Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Aura

How would you implement a dress code?

Recommended Posts

In the case of a school, the modesty standards would be decided not by one person but by (I would hope) a group of people with generally similar standards. Again, in a private school, that's their prerogative. 

 

Modesty seems to be a particularly unpopular virtue in our culture. I personally don't see it differently than enforcing a standard of, say, only using kind and edifying speech in the classroom. Is that creepy and judgey, too? Both are Biblical concepts, and this is a Christian school.

 

IDK, I'm surrounded by non-creepy and non-(at least outwardly)-judgey Amish and Mennonite Christians, so a dress code for modesty is not really a foreign concept to me.  :)

 

The school is certainly free to set their own standard.

 

I don't think modesty is an unpopular virtue, I think it is misunderstood.  You can't use leggings to tell if someone is modest.  It cannot be measured by the length of the skirt or the give in the pants.  I think it's creepy to do so, because what it's really doing is making something sexual that isn't.

 

I think there are quite a few people, both in and out of Amish and Mennonite groups who would find their practices creepy and judgey.  YMMV.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's ridiculous that people misuse and misunderstand the actual meaning of Biblical modesty.  It doesn't mean don't wear tight clothing.

 

If you're referring to the "modesty verses," I believe they deal largely but not exclusively with avoiding pridefulness and the flaunting of wealth. However, I also believe Scripture speaks to the issue of tight or suggestive clothing. I've shared my views on that at length before and have no desire to argue about it. I do avoid form-fitting clothing for myself and my daughter, and I'm a-okay with you thinking that's ridiculous.  ;)

 

I think it's ridiculous that a school is wanting a dress code that is modesty-based in theory and the parents are trying to make it not-modesty-based in practice.

 

I agree that it doesn't seem logical. 

 

Besides the fact that if the parents don't agree with the modesty-based rules why are they sending their children there?

 

I whole-heartedly agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think modesty is an unpopular virtue, I think it is misunderstood.  You can't use leggings to tell if someone is modest.  It cannot be measured by the length of the skirt or the give in the pants.  I think it's creepy to do so, because what it's really doing is making something sexual that isn't.

 

Curious, do you think any clothing designed to be sexually suggestive (outside of lingerie, which obviously is)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are quite a few people, both in and out of Amish and Mennonite groups who would find their practices creepy and judgey.  YMMV.

 

Perhaps. I personally have more issues with the Amish church than with Mennonite ones, but in general, I've not met a kinder, more loving, more servant-minded group of people than conservative Anabaptists. Others may have had different experiences. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, do you think any clothing designed to be sexually suggestive (outside of lingerie, which obviously is)?

 

I guess?

 

Makeup is actually designed to be sexually suggestive - particularly lipstick which is supposed to make the wearer seem aroused.  Maybe that should be banned from schools, too - in students & adult employees as well.

 

The vast majority of children are not attempting to be sexual in their clothing choices, even leggings or tight pants.  It is creepy to make it so and simply reinforces the hyper-focus on female figures as something to be ashamed of.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks, 8circles. I guess I would just say that as someone who does value modesty, I have never thought of the female body as something to be ashamed of. Quite to the contrary.

 

Thanks for the discussion.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess?

 

Makeup is actually designed to be sexually suggestive - particularly lipstick which is supposed to make the wearer seem aroused.  Maybe that should be banned from schools, too - in students & adult employees as well.

 

The vast majority of children are not attempting to be sexual in their clothing choices, even leggings or tight pants.  It is creepy to make it so and simply reinforces the hyper-focus on female figures as something to be ashamed of.

 

Really? Makeup?

 

Hmm...all these years, I've been using it to make my very pale face look like I actually had features. Who knew that wanting to have visible lips means I'm trying to look like I'm aroused.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks, 8circles. I guess I would just say that as someone who does value modesty, I have never thought of the female body as something to be ashamed of. Quite to the contrary.

