Modesty editing

[GuessTheAltAccount]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLQnORHzjM4

While it's pretty dishonest to resort to digital editing, I'm not sure what the students themselves are complaining about. Because the ways in which they were in dress code violation were digitally removed, no one else would have known they were in violation of it in the first place if they hadn't publicly complained about the edits. It isn't necessary to show cleavage in a yearbook photo when Facebook exists, and I'm sure actually confronting them about it in person would've made them a lot more uncomfortable than nonchalantly editing the picture in a manner that, again, tells no one else (except maybe classmates who remember how she was dressed on picture day) the edits were made.

They also call it a "double standard" that the boys in speedos are okay. But does that make it a "double standard" that the boys in speedos don't complain about girls leering at them? The sexes are different, that's why they're treated differently.

[Galloism]

I'm really offended at the quality of the editing. Short staffed is no excuse - those edits are absolutely atroicous.

Oh, also, I don't think the photos were particularly racy - at least the ones they showed in the report. Busybody moralists on the loose again.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I'm really offended at the quality of the editing. Short staffed is no excuse - those edits are absolutely atroicous.

Oh, also, I don't think the photos were particularly racy - at least the ones they showed in the report. Busybody moralists on the loose again.

It will always be subjective. Public nudity advocates would mock our laws against public nudity as much as we mock the middle east's stricter standards on modesty than our own.

But it still makes sense for a school full of horny teenagers to have stricter standards on modesty than the streets as a whole. Freedom of speech isn't absolute on school grounds any more than freedom to film a cop extends to military police handling confidential documents on an army base. I've never heard of standards as strict as that where I grew up, but where I grew up wasn't as warm as Florida, so maybe the risk of frostbite scared most girls out of showing as much skin in the first place.

[Galloism]

I'm really offended at the quality of the editing. Short staffed is no excuse - those edits are absolutely atroicous.

Oh, also, I don't think the photos were particularly racy - at least the ones they showed in the report. Busybody moralists on the loose again.

It will always be subjective. Public nudity advocates would mock our laws against public nudity as much as we mock the middle east's stricter standards on modesty than our own.

But it still makes sense for a school full of horny teenagers to have stricter standards on modesty than the streets as a whole. Freedom of speech isn't absolute on school grounds any more than freedom to film a cop extends to military police handling confidential documents on an army base. I've never heard of standards as strict as that where I grew up, but where I grew up wasn't as warm as Florida, so maybe the risk of frostbite scared most girls out of showing as much skin in the first place.

While aesthetics are always to a degree subjective, there's no sane person on earth who could look at those edits and think they aren't staffed by morons. The quality is absolutely horrible, and although that's a subjective judgement, I think it's a judgement almost everyone can agree with.

Oh, you meant the morality busybody part. My bad.

Honestly, there was nothing particularly distasteful about the shots. As they pointed out, it was more distracting what they did than if they had left it alone.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It will always be subjective. Public nudity advocates would mock our laws against public nudity as much as we mock the middle east's stricter standards on modesty than our own.

But it still makes sense for a school full of horny teenagers to have stricter standards on modesty than the streets as a whole. Freedom of speech isn't absolute on school grounds any more than freedom to film a cop extends to military police handling confidential documents on an army base. I've never heard of standards as strict as that where I grew up, but where I grew up wasn't as warm as Florida, so maybe the risk of frostbite scared most girls out of showing as much skin in the first place.

While aesthetics are always to a degree subjective, there's no sane person on earth who could look at those edits and think they aren't staffed by morons. The quality is absolutely horrible, and although that's a subjective judgement, I think it's a judgement almost everyone can agree with.

Oh, you meant the morality busybody part. My bad.

Honestly, there was nothing particularly distasteful about the shots. As they pointed out, it was more distracting what they did than if they had left it alone.

I mean, it's Florida. They could've pretended the problem with the pictures was that the camera malfunctioned due to the heat or some hurricane or some tornado or lightning strike or something, and no one would have been the wiser.

