NationStates

Now I don't personally find provocative attire very distracting, let alone arousing, in non-erotic circumstances. Maybe it's because I'm more into hair and eyes and less into tits and ass than others, or maybe I'm not quite as horny.

However, I think the best case for the idea that it's a problem is the irrationality of those who say otherwise. They conflate all criticism of it with "rape culture," despite dress codes at public services like schools being done on behalf of the same voters who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder. They assume those who enforce what they signed up to enforce are only "projecting" their own supposed nature onto others, and not, you know, acknowledging that people who made it that far in university are not necessarily reflective of everybody else. They complain about assuming "without evidence" that males are horndogs who'll be distracted easily, (proven by the irrationality of those who say otherwise) but their response being to assume things about others without evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they never really objected to assumptions not based on evidence.

If you're an opponent of school dress codes, how do you justify smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile? How do you justify claiming to value evidence and then going along with such smears anyway?

Me, I think the case for dress codes to limit distraction has been vindicated.

Now, that leaves behind one question; for what purposes is provocative attire even worn? Is the whole point to attract male attention? If not, what is it?

I prefer dress codes/uniforms in schools and universities, life is simpler that way.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Now, that leaves behind one question; for what purposes is provocative attire even worn? Is the whole point to attract male attention? If not, what is it?

News flash: Girls enjoy male attention in general, but sometimes it attracts attention from the wrong corner. Like that one clingy guy over there, while the you're actually would be interested into aren't. Happens a lot.

Sundiata wrote:I prefer dress codes in schools and universities, life is simpler that way.

Why not School Uniforms?

Can't do much wrong with. It's completly decent and demure.

Sure, dress codes are a thing in universities and schools, and i'm not gonna defend people who don't respect those dress codes. The issue is that some males see creepy men being creepy to women minding their own business and they just simply say to themselves "Well, guess she got it coming. If she had dressed with a jilbaab, she wouldn't have been harassed". The fact that some people think the best tool to combat rape and other related problems is not through harsh punishment to rapists but instead through saying "well you want to increase your self esteem and not get raped! Too bad, dress like this is 16th century europe and maybe you wont get raped!"

Most schools have dress codes still. They just have mellowed out over the years. I remember someone getting sent home one time, because he had a hole on the knee cap area of his pants and some hardliner teacher had a problem with it. However it really depends if the teachers and staff try to enforce it or not. I don't tend to prefer standardized uniforms or any sort of "you have to wear this" dress code policies, because they're a pain in the ass.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Most schools have dress codes still. They just have mellowed out over the years. I remember someone getting sent home one time, because he had a hole on the knee cap area of his pants and some hardliner teacher had a problem with it. However it really depends if the teachers and staff try to enforce it or not. I don't tend to prefer standardized uniforms or any sort of "you have to wear this" dress code policies, because they're a pain in the ass.

Same. As much as I hate those kinds of borderline puritan dresscodes (At least in my case, i'm in a catholic high school sadly ), they're unfortunately the rules and trying to talk to the school higher-ups about it is like talking to a brick wall :/

Inkopolitia wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Most schools have dress codes still. They just have mellowed out over the years. I remember someone getting sent home one time, because he had a hole on the knee cap area of his pants and some hardliner teacher had a problem with it. However it really depends if the teachers and staff try to enforce it or not. I don't tend to prefer standardized uniforms or any sort of "you have to wear this" dress code policies, because they're a pain in the ass.

Same. As much as I hate those kinds of borderline puritan dresscodes (At least in my case, i'm in a catholic high school sadly ), they're unfortunately the rules and trying to talk to the school higher-ups about it is like talking to a brick wall :/

Thats why I am in favor of School Uniforms. That fixes the dresscodes problem and also reduces pressure for kids to get the lastest cool clothes and such nonsense.

Nakena wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:Same. As much as I hate those kinds of borderline puritan dresscodes (At least in my case, i'm in a catholic high school sadly ), they're unfortunately the rules and trying to talk to the school higher-ups about it is like talking to a brick wall :/

Thats why I am in favor of School Uniforms. That fixes the dresscodes problem and also reduces pressure for kids to get the lastest cool clothes and such nonsense.

I don't want to look "cool". I just want to not look like a fucking puritan, not to mention I could go to a thrift store and buy a better set for the grand price of $10 that doesnt feel like shit when wearing instead of buying the $80+ set schools make mandatory but feels like you're getting a thorn stuck up everywhere in your chest or neck

For a private institution, I have no problem with the concept. You agree to go there, you agree to the rules they set; don't like them, you can always leave.

For a public school, however, as long as the existing laws against public nudity are not being violated, students should be allowed to express themselves in whatever clothing choices they make. Like everything else in life, of course, choices have consequences. If you chooses to dress provocatively, do not complain that people are looking, just like if you wear a button down shirt with a pocket protector, you will be called a nerd.

How women dress has nothing to do with me and therefore does not require my input.