 

Thanks for the discussion.  :)

 

As someone who is naturally well-endowed and hourglass-shaped, I can assure you that efforts to hide my figure despite how physically uncomfortable or restricting those efforts sent the message loud and clear that my body was not acceptable.  I've been told many times that not hiding my natural curves was something to be ashamed of.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

have you actually done that on yourself or on a teen female? Because that's actually quite a short skirt. I don't think I have unreasonably short arms, and that would not be a skirt I'd wear to an office.....

 

 

Yes I have done it. Personally, my professional clothes touch my knee (not that I have to wear them often). We aren't talking about professionals, though. We are talking about children and teens in a school environment. When my son went to school for K-2, that was the standard they used. It's much better than measuring inseams because it takes proportion into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who is naturally well-endowed and hourglass-shaped, I can assure you that efforts to hide my figure despite how physically uncomfortable or restricting those efforts sent the message loud and clear that my body was not acceptable.  I've been told many times that not hiding my natural curves was something to be ashamed of.

 

I'm sorry you were made to feel that your body was not acceptable.  :(  I certainly don't think clothing needs to hide the fact that we are women. I personally want to look feminine, and I think that's a good thing. I think a Scriptural argument for avoiding suggestive clothing can be made, but should be done so carefully and with tact. I don't think telling someone they should be ashamed of their clothing choices is productive or kind.

Edited by MercyA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see HOT.

But I live in Texas.

And white? Like baseball pants, a nightmare for moms or whomever's doing the laundry. Hogwarts robes are black and easier to hide stains.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you actually done that on yourself or on a teen female? Because that's actually quite a short skirt. I don't think I have unreasonably short arms, and that would not be a skirt I'd wear to an office.....

 

 

 

I have a long torso and normal arms and a fingertip length skirt would be indecent on me! My undies would be very visible. 

 

I went to a private school through 8th grade that had a very reasonable dress code. 

 

K-6th grade - no jeans, no ripped anything, shirts had to be tucked in or worn with a sweater over them. No sweatshirts, sweatpants, etc. 

 

6-8th grade - khaki, navy blue or gray pants or skirts, collared (polo or button down) shirt tucked in. Blazers on certain days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To find it creepy for a male teacher to enforce a "modesty" dress code on female students acknowledges that such a code inherently sexualizes the situation. The same goal could be reached by emphasizing that school is to be a somewhat more formal, business-like environment. Plenty of workplaces maintain standards of dress without heavy sexual overtones.

  

 

The difference is a standard of dress in the workplace does not sound like being female-shaped is evil, rather it is more about the more formal style or higher quality of clothing.

 

 

I guess?

 

Makeup is actually designed to be sexually suggestive - particularly lipstick which is supposed to make the wearer seem aroused.  Maybe that should be banned from schools, too - in students & adult employees as well.

 

The vast majority of children are not attempting to be sexual in their clothing choices, even leggings or tight pants.  It is creepy to make it so and simply reinforces the hyper-focus on female figures as something to be ashamed of.

Oh my goodness. Lipstick-SERIOUSLY? Maybe long long ago in certain cultures or professions, but I do not know a single female who has EVER worn lipstick to mimic arousal.

 

  

As someone who is naturally well-endowed and hourglass-shaped, I can assure you that efforts to hide my figure despite how physically uncomfortable or restricting those efforts sent the message loud and clear that my body was not acceptable.  I've been told many times that not hiding my natural curves was something to be ashamed of.

Yes, this. 😡 I truly have zero issues with dress codes until they seem to target shapely girls. My girl who is a AA-minus could have a shirt open to her waist and not show cleavage, and DD (pun intended) couldn't hide it with a turtleneck. B-girl is sporty and athletic and literally no one noticed if she had b00ks or not.

 

Where dress codes based on modesty go downhill for me is when they talk about how "Girls shouldn't distract boys." Ummmm no. Not OK. Draw lines if you must, such as no skin showing between collarbone and kneecap, shirts must have sleeves, fine. But when clothing is judged by what some random boy might like, it's creepy. Because ANYTHING can be a turn-on for anyone.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice is based on dealing with my dd's high school, which would not implement a uniform because they wanted to treat the kids like adults and which then spent four years harassing parents because their kids showed up to school in wildly inappropriate clothing.

