LogFAQs > #879346582

slacker03150 posted...

Fair point, but at the same time I don't see an issue with being asked to dress in a semi professional manner at a place of learning.

Provided the same thing is asked of everyone, sure, but the problem is a much broader societal one, wherein "fashionable" and "business casual" are pretty much the same thing for men, but very different things for women. You mention that girls can get loose, long shorts, but is that really a reasonable expectation when literally the only people suggesting that that's a good thing are the people writing school dress codes, and every other fashion-related opinion in their lives is suggesting that shorter and tighter options look better? It'd be one thing if we were talking about Daisy Dukes, but what this girl is wearing is widely considered to be a normal fit for girls' shorts.

That, and realistically, there's no point to demand "semi-professional dress" at school. All of that goes right out the window when dress codes go away in college, because students don't actually care or need to care.

slacker03150 posted...

For most people the hormones balance out after puberty so it isn't a big problem after, but ignoring that is it fair to make them learn on hard mode?

It's less the hormones balancing out and more getting accustomed to the new state of the hormones, part of which includes learning to pay attention despite boner. That is indeed a skill that needs to be developed, and putting the onus on boys to develop it themselves just makes sense.

slacker03150 posted...

considering most schools have a class specifically talking about how sex is healthy I don't see how the message that class time is work time is sending that message.

Because the rest of the time, they criticize anything that could incite sexual arousal, which sends the message that sexual arousal is bad and shameful. Doesn't really matter what they say in that one hour a week if the rest of the week is spent telling them not to feel such things. Also, I'd be very surprised if a school that would send a girl home for that has a sex-positive sex ed curriculum. That's far from universal, and a whole lot of school districts are still resisting the idea of teaching anything other than "if you have sex outside of marriage you will get pregnant and catch AIDS and you will die."

wwinterj25 posted...

Seems like you're projecting here buddy. We wasn't all horny, dumb teenagers.

And therein, you make the real point, which is that this issue is grossly overexaggerated. The vast majority of teenage boys are still capable of learning despite seeing a bit of cleavage or some tight pants. Those that are going to have their learning significantly impacted are the ones that don't have a sense of how to healthily handle their sexual arousal, and they are going to be aroused by pretty much anything out of the ordinary, whether that's shorts that are shorter than usual, or a burqa that's ridden up slightly to expose a bit more ankle than the other girls'. A dress code isn't going to help that. Talking to them about the trouble they're having is; dress codes are just a way to "address" the problem without ever having to actually talk about sex with the people having the problem (because talking about sex is so very bad, of course).
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.