No-ooo, but they do have the right to set rules for gatherings which they are hosting, surely?
What’s being described in this article is a pathetic and disgusting example of the way in which Catholicism (among other religions) shames both female sexuality in particular and sexuality in general, and I agree it’s a profoundly shitty thing to do to anyone, but you’re drawing a very dubious analogy here.
The prom is a private gathering hosted by a private organisation on their own property, and while the whole “modesty poncho” thing is a nauseating bit of public shaming, the existence of a dress code is not some kind of monstrous evil exclusive to “religious zealots”.
Or have you never been to a restaurant that will refuse to serve you if you aren’t wearing a tie?
No one’s saying the school doesn’t have the right to do this, but the rest of us have every right to mock administrators for their inability to let girls dress themselves.
Um, just on the desk panel bit. Its not for women only. As far as Ive seen, it gives the person sitting on the chair some privacy.
Typically used in banks/open offices, these provide a much needed barrier between the customer and the person on the chair.
Not for sexual pleasure (there were other kinds of woman for that) but for reproduction. The buyer wants to make sure that his bride is not already pregnant and that when she has children there is no possibility of anyone else being the father.
I might be wrong, but I would assume that Islamc schools simply don’t have events where biys and girls dance together. The very idea would be considered indecent.
Libertarianism seems to be founded on the assumption that only governments can be “oppressive”, and so it easily justifies oppression by private property owners.
Had they tried such a stunt at my school, I’m quite sure we would have been ‘sold out’ 5 minutes after the start of the prom Every girl would have wanted one for the suggestion of being a ‘hot babe’ underneath.
FTFY, just to make sure that Ayn-caps only get credited for distorting an idea beyond all recognition of it’s former self, and not for originally creating it.
Fair enough! I meant founded as in underpinned, not as in originally created (I guess those meanings are easy to equivocate between those two since they are metaphors to buildings which are much harder to replace the foundations of than philosophies).
I’m not a libertarian by any definition, but obviously there are a wide variety of ideas/philosophies that call themselves “libertarian” and not all are about people trying to burn down society so that they can sell the ashes.
Every girl would have wanted one for the suggestion of being a ‘hot babe’ underneath.