 

Require a uniform. It will make everyone's life easier. If it's khakis and a polo, make sure that "business casual style" is spelled out. It's not business casual to wear skin-tight pants and shirts.

 

You can go a step further and require all uniform clothing to be purchased from one supplier. Specify one which inventory items are acceptable.

Edited by Haiku
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is about modesty.

I disagree. My husband's company has a dress code. He is expected to wear business attire most days. Fridays are business casual. It's not about modesty. It's about maintaining a professional atmosphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice is based on dealing with my dd's high school, which would not implement a uniform because they wanted to treat the kids like adults and which then spent four years harassing parents because their kids showed up to school in wildly inappropriate clothing.

 

Require a uniform. It will make everyone's life easier. If it's khakis and a polo, make sure that "business casual style" is spelled out. It's not business casual to wear skin-tight pants and shirts.

 

You can go a step further and require all uniform clothing to be purchased from one supplier. Specify one which inventory items are acceptable.

Where is it "not business casual to wear skin tight pants and shirts"???

 

I'm in urban Canada, and that is absolutely the most common form of "business casual" right now. Leggings and skinny jeans with dressy tops is the most common look. Almost all blouses, t's and turtlenecks are fitted skinny and/or stretched on unless the woman is over 50. Dresses are definitely slinky (tight fitting) though not mini.

 

There are other 'looks' of course: some of them much more flowy... But, a tight fit is really really common.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you actually done that on yourself or on a teen female? Because that's actually quite a short skirt. I don't think I have unreasonably short arms, and that would not be a skirt I'd wear to an office.....

 

 

 

To me, fingertip length is about the difference between a short skirt, and an inappropriate skirt.  I personally wouldn't wear a skirt that short, but it's a pretty popular length, at least at the high school where I teach.  

 

Of course, there are some people with particularly long torsos who might prefer a longer skirt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is it "not business casual to wear skin tight pants and shirts"???

 

I'm in urban Canada, and that is absolutely the most common form of "business casual" right now. Leggings and skinny jeans with dressy tops is the most common look. Almost all blouses, t's and turtlenecks are fitted skinny and/or stretched on unless the woman is over 50. Dresses are definitely slinky (tight fitting) though not mini.

 

There are other 'looks' of course: some of them much more flowy... But, a tight fit is really really common.

 

Well, where I live, for starters. Jeans are not business casual. My husband has worked for four different companies since we have been married (he works in computers), and none of them have considered jeans business casual. For men, it's khaki-type pants and polo or button-down shirts. For women it's similar, or a more casual skirt ensemble than a skirt suit. When I visit my husband's company, I do not see women in skinny, stretched, or slinky clothing ... and my husband does not work for some staid, buttoned-up corporation. The people in his department are artsy types and he's among the older people in the department, in his early 40s. (Most days my husband wears dress pants, a button-down shirt, and a bow-tie to work. If he has a meeting with execs from the parent company, he wears a suit coat. He wears business casual on Fridays.) His boss, who is a woman, usually wears a knee-length skirt and a cotton top or blouse that is not form-fitting on business-casual days.

 

When I go to companies or corporations that are not retail businesses, I do not see employees in jeans or skin-tight clothing.

 

When I was recently a volunteer at Hospice, we were given a "business casual" dress code that specifically stated that jeans, baggy clothing, and tight clothing did not qualify.

 

My son's hockey team was told this year to dress in "business casual." His coach would have a heart attack if they showed up in jeans. (Keep in mind that pro hockey players, and even those in the minors and juniors, wear suits to their games. Many teams in my son's age group do, also. It's a hockey thing.)

 

Jeans are not business casual around here.

 

A tight fit may be common for casual clothing, but business casual is not the same as casual.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Maybe naked underneath?

 

But that would bring its own problems... :)

 

Dress codes are such a pain. So necessary, not only in schools but also in other places, but really annoying.

I disagree that they are necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is a standard of dress in the workplace does not sound like being female-shaped is evil, rather it is more about the more formal style or higher quality of clothing.

 

Oh my goodness. Lipstick-SERIOUSLY? Maybe long long ago in certain cultures or professions, but I do not know a single female who has EVER worn lipstick to mimic arousal.

