Likewise. Maybe they were thinking, Surely this dipshit canât be serious!
It will be many years before our first (still in the oven) faces these sorts of twits. But woe be to the POS who tries this shit with any daughter of ours.
Iâm not dismissing the idea that this is a bad situation, but I think âheâs blindly following ordersâ is a different category of criticism than âheâs a pervertâ. One is a complaint lodged at a specific person who actions can (and should) ruin their career. The other is mostly an indictment of a stupid system, and should prompt a reasonable debate about whether the rule is appropriate. Generally the least helpful response is piling on the internet hate bandwagon (fun as the smug self-satisfaction might feel).
Wait, so if it is possible for you to engage in actions that make your skirt ride up, such that itâs above the limit, itâs not allowed? ANY SKIRT can be lifted up by some action to be more than 5 inches above the knee. This is literally allowing the administrators to send home ANY student wearing a skirt if they feel like it. It could be a floor-sweeping hippie skirt and the principal could say, âWell, if she gathered the material of the skirt in her hands until it was at her mid-thigh, it was no longer in compliance, so I had to send her home.â
âThere were at least 30 to 40 or more girls that were either sent home or told they needed to change because they were out of dress code. Some of them were wearing the same thing I was wearing,â said Durbin.
doesnât sound like she was being singled out. however this is a stupid rule, especially given that she was wearing leggings underneath. are leggings sans skirt ok? if so, leggings plus skirt should be ok too.
Oh câmon, the reason this article exists here is the implication of some kind of perverse impropriety. Look at the hot-button words that pop up in the other comments: âconsentâ, âcreepyâ, âBDSMâ, ârapeâ. Everyoneâs thinking the same thing. Just because the article title wasnât âthis man is a pervertâ doesnât mean thatâs not in the subtext, and ruining someoneâs reputation by subtly implying that theyâre a perv is just as bad as saying it overtly.
Iâm not saying people shouldnât be outraged (or mildly annoyed or whatever), but this isnât a rare dress code rule. It exists all over the country, and this is some shmuck whoâs probably applied the same kneeling test hundreds of times a year without ever once questioning it. All of a sudden this one time pops up on the internet radar for whatever reason and the implication is that heâs some skeevy lecher. Take it up with the school board if youâve got a problem, I just donât see what good it does to single out one dude.
SoâŚthey live in conservative Kentucky. They knew the dress code. Mom and Dad were present for said âmeasuringâ and didnât seem to be objecting.
Why did the kid wear a skirt that was above the knees in the first place?
We can discuss all we want the issue of whether or not the principal was right/wrong/a creep/just doing his jobâŚetc etc. Why did she and by extension her parents put her in that position in the first place. Just donât wear anything above the knee and you wonât have the situation. Or move. Or get on the school board and change the dress code. Or any other avenues that would NOT lead to this situation.
Whatâs always annoyed me about these kinds of rules is the fact that a lot of them are made with the stated intention of reducing disruptions. Fortunately, they didnât enforce the dress code much at my high school, but the rulebook stated that if my shirt was untucked or my facial hair was too long (without a qualifying measurement provided), it would be a disruption.
But enforcing the rules, especially sending someone home, seems like a helluva lot more of a disruption. Being too busy worrying about following rules instead of studying and doing your homework and being a regular, angsty teenager is a big disruption. The only thing these kids are learning is that rules are arbitrary and arbitrarily applied.
If she wore a tubetop and a miniskirt to school, I might be able to agree that she âshould have known better,â but did you look at the photo? She looks like sheâs dressed pretty damn conservatively to me. There should be zero tolerance for zero tolerance rules and if the official had discretion not to enforce it, he shouldnât have enforced it.
The great thing about rules is how they allow âleadersâ to abdicate any personal judgement and responsibility for their lack of leadership. All they have to do is enforce the rules without thought or reason. Thatâs why our leaders are failing us.
âŚsuggested an association between consenting adult BDSM play and this clearly non-consenting degradation of a minor. That association was what I was pushing back against. Simply put, adults into kink play arenât the same thing as pedo creepers. This disgrace may well be the latter. Associating him with the former is incorrect. Theyâre not the same thing.
To be clear, I donât assume you think they are. Youâre history hear suggests to me that your critical thinking skills are more than adequate to understand the distinction. It was the way you phrased your comment that I found somewhat problematical and meriting clarification, not your ethical stance.
Did anybody here see Compliance. Chilling doesnât even cover it.
And on the BDSM thing mentioned up the thread. BDSM with the unconsenting, well, âcreepyâ doesnât cover that either. A better term might be torture.