Inkopolitia wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Most schools have dress codes still. They just have mellowed out over the years. I remember someone getting sent home one time, because he had a hole on the knee cap area of his pants and some hardliner teacher had a problem with it. However it really depends if the teachers and staff try to enforce it or not. I don't tend to prefer standardized uniforms or any sort of "you have to wear this" dress code policies, because they're a pain in the ass.

Same. As much as I hate those kinds of borderline puritan dresscodes (At least in my case, i'm in a catholic high school sadly ), they're unfortunately the rules and trying to talk to the school higher-ups about it is like talking to a brick wall :/

The closest we ever got was the name tags in light of increasing amount of school shootings across the USA. If you forgot it, you go to the library and spend $5 for a new one. I was a senior by that point though and made a exception for me since it was my last year.

Nakena wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:Same. As much as I hate those kinds of borderline puritan dresscodes (At least in my case, i'm in a catholic high school sadly ), they're unfortunately the rules and trying to talk to the school higher-ups about it is like talking to a brick wall :/

Thats why I am in favor of School Uniforms. That fixes the dresscodes problem and also reduces pressure for kids to get the lastest cool clothes and such nonsense.

I understand the purpose of school uniforms, but I don't think it was ever much of a problem. If some kid ever went outside the dress code, all they ever really did for us was send us home. Which wasn't that big of a deal. There was hardly any repercussions.

Elwher wrote:For a private institution, I have no problem with the concept. You agree to go there, you agree to the rules they set; don't like them, you can always leave.

For a public school, however, as long as the existing laws against public nudity are not being violated, students should be allowed to express themselves in whatever clothing choices they make. Like everything else in life, of course, choices have consequences. If you chooses to dress provocatively, do not complain that people are looking, just like if you wear a button down shirt with a pocket protector, you will be called a nerd.

"Telling boys who look at women provocatively to not be creeps and to have a competent system that punishes creeps harshly? Pfft, no! I'll just tell women how to live their lives and call it a day!"

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:Same. As much as I hate those kinds of borderline puritan dresscodes (At least in my case, i'm in a catholic high school sadly ), they're unfortunately the rules and trying to talk to the school higher-ups about it is like talking to a brick wall :/

The closest we ever got was the name tags in light of increasing amount of school shootings across the USA. If you forgot it, you go to the library and spend $5 for a new one. I was a senior by that point though and made a exception for me since it was my last year.

Nakena wrote:
Thats why I am in favor of School Uniforms. That fixes the dresscodes problem and also reduces pressure for kids to get the lastest cool clothes and such nonsense.

I understand the purpose of school uniforms, but I don't think it was ever much of a problem. If some kid ever went outside the dress code, all they ever really did for us was send us home. Which wasn't that big of a deal. There was hardly any repercussions.

Man, I wish they only made us wear name tags.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Now I don't personally find provocative attire very distracting, let alone arousing, in non-erotic circumstances. Maybe it's because I'm more into hair and eyes and less into tits and ass than others, or maybe I'm not quite as horny.

However, I think the best case for the idea that it's a problem is the irrationality of those who say otherwise. They conflate all criticism of it with "rape culture," despite dress codes at public services like schools being done on behalf of the same voters who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder. They assume those who enforce what they signed up to enforce are only "projecting" their own supposed nature onto others, and not, you know, acknowledging that people who made it that far in university are not necessarily reflective of everybody else. They complain about assuming "without evidence" that males are horndogs who'll be distracted easily, (proven by the irrationality of those who say otherwise) but their response being to assume things about others without evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they never really objected to assumptions not based on evidence.

If you're an opponent of school dress codes, how do you justify smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile? How do you justify claiming to value evidence and then going along with such smears anyway?

Me, I think the case for dress codes to limit distraction has been vindicated.

Now, that leaves behind one question; for what purposes is provocative attire even worn? Is the whole point to attract male attention? If not, what is it?

...It is very sexist to assume men are unable to control themselves around women who "dress provocatively." I mean sure you can have a baseline dress code for the safety and health of students (you know, no walking around in your underwear type thing, no pants hanging around the knees for schools less then college level(that seems like a liability the school should not have to deal with), etc, but anything beyond that?

Neutraligon wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Now I don't personally find provocative attire very distracting, let alone arousing, in non-erotic circumstances. Maybe it's because I'm more into hair and eyes and less into tits and ass than others, or maybe I'm not quite as horny.

However, I think the best case for the idea that it's a problem is the irrationality of those who say otherwise. They conflate all criticism of it with "rape culture," despite dress codes at public services like schools being done on behalf of the same voters who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder. They assume those who enforce what they signed up to enforce are only "projecting" their own supposed nature onto others, and not, you know, acknowledging that people who made it that far in university are not necessarily reflective of everybody else. They complain about assuming "without evidence" that males are horndogs who'll be distracted easily, (proven by the irrationality of those who say otherwise) but their response being to assume things about others without evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they never really objected to assumptions not based on evidence.