  

 

Yes, this. 😡 I truly have zero issues with dress codes until they seem to target shapely girls. My girl who is a AA-minus could have a shirt open to her waist and not show cleavage, and DD (pun intended) couldn't hide it with a turtleneck. B-girl is sporty and athletic and literally no one noticed if she had b00ks or not.

Where dress codes based on modesty go downhill for me is when they talk about how "Girls shouldn't distract boys." Ummmm no. Not OK. Draw lines if you must, such as no skin showing between collarbone and kneecap, shirts must have sleeves, fine. But when clothing is judged by what some random boy might like, it's creepy. Because ANYTHING can be a turn-on for anyone.

  

Really? Makeup?

 

Hmm...all these years, I've been using it to make my very pale face look like I actually had features. Who knew that wanting to have visible lips means I'm trying to look like I'm aroused.

Just wanted to clarify, I'm not suggesting that makeup be banned from schools or that people actually use it to make themselves look aroused. I'm saying that's originally why it was done. That's what makeup as we k ow it was for. So in the same way that clothing can be used in a suggestive way, so can makeup. It's much more obvious how silly it is in the makeup example but the same is true for clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is it "not business casual to wear skin tight pants and shirts"???

 

I'm in urban Canada, and that is absolutely the most common form of "business casual" right now. Leggings and skinny jeans with dressy tops is the most common look. Almost all blouses, t's and turtlenecks are fitted skinny and/or stretched on unless the woman is over 50. Dresses are definitely slinky (tight fitting) though not mini.

 

There are other 'looks' of course: some of them much more flowy... But, a tight fit is really really common.

 

That would be "casual" here. Business casual is khaki slacks with a polo shirt or button down. In the winter a pullover or cardigan sweater can be added. People often have a jacket in their offices to throw on if they have a meeting. 

 

Casual is jeans, nice shorts, polo shirts. No t-shirts. I don't think leggings are appropriate for my husbands company unless there is a skirt over them, in which case, why not just wear tights? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I would not equate business casual with casual.  It's true that at the moment, silouettes in general are slimmer, but generally leggings as pants aren't going to fly in my urban Canadian town for business casual.  Slim cut pants, quite possibly yes, leggings, no.  Jeans, no. 

 

I think actually that for middle or high school kids, business casual is a good guideline - clothing might be less formal - I would not expect them to wear a suit - but in terms of whether something is appropriate for the office, yes.  There was a controversy near me last year about a girl who was upset because she was told her maxi-dress was outside the school guidelines, because it was backless.  Sure, probably the line could have been in a slightly different place, but generally, backless clothing is not considered appropriate for an office workplace, at least without a sweater or cover, and distinctions that are too individualized are difficult to deal with in a group.

 

Most people seem to have some sense of what is appropriate office wear, and don't feel odd about enforcing it in that context, so I don't see why schools would not make use of that awareness. 

 

About modesty and sexualization - I don't think we should shy away from that being an aspect of school dress codes, or the fact that it more often applies to girls.  And that doesn't mean that anyone is wearing particular items with the express idea of being sexual, or that sexuality is wrong.  Our culture, however,  does sexualize girls in a way it doesn't with boys, to an extent that is not particularly healthy, and the clothing choices available and popular can be very much part of that.  There is not much difference IMO between totally covering girls up to the eyeballs because we want to say they are sexually dangerous beings, and a culture that reduces them to sexual objects, including through clothing and fashion.  Both say they are sexual objects in one way or another.

 

Adults at least are more likely to be really aware of these implications and pressures and so choose their clothing with some self-awareness, but there are still places - like many workplaces -  where it isn't considered appropriate to wear things that are very sexualizing.  With schools, not only can the pressures be more significant for the students, and the self-awareness of the students less developed (that is, they may not always really understand what the social implications of the popular choices are), but I would say that like a professional environment, it just isn't the appropriate place for that to be the focus.  And I would argue that it isn't bad and can be a relief for the female students to be protected to some extent from having to compete in that way, and the male students are probably better off not to have an environment where girl's sexuality is constantly emphasized as so very important.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

 

The difference is a standard of dress in the workplace does not sound like being female-shaped is evil, rather it is more about the more formal style or higher quality of clothing.