If they let the students show that much skin in a photo, it might come up in the next school board election that they let students dress that way on school picture day. The individual photographer probably doesn't get paid enough to also be the nag who asks "are you SURE you want to show that much skin, young lady"? They could hire a woman specifically to be that nag so that "what are you doing, sexualizing my body" doesn't sound like as serious an accusation (though frankly, "acknowledging that teenagers are horny creatures" shouldn't be conflated with "actively seeking to have sex with them on a several-year age gap and an imbalance of authority" in the first place), but having that job sounds like it'd be even more tedious and repetitive than being a photographer. :/

[Katganistan]

Honestly, the kids should get their yearbooks refunded. Those were horrid edits. What purpose is there in airbrushing someone's chest so they look flatchested? That's not them anymore.

[Forsher]

Just crop the photos to be just heads...

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Honestly, the kids should get their yearbooks refunded. Those were horrid edits. What purpose is there in airbrushing someone's chest so they look flatchested? That's not them anymore.

It looked more from the video like they were trying to make it look like they were wearing loose fitting enough clothing, far enough over the breast, to conceal their breast size. Obviously if these girls wanted to show off their breast size there was always the Internet and one institution editing photos couldn't conceal that on their own anyway. But yeah, too lazy an edit if that's open to interpretation.

[Duvniask]

I can't for the life of it imagine being so prudish as to think the cleavage we're shown here is in any way inappropriate.

[The Free Joy State]

Honestly, the kids should get their yearbooks refunded. Those were horrid edits. What purpose is there in airbrushing someone's chest so they look flatchested? That's not them anymore.

They really should get their money back. It looks like someone with very poor tech skills decided to have a bash with MS Paint.

The quality is utterly dreadful, and the edits themselves ridiculous: unlike the originals, which no-one would have given more than the polite glance you give others' photos, everyone will stare at the ludicrously obvious edits and quite easily imagine some obscene tattoo is being hidden beneath.

[Ifreann]

Honestly, the kids should get their yearbooks refunded. Those were horrid edits. What purpose is there in airbrushing someone's chest so they look flatchested? That's not them anymore.

They really should get their money back. It looks like someone with very poor tech skills decided to have a bash with MS Paint.

The quality is utterly dreadful, and the edits themselves ridiculous: unlike the originals, which no-one would have given more than the polite glance you give others' photos, everyone will stare at the ludicrously obvious edits and quite easily imagine some obscene tattoo is being hidden beneath.

Mad how all these girls had swastika tattoos on their chests. Sounds like this school has some serious problems.

[Dakini]

The person who made the edits made the girls look bad because the edits were done badly and the fact that they were edited at all is a judgement of them, of course the girls are upset.

The general policing of women's and girl's bodies is also fucking disgusting and should stop.

[Ifreann]

The person who made the edits made the girls look bad because the edits were done badly and the fact that they were edited at all is a judgement of them, of course the girls are upset.

The general policing of women's and girl's bodies is also fucking disgusting and should stop.

No, but see, an inch and a half of cleavage in a yearbook picture will cause terrible problems because something something horny teenagers something something.

[Dakini]

The person who made the edits made the girls look bad because the edits were done badly and the fact that they were edited at all is a judgement of them, of course the girls are upset.

The general policing of women's and girl's bodies is also fucking disgusting and should stop.

No, but see, an inch and a half of cleavage in a yearbook picture will cause terrible problems because something something horny teenagers something something.

The adults who are sexualising a tiny bit of cleavage are more the problem here.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm really offended at the quality of the editing. Short staffed is no excuse - those edits are absolutely atroicous.

Oh, also, I don't think the photos were particularly racy - at least the ones they showed in the report. Busybody moralists on the loose again.

You didn’t get the memo? Teenage girls aren’t supposed to have breasts.

[Galloism]

I'm really offended at the quality of the editing. Short staffed is no excuse - those edits are absolutely atroicous.

Oh, also, I don't think the photos were particularly racy - at least the ones they showed in the report. Busybody moralists on the loose again.

You didn’t get the memo? Teenage girls aren’t supposed to have breasts.

Tbh I'm more offended at the quality of the photoshop.

Photoshop nothing. Looks like MS fucking Paint.

[The Black Forrest]

You didn’t get the memo? Teenage girls aren’t supposed to have breasts.

Tbh I'm more offended at the quality of the photoshop.

Photoshop nothing. Looks like MS fucking Paint.

Oh I know. Things with curves *coughs* take a little more effort. They just slapped images on top.

It’s the double standard. The boys in speedos are not immodest. Girls with cleavage…..

[Galloism]

Tbh I'm more offended at the quality of the photoshop.

Photoshop nothing. Looks like MS fucking Paint.