If you're an opponent of school dress codes, how do you justify smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile? How do you justify claiming to value evidence and then going along with such smears anyway?

Me, I think the case for dress codes to limit distraction has been vindicated.

Now, that leaves behind one question; for what purposes is provocative attire even worn? Is the whole point to attract male attention? If not, what is it?

...It is very sexist to assume men are unable to control themselves around women who "dress provocatively." I mean sure you can have a baseline dress code for the safety and health of students (you know, no walking around in your underwear type thing, no pants hanging around the knees for schools less then college level(that seems like a liability the school should not have to deal with), etc, but anything beyond that?

Everything this guy said is true and I agree with him

Inkopolitia wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Thats why I am in favor of School Uniforms. That fixes the dresscodes problem and also reduces pressure for kids to get the lastest cool clothes and such nonsense.

I don't want to look "cool". I just want to not look like a fucking puritan, not to mention I could go to a thrift store and buy a better set for the grand price of $10 that doesnt feel like shit when wearing instead of buying the $80+ set schools make mandatory but feels like you're getting a thorn stuck up everywhere in your chest or neck

Maybe the sets are trash then. Not as nice as the uniforms I linked above in my first post.

Nakena wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:I don't want to look "cool". I just want to not look like a fucking puritan, not to mention I could go to a thrift store and buy a better set for the grand price of $10 that doesnt feel like shit when wearing instead of buying the $80+ set schools make mandatory but feels like you're getting a thorn stuck up everywhere in your chest or neck

Maybe the sets are trash then. Not as nice as the uniforms I linked above in my first post.

They're still uniforms, but i'd still pick them in a heartbeat. They look comfortable and not ripped straight out of the 50's (Like the uniforms from my school are).

Inkopolitia wrote:

Elwher wrote:For a private institution, I have no problem with the concept. You agree to go there, you agree to the rules they set; don't like them, you can always leave.

For a public school, however, as long as the existing laws against public nudity are not being violated, students should be allowed to express themselves in whatever clothing choices they make. Like everything else in life, of course, choices have consequences. If you chooses to dress provocatively, do not complain that people are looking, just like if you wear a button down shirt with a pocket protector, you will be called a nerd.

"Telling boys who look at women provocatively to not be creeps and to have a competent system that punishes creeps harshly? Pfft, no! I'll just tell women how to live their lives and call it a day!"

Completely the wrong interpretation of my statement. People have the right to dress however they want. People also have the right to look at whatever they want. Neither you nor I have the right to tell either group otherwise.

Elwher wrote:

Inkopolitia wrote:"Telling boys who look at women provocatively to not be creeps and to have a competent system that punishes creeps harshly? Pfft, no! I'll just tell women how to live their lives and call it a day!"

Completely the wrong interpretation of my statement. People have the right to dress however they want. People also have the right to look at whatever they want. Neither you nor I have the right to tell either group otherwise.

It's almost like people should have the right to not be looked at as only sacks of meat

Uniforms are good.

Sundiata wrote:Uniforms are good.

Free expression is better.

Kernen wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Uniforms are good.

Free expression is better.

For things that actually matter: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Express yourself all you'd like.

Sundiata wrote:

Kernen wrote:Free expression is better.

For things that actually matter: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Express yourself all you'd like.

That's the great thing about expression. It matters in all contexts. Including clothing. Go figure.

Neutraligon wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Now I don't personally find provocative attire very distracting, let alone arousing, in non-erotic circumstances. Maybe it's because I'm more into hair and eyes and less into tits and ass than others, or maybe I'm not quite as horny.

However, I think the best case for the idea that it's a problem is the irrationality of those who say otherwise. They conflate all criticism of it with "rape culture," despite dress codes at public services like schools being done on behalf of the same voters who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder. They assume those who enforce what they signed up to enforce are only "projecting" their own supposed nature onto others, and not, you know, acknowledging that people who made it that far in university are not necessarily reflective of everybody else. They complain about assuming "without evidence" that males are horndogs who'll be distracted easily, (proven by the irrationality of those who say otherwise) but their response being to assume things about others without evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they never really objected to assumptions not based on evidence.

If you're an opponent of school dress codes, how do you justify smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile? How do you justify claiming to value evidence and then going along with such smears anyway?

Me, I think the case for dress codes to limit distraction has been vindicated.

Now, that leaves behind one question; for what purposes is provocative attire even worn? Is the whole point to attract male attention? If not, what is it?

...It is very sexist to assume men are unable to control themselves around women who "dress provocatively." I mean sure you can have a baseline dress code for the safety and health of students (you know, no walking around in your underwear type thing, no pants hanging around the knees for schools less then college level(that seems like a liability the school should not have to deal with), etc, but anything beyond that?

I agree

Kernen wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Uniforms are good.

Free expression is better.

This.