 

 

 

Oh my goodness. Lipstick-SERIOUSLY? Maybe long long ago in certain cultures or professions, but I do not know a single female who has EVER worn lipstick to mimic arousal.

 

  

Yes, this. 😡 I truly have zero issues with dress codes until they seem to target shapely girls. My girl who is a AA-minus could have a shirt open to her waist and not show cleavage, and DD (pun intended) couldn't hide it with a turtleneck. B-girl is sporty and athletic and literally no one noticed if she had b00ks or not.

 

Where dress codes based on modesty go downhill for me is when they talk about how "Girls shouldn't distract boys." Ummmm no. Not OK. Draw lines if you must, such as no skin showing between collarbone and kneecap, shirts must have sleeves, fine. But when clothing is judged by what some random boy might like, it's creepy. Because ANYTHING can be a turn-on for anyone.

 

It isn't that anyone has to consciously think "oh, wow, this colour red makes me look so aroused."

 

It's more - why do we tend to find certain looks attractive?  Why highlight lip colour, at all?  Or plump up lips?  Why emphasize eyes, or why do professional photos of attractive people tend to show them with dilated pupils?  Why have women in a anumber of cultures tended to removal of body hair to a greater extent than men?  Why do men's fashions in many cases emphasize certain, often different, things?

 

That sort of thing doesn't have to be done very consciously for it to appeal and work. 

 

I think "girls shouldn't distract boys" should really be described differently - more that, school isn't a place where too much emphasis is placed on girls as sexual objects.  That isn't so much about what any particular boy finds attractive, but the overall social environment and how it values women.  More concretely though, schools where the sexual tension is very high don't seem to be good learning environments, if for no other reason that it can consume a lot of the kids attention.  At that age it's somewhat inevitable that it will be an issue, but I can't see any reason to make it something that is really a significant part of the social scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've worn a uniform (in public school ugh wth) and had to recently purchase one for my son. They did not specify "tight" or anything like that at his school. They were very laid back about it. Just said the color of the slacks. Standard stuff -- no cargo pockets. And worn with a belt so obviously you need belt loops. There were some requirements for footwear as well. In fact I have yet to see anything in writing, it was all verbally told to me. There might be a dress code in writing somewhere.

 

I don't think tightness was addressed at my public school, either. But I do think something was available in writing probably.

 

Uniform pants, depending on where you get them, aren't any more expensive in my personal experience. I just ordered ds some pants & shorts from Academy Sports and got two pairs for what some might pay for one. Granted, not all their pants were as cheap as the ones I got. I am very happy with the quality and I got the pants with the reinforced knees. They had polos for $3.99 each but I got some from walmart.com as well.

 

I would be highly upset if uniforms were free for one group but not another. Whether it was a group of girls vs boys or group of brunettes vs blondes or whatever. Just no.

 

ETA: oops I didn't realize the girls had to buy uniform pants from one place that was expensive in a previous post. Also editing to say that while I didn't spend tons of money so far, I don't know how fast ds will outgrown or damage clothing and when I was a student it was a huge burden because they switched to uniforms right before my junior year. In my case I needed new shoes since I often wore tennis shoes and those were not allowed. I felt bad for my parents having to spend all that money on new clothes when I already had clothes/shoes that I'd been wearing to school. 

Edited by heartlikealion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see HOT.

But I live in Texas.

You could just wearing swimming togs underneath.

 

My youngest has a uniform - black cargo pants and shoes plus the school logo polo shirt and sweatshirt in winter (the girls wear skirts and tights) and the same tops but cargo shorts and black sandals in the summer. My oldest has no uniform - clothes aren't supposed to show the stomach and gangsta style dress is prohibited but they are pretty relaxed. Non uniform is cheaper and more flexible. If they want to be fussy a basic uniform or set of options is probably easier than a dress code.

 

Eta. Strapless or spaghetti straps are not usually permitted in New Zealand because of skin cancer rates and all schools insist kids wear hats outside from about September to April and specify style in most cases.

Edited by kiwik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a private high school. Our daily dress code was...

