathing is logically consistent with a modest cleavage throughout the rest of the year, they cross the line of hypocrisy). Here in Poland we have no big porn industry and much less exposure to pro-choice, pro-gay and other “liberating” movements, so there’s little social allowance for indecent exposure, while on the other hand we don’t seem to react so dramatically to it, and we experience occasion to eye-rolling rather than sin. I guess you have some diversity in the States as there’s quite a difference in climate between Florida and Washington or California and Maine, not to mention stronger religious or ethnic divisions.

 

[Fidelia]

Hmm… Attractive isn’t the same as sin-inducing. Just that we’re attracted to someone doesn’t mean we’re fantasising or something.

yea, that is true.

Depends on the top. If it’s both tight and cleavage-showing, I suppose it’s at the very least naive to wear (I guess a sports bra or even a bikini top would be more decent while technically considered a grade below). However, people have legitimate reasons to reduce the amount of clothing they wear in certain conditions and if it weren’t for the omnipresent hypersexualisation in our culture, there would be no problems with it. Those ethnicities you talk about may be the ones which are less affected by the porn industry, for instance, or more affected by heat. For example, there are such parts of the world where being half-naked is the norm and no one of the local ethnicity is tempted by that any more than we are by what we see around. The Western European nations also seem to care less than Americans do (though when they start pretending that topless sunbathing is logically consistent with a modest cleavage throughout the rest of the year, they cross the line of hypocrisy). Here in Poland we have no big porn industry and much less exposure to pro-choice, pro-gay and other “liberating” movements, so there’s little social allowance for indecent exposure, while on the other hand we don’t seem to react so dramatically to it, and we experience occasion to eye-rolling rather than sin.

Makes sense. I agree with if it’s hot. I wear tank tops when it’s hot, but a tank-top does not necessarily mean ceavage will show.

 

[PaulaB52]

What about jr high/middle school? Girls begin to feel very self conscious, and are critiqued and/or made fun of even by one another. Why couldn’t a 13 y/o girl with a blemish on her face that will draw unwanted attention from her peers just wear concealer if it helped her self-confidence?

Do they also not let them shave their legs til they are 16 or something? Some things are just personal and no one’s business.

It’s a really small school. They have maybe 20 kids in 7th and 25 in 8th. One teacher for each grade. So yes, they do enforce the no make up rule. If the girl has a blemish, she’s in the same boat as her other classmates. So what if she has a blemish, we all get them, the boys too.

They shave their legs too. No rule enforcing that onel I think no make up is a good rule. These girls are beautiful. They don’t need enhancements when they are in 7 & 8th grade. When they go to the highschool, I think the relax the rule on make up though.

If more girls/women stopped buying into the whole idea of what society thinks beauty is, then true beauty would be able to shine thru.

 

[chevalier]

Makes sense. I agree with if it’s hot. I wear tank tops when it’s hot, but a tank-top does not necessarily mean ceavage will show.

Correct. Tank tops are typically high-up, aren’t they? Anyway, my point’s that it’s different when it’s hot and when it’s not. Laying down 10000 rules about how many degrees allows how many inches would be stupid - it would be intellectually debilitating, mentally enslaving and people would still find a way around those in no time anyway. It would all be simpler if people simply had some sense of propriety and didn’t try to push the limits.

 

[kellyann]

there is a big gap between elem. and high school though. You say there’s no reason elementary girls should wear make-up and that is right. but elementary does not go all the way up to high school. What about jr high/middle school? Girls begin to feel very self conscious, and are critiqued and/or made fun of even by one another. Why couldn’t a 13 y/o girl with a blemish on her face that will draw unwanted attention from her peers just wear concealer if it helped her self-confidence? And you couldn’t even tell it’s there. What do they do, go right up to each girl and examine her face? It is a subject that is personal and can be sensitive for some girls, especially at that age. Do they also not let them shave their legs til they are 16 or something? Some things are just personal and no one’s business.

i agree with you mabe because i am 13 and people judge other people alot at my school!

 

[lak611]

Yep, I don’t like that. In fact, I don’t like how male dressy white shirts let body colour shine through, but I guess it doesn’t really matter that much.

Undershirts would solve that problem quite easily.

 

[Fidelia]

i agree with you mabe because i am 13 and people judge other people alot at my school!

Yup. I remember.

 

[Lillith]

i agree with you mabe because i am 13 and people judge other people alot at my school!

Kellyann…

You are a beautiful sweet talented young lady…just hold on for a couple of years. All that pettiness that you deal with in middle school will lessen…I promise.

Just be yourself…keep lovin’ Elvis

Love,
Mom

 

[conorsdad]

does your school have a dress code? do you think there should be a dress code? tell your oppinion!!

I absolutely believe in dress codes. My son’s public school requires uniforms. With the way kids are dressing these days, with young girls dressing like prostitutes and showing way too much skin (as well as the pitiful pants and shorts that have writing across the butt), and the boys dressing like ghetto thugs with the extremely baggy pants with their underwear hanging out, we need uniforms and dress codes to stop the constant classroom distractions. Plus, school is supposed to prepare kids for the real world, and in most jobs, you can’t just wear whatever you feel like wearing. Also, it ends the competition of kids who wear Abercrombie and Fitch or the Gap making fun of the lower income kids who wear Wal-Mart or K-Mart.

 

[wjp984]

dress codes are alright but belts being required are a dumb rule and tucking in shirts is even more stupid. I don’t think a student should be penalized for dressing appropiately but forgetting to wear a belt. I also don’t think tucking in a shirt makes a student look any better and in fact it can be uncomfortable therefore hindering one’s ability to be at optimum learning potential at school. I think a very lenient dress code of a list of what is not allowed to wear rather than what one must weat is sufficient.

 

[lak611]

dress codes are alright but belts being required are a dumb rule and tucking in shirts is even more stupid. I don’t think a student should be penalized for dressing appropiately but forgetting to wear a belt. I also don’t think tucking in a shirt makes a student look any better and in fact it can be uncomfortable therefore hindering one’s ability to be at optimum learning potential at school. I think a very lenient dress code of a list of what is not allowed to wear rather than what one must weat is sufficient.

In the business world, tucked in shirts are required. So are belts, unless one chooses to wear braces with his suit.

 

[chevalier]

dress codes are alright but belts being required are a dumb rule and tucking in shirts is even more stupid. I don’t think a student should be penalized for dressing appropiately but forgetting to wear a belt. I also don’t think tucking in a shirt makes a student look any better and in fact it can be uncomfortable therefore hindering one’s ability to be at optimum learning potential at school. I think a very lenient dress code of a list of what is not allowed to wear rather than what one must weat is sufficient.

Have you thought that perhaps belts are there for a reason? Belts prevent trousers from riding down and showing underwear or skin. I think underwear and belly skin should always remain inside. Also, trousers that will lie well without a belt might be quite tight and I think schoolgirls shouldn’t be allowed clingy jeans. I fail to see how a belt affects learning potential negatively, while I can see how the lack of it does.