Oh I know. Things with curves *coughs* take a little more effort. They just slapped images on top.

It’s the double standard. The boys in speedos are not immodest. Girls with cleavage…..

Oh yes, that's stupid too.

But as a technician at heart, the really bad photoshop just sticks out to me real real bad. I can't hardly focus on the real issue because the photoshop is just no good very bad!

[Heloin]

Probably isn't helpful that my first two thoughts are "I knew people who went there" and "I could do a much better job photoshopping"

[The Blaatschapen]

The person who made the edits made the girls look bad because the edits were done badly and the fact that they were edited at all is a judgement of them, of course the girls are upset.

The general policing of women's and girl's bodies is also fucking disgusting and should stop.

No, but see, an inch and a half of cleavage in a yearbook picture will cause terrible problems because something something horny teenagers something something.

Please, I don't need cleavage to be horny.

Neither when I was a teenager, nor today.

[The Black Forrest]

Oh I know. Things with curves *coughs* take a little more effort. They just slapped images on top.

It’s the double standard. The boys in speedos are not immodest. Girls with cleavage…..

Oh yes, that's stupid too.

But as a technician at heart, the really bad photoshop just sticks out to me real real bad. I can't hardly focus on the real issue because the photoshop is just no good very bad!

Oh I understand. My wife use to use creative suite all the time. She is the same way.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

No, but see, an inch and a half of cleavage in a yearbook picture will cause terrible problems because something something horny teenagers something something.

The adults who are sexualising a tiny bit of cleavage are more the problem here.

Define "sexualizing."

Honestly, the kids should get their yearbooks refunded. Those were horrid edits. What purpose is there in airbrushing someone's chest so they look flatchested? That's not them anymore.

They really should get their money back. It looks like someone with very poor tech skills decided to have a bash with MS Paint.

The quality is utterly dreadful, and the edits themselves ridiculous: unlike the originals, which no-one would have given more than the polite glance you give others' photos, everyone will stare at the ludicrously obvious edits and quite easily imagine some obscene tattoo is being hidden beneath.

To a free speech absolutist, profanity would be just as protected by freedom of expression as showing cleavage. To many societies, it would be just as warranting of censorship. Offensive or inoffensive is a matter of opinion.

Quite frankly, I was never that worried about "scantily-clad attire" growing up. It's the fact that those who call it harmless tend to be the same people who were wrong about everything from the objectivity of their standards to the personal nature of those "policing" these sorts of things that makes me wonder if there's more to it than the average person realizes. Or maybe there isn't. :/

[Borderlands of Rojava]

People who focus this much on the breasts of teenage girls are beyond fucking sus. I'd want a full examination of their computer hard drives and last 5000 searches on Google if they're paying that much attention to the body of a kid.

I remember when I was in middle school our school decided to finally enforce its ban on girls wearing tights while also wearing a tank top (because the shirt doesn't go down far enough and cover those places). When they announced that they were reinforcing it and asked teachers to let students know, my US History teacher literally just said "We're just gonna go by the honors system here. I'm not gonna inspect each and every one of you, just don't wear tights," the thing normal people say because it's pretty weird if you're looking at a 13 year old's ass, no matter how much you claim it's "just to enforce the dress code."

[GuessTheAltAccount]

People who focus this much on the breasts of teenage girls are beyond fucking sus. I'd want a full examination of their computer hard drives and last 5000 searches on Google if they're paying that much attention to the body of a kid.

I remember when I was in middle school our school decided to finally enforce its ban on girls wearing tights while also wearing a tank top (because the shirt doesn't go down far enough and cover those places). When they announced that they were reinforcing it and asked teachers to let students know, my US History teacher literally just said "We're just gonna go by the honors system here. I'm not gonna inspect each and every one of you, just don't wear tights," the thing normal people say because it's pretty weird if you're looking at a 13 year old's ass, no matter how much you claim it's "just to enforce the dress code."

But it's not up to them. If they don't follow orders they can be replaced by someone who will.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The adults who are sexualising a tiny bit of cleavage are more the problem here.

Define "sexualizing."

When you're this focused on covering up 1 inch of cleaveage, it means you think there's something sexual about it. It also means you've spent an hour going through the yearbook staring at girl's tits while editing it, and I'm gonna have alot of questions for why you (the editor) has been staring at teenage boobs for that long.