 

Boys- khaki type pants, belts, button down shirt, tie, blazer.

 

Girls - skirts or dresses to the knee when kneeling, shirt with collar, sweaters or blazers. During the winter (it was New England!) We could wear dress pants with a structured blazer and normal collared shirt rule.

 

General rule - Neat. Clean. Appropriately sized.

 

It wasn't a big deal. You just dress appropriately. There were one or two kids who pushed it.

 

I've also seen the English and Irish school uniforms. I'm a huge fan. I think we're often way too informal in the U.S..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask why people keep saying the skirt was measured kneeling? Wouldn't "to the knee" still be "to the knee" when standing? Having the girl kneel just adds a level of creepy, and I don't see how it is different than when standing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're often way too informal in the U.S..

 

I agree. I don't think there is anything wrong with treating different environments differently and having different expectations of dress for them. Personally, I see school as a more formal environment than everyday hanging out, and I think it is good when the people attending dress to reflect that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I hate the whole idea anyway. When you are a kid is the only time you will probably ever be able to wear weird clothes, have blue spiked hair, and crazy make up. When you are an adult and in the business world, then you can dress like you are in the business world. Kids shouldn't have to dress and act like adults. 

 

I know they say it promotes an educational environment and prevents distraction, but I think kids are smart enough to learn their math even if their hair is spiked up or the girl next to them is wearing a tank top. I really really do. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask why people keep saying the skirt was measured kneeling? Wouldn't "to the knee" still be "to the knee" when standing? Having the girl kneel just adds a level of creepy, and I don't see how it is different than when standing. 

 

This is often a Catholic school thing (says my dh who went to Catholic school from K through BA), and it's just because the girls spent a lot of time kneeling in church. It was an easy metric to apply at a glance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I hate the whole idea anyway. When you are a kid is the only time you will probably ever be able to wear weird clothes, have blue spiked hair, and crazy make up. When you are an adult and in the business world, then you can dress like you are in the business world. Kids shouldn't have to dress and act like adults. 

 

I know they say it promotes an educational environment and prevents distraction, but I think kids are smart enough to learn their math even if their hair is spiked up or the girl next to them is wearing a tank top. I really really do. 

 

Adults spend a lot of their time not dressed for work. Kids spend a lot of time not dressed for school. It's not an either/or.

 

And having had my kid in a school where the students were dressed really, really inappropriately (for example, a skirt in which you could clearly see that the girl was wearing a thong or a pair of jeans sagged so low you could see the butt crack), I disagree that what the students are wearing doesn't affect learning. The kids were distracted by their peers' attire.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the really tight clothes thing - if a uniform mandates a particular style of pants or shirts, the only way they are likely to be too tight is if they are too small.  That isn't likely to be flattering or comfortable, so I think it would reduce purposfully wearing such things fairly significantly.  No one looks good with too big thighs wedged into slacks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Makeup?

 

Hmm...all these years, I've been using it to make my very pale face look like I actually had features. Who knew that wanting to have visible lips means I'm trying to look like I'm aroused.

 

Well, I heard something about lipstick that was similar to what a pp said, but a little different. I don't think about that when I see people wearing makeup, but supposedly it represents another part of female anatomy. This link is not where I originally heard that, though.

 

http://femininecollective.com/8-truths-about-lipstick-that-you-might-not-know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Makeup is actually designed to be sexually suggestive - particularly lipstick which is supposed to make the wearer seem aroused.  Maybe that should be banned from schools, too - in students & adult employees as well.

 

 

 

I have never heard that one before........... guess I better scrub off my makeup before I go out today. Seriously, that's just crazy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked goggle images for 'business causal women' -- and I see that you are right that jeans, not even skinny formal ones, are not included in most places. (There's probably a good reason they are ok here. We have a 'cowboy' tone to our culture overall.) But, I saw a ton of other skinny, slinky, and form-fitting items, including leggings. I saw plenty of pull-over tops that I would call 't-shirts' -- though not normal t-shirts, they are more fancy in style. Is there another word for not-a-blouse, not-a-sweater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not crazy to suggest that makeup mimics the biology of arrousal. It's pretty obvious. That's not why *I* wear it, but it *is* the fundamental reason why it functionally 'makes me look more attractive'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not crazy to suggest that makeup mimics the biology of arrousal. It's pretty obvious. That's not why *I* wear it, but it *is* the fundamental reason why it functionally 'makes me look more attractive'.

 

YES.  & I'll say again, because I feel like people are misunderstanding me.  I'm not suggesting anyone does this consciously nor do I think it is a problem - it isn't what I'm thinking of when I put on my makeup and I'm not anti-makeup.  I mentioned it in response to the question about clothing that is meant to look sexy.  Or something like that.

 

This is something I've both read about and seen mentioned in documentaries, both historical & scientific.  Feel free to research it if you don't believe me & I'm happy to be corrected. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adults spend a lot of their time not dressed for work. Kids spend a lot of time not dressed for school. It's not an either/or.

 

And having had my kid in a school where the students were dressed really, really inappropriately (for example, a skirt in which you could clearly see that the girl was wearing a thong or a pair of jeans sagged so low you could see the butt crack), I disagree that what the students are wearing doesn't affect learning. The kids were distracted by their peers' attire.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm not against a "underwear shouldn't show type dress code. I think my school had a minimal one..shorts to the fingertips, no tube tops (they could be easily lost), no midfriffs to avoid them riding up, and closed toe shoes so no one stepped on your foot. 

 

But things like no logos, solid colors, no hair that is distracting, etc drive me crazy. Belts? Why on earth do you need a belt on to learn algebra? You don't. I can say for sure I was more distracted wearing clothes that I felt made me look frumpy and ugly than I would have been to sit next to someone that had, gasp, a logo on their shirt. 

 

Like I said, i'm still traumatized from the one year I spent in a school with a strict dress code. I lost time for education because teachers were policing clothes rather than teaching. This school had rules like shirts had to have a collar (I look AWFUL in polo shirts...I still don't wear them), belts, tucked in shirts (awful on an apple shape), and socks with your shoes. And of course, logos had to be smaller than a certain size, etc which led to getting out rulers to measure freaking logos. THAT is a distraction from education, not the actual logo. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just wearing swimming togs underneath.

 

My youngest has a uniform - black cargo pants and shoes plus the school logo polo shirt and sweatshirt in winter (the girls wear skirts and tights) and the same tops but cargo shorts and black sandals in the summer. My oldest has no uniform - clothes aren't supposed to show the stomach and gangsta style dress is prohibited but they are pretty relaxed. Non uniform is cheaper and more flexible. If they want to be fussy a basic uniform or set of options is probably easier than a dress code.

 

Eta. Strapless or spaghetti straps are not usually permitted in New Zealand because of skin cancer rates and all schools insist kids wear hats outside from about September to April and specify style in most cases.

 

I was looking more at the long sleeves, though of course layers would add to it as well. We wear long sleeved shirts into the pool for the sun coverage but it is hotter. Bearable because of the whole water thing. But I can see kids being very uncomfortable walking around hallways, playing outside, etc. in those robes.

 

My kids do not wear strapless or spaghetti straps either. I wish they had to wear hats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being teased (and witnessing others being teased, which was also horrible) for wearing the generic or off-brand version of popular styles. School would have been a much pleasanter place had we all been dressed the same.

 

I feel like adults who advocate kids wearing pretty much whatever they want to school either never experienced personally or have forgotten how much kids get fixated on clothing and who is wearing the right brands. It's part of what happens when large groups of kids are confined together.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Adults spend a lot of their time not dressed for work. Kids spend a lot of time not dressed for school. It's not an either/or.

 

And having had my kid in a school where the students were dressed really, really inappropriately (for example, a skirt in which you could clearly see that the girl was wearing a thong or a pair of jeans sagged so low you could see the butt crack), I disagree that what the students are wearing doesn't affect learning. The kids were distracted by their peers' attire.

I call shenanigans. A girl willing to distract the students by showing a thong is going to find a way to be distracting in anything. And, affect learning?? Really? "Gosh, Mom, I had an A in that class until that girl wore that skirt." Bologna.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I remember being teased (and witnessing others being teased, which was also horrible) for wearing the generic or off-brand version of popular styles. School would have been a much pleasanter place had we all been dressed the same.

 

I feel like adults who advocate kids wearing pretty much whatever they want to school either never experienced personally or have forgotten how much kids get fixated on clothing and who is wearing the right brands. It's part of what happens when large groups of kids are confined together.

The issue here is bullying, not generic clothes. Bullies will find something to pick on.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People always say that uniforms help everyone fit in, but I don't know. I mean you could still probably find some way to be a jerk if you don't have to buy the uniforms from the same place. Oh this person got their khakis at Wal-Mart vs. XYZ store. This person has an expensive belt while others do not. This person has nicer shoes. That person has a cheap backpack. One person has hand me down uniforms, while another has brand new. Then of course there is teasing that goes beyond clothing/accessories. You have a funny name. You have an awful hair cut. Your overbite is huge. Etc. Kids are jerks.

 

I wore regular clothes for 9th and 10th grade. Then we switched to uniforms so I wore that for 11th and 12th grade. I don't know that bullying really changed. Personally I was teased about other things non-clothing specific so I may have a different perception.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being teased (and witnessing others being teased, which was also horrible) for wearing the generic or off-brand version of popular styles. School would have been a much pleasanter place had we all been dressed the same.

 

I feel like adults who advocate kids wearing pretty much whatever they want to school either never experienced personally or have forgotten how much kids get fixated on clothing and who is wearing the right brands. It's part of what happens when large groups of kids are confined together.

A dress code doesn't fix this though. Most still allow small enough logos, so you can still see who has walmart brand and who has name brands. The ONLY fix for this is a uniform,where everyone has to buy from the same supplier. I would be more in favor of that then dress codes that complicate things without fixing them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people who are so drop dead gorgeous that they're super distracting no matter WHAT they're wearing. No amount of stuffing them in a boring uniform will make them stop being drool worthy or distracting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people who are so drop dead gorgeous that they're super distracting no matter WHAT they're wearing. No amount of stuffing them in a boring uniform will make them stop being drool worthy or distracting. 

 

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call shenanigans. A girl willing to distract the students by showing a thong is going to find a way to be distracting in anything. And, affect learning?? Really? "Gosh, Mom, I had an A in that class until that girl wore that skirt." Bologna.

 

You are vastly oversimplifying the issue. When a school is dealing with a bunch of kids dressed inappropriately, it is distracting to the students in general. There were kids in my dd's school who dressed outrageously and were not shy in broadcasting that it was to push to limits. A strict dress code or uniform would have been way more effective than a series of increasingly more hysterical missives from the school to the parents.

 

I'm an advocate of uniforms (or strict dress codes). Other people aren't. I get that.

 

But then again, I homeschool my kids because no matter how you "dress up" a school (literally and figuratively), they are still schools with problems I'm not willing to deal with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People always say that uniforms help everyone fit in, but I don't know. I mean you could still probably find some way to be a jerk if you don't have to buy the uniforms from the same place. Oh this person got their khakis at Wal-Mart vs. XYZ store. This person has an expensive belt while others do not. This person has nicer shoes. That person has a cheap backpack. One person has hand me down uniforms, while another has brand new. Then of course there is teasing that goes beyond clothing/accessories. You have a funny name. You have an awful hair cut. Your overbite is huge. Etc. Kids are jerks.

 

I wore regular clothes for 9th and 10th grade. Then we switched to uniforms so I wore that for 11th and 12th grade. I don't know that bullying really changed. Personally I was teased about other things non-clothing specific so I may have a different perception.

 

And, as ktgrok mentioned upthread, some uniform items are not flattering on certain body types. A bully who wants to be a jerk is going to pick up on that, too. Jerks are going to be jerks, and requiring uniforms/strict dress codes isn't going to change that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband wore a uniform from K-12th grade except for one semester of 9th grade when he tried out public school. I asked him what he thinks of uniforms.

 

He said, "It's easier to get dressed for school, and it made us feel like more of a community. The kids at public school fussed too much about their clothes. I didn't understand it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...