I'm pro-dress codes in schools, as in the rules that prohibit booty shorts and skimpy tank tops etc. I think policing prom attire is silly. The difference is the purpose of the kids' presence - one is learning, the other is a party.

I'm also a parent of boys, and a wild-eyed feminist, who is routinely horrified by the skimpy stuff that young girls and women wear. Still, I don't think it merits administrative oversight at events outside school. If female students want to look like prostitutes at prom, that's their choice.

Ho coming. That's why a dress code exists. Don't like it, don't go.

This is not something new. The schools had to take action because a few don't excuse me WON'T do rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agreed. Some of the girls at Homecoming last year could hardly sit down because their dresses were so short their crotches were exposed. Why is there any argument that aside from going to work in the sex industry, it isn't a good idea to wear dresses that expose your crotch, even if you're not anywhere near boys?

So don't wear a dress like that, and don't allow your daughters (if you have any) to wear dresses like that. There, done.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm still not sure why people think it's ok, or empowering even, to encourage young women (or men, but that seems like far less of a problem) to expose their private parts in public.

Please note the difference between "why are school principals passing judgment on the length of girls' skirts?" and "girls, wear really short skirts, yay!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know about you, but I find the idea of the school principal (or whoever) inspecting photos of my teenage daughter for exposed skin to be kind of skeevy. Not to mention a waste of public money.

But it's fine if she wears the dress so that the whole world can see her exposed skin? lol

People who have a say in this:

1. Her parents
2. Her

People who don't have a say in this:

1. School administrators
2. You
3. Lots of other people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing that in your hometown someone showed up inone of those skanky trashy homecoming dresses that look like a stripper picked it out.

As I tell my kids, stupid school rules are usually the result of A) someone's really stupid action B) Someone getting hurt C) A pita complaining or D) a combination of the three.

Stupid school rules are the result of school administrators making stupid rules. School administrators were not forced to make this rule. A skimpy dress is a skimpy dress, not a gun to the head.

Nope.

Running a school (or any other kids activity) is like organizing a wedding with 2000 mother in laws, each with different ideas on how things should be done.

This rule is a result of trampy mom who things a sexy tramp dress is a great idea for her 14 year old daughter to wow everyone at homecoming.

I bet the dress that sparked this rule was a doozy.

And this forced the school administrators to make a stupid rule because...?

Likely the skanky-ness is ripe at that high school and they uad to shut it down somehow.

Apparently, skanky-ness is the new female empowerment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing that in your hometown someone showed up inone of those skanky trashy homecoming dresses that look like a stripper picked it out.

As I tell my kids, stupid school rules are usually the result of A) someone's really stupid action B) Someone getting hurt C) A pita complaining or D) a combination of the three.

Stupid school rules are the result of school administrators making stupid rules. School administrators were not forced to make this rule. A skimpy dress is a skimpy dress, not a gun to the head.

Nope.

Running a school (or any other kids activity) is like organizing a wedding with 2000 mother in laws, each with different ideas on how things should be done.

This rule is a result of trampy mom who things a sexy tramp dress is a great idea for her 14 year old daughter to wow everyone at homecoming.

I bet the dress that sparked this rule was a doozy.

Agreed. Some of the girls at Homecoming last year could hardly sit down because their dresses were so short their crotches were exposed. Why is there any argument that aside from going to work in the sex industry, it isn't a good idea to wear dresses that expose your crotch, even if you're not anywhere near boys?

How is this any different than the Hs girls wearing shorts that are so short their butt cheeks are visible? I bet the dress covers more.

it's not any different. None of it should be allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Dress" as in a dress, or "dress" as in elegant clothes?

The former is not usually meant to apply to boys and also does not apply to skimpy tops and bottoms girls might wear, so it's too narrow.

The latter at least targets everybody. But it's still stupid. I would send in a photo of a ridiculous outfit and come dressed in my real dress.

No way they're asking the boys to send in a picture of their suits to make sure they're dressed elegantly for the occasion.

I have a feeling the issue isn't about elegance, more about students wearing attire that is too revealing.

I don't know about you, but I find the idea of the school principal (or whoever) inspecting photos of my teenage daughter for exposed skin to be kind of skeevy. Not to mention a waste of public money.

But it's fine if she wears the dress so that the whole world can see her exposed skin? lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agreed. Some of the girls at Homecoming last year could hardly sit down because their dresses were so short their crotches were exposed. Why is there any argument that aside from going to work in the sex industry, it isn't a good idea to wear dresses that expose your crotch, even if you're not anywhere near boys?

So don't wear a dress like that, and don't allow your daughters (if you have any) to wear dresses like that. There, done.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm still not sure why people think it's ok, or empowering even, to encourage young women (or men, but that seems like far less of a problem) to expose their private parts in public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Dress" as in a dress, or "dress" as in elegant clothes?

The former is not usually meant to apply to boys and also does not apply to skimpy tops and bottoms girls might wear, so it's too narrow.

The latter at least targets everybody. But it's still stupid. I would send in a photo of a ridiculous outfit and come dressed in my real dress.

No way they're asking the boys to send in a picture of their suits to make sure they're dressed elegantly for the occasion.

I have a feeling the issue isn't about elegance, more about students wearing attire that is too revealing.

I don't know about you, but I find the idea of the school principal (or whoever) inspecting photos of my teenage daughter for exposed skin to be kind of skeevy. Not to mention a waste of public money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Actually, Thought #3: I had friends in high school who were boys who would, in response to this, have worn a dress.

I believe it was phrased that way to allow for that possiblity. Would still need to be approved as appropriate, which I assume would mean that it would have to fit and look like it was intended, and not like a joke.

Doesn't that kind of expose the utter absurdity of the rule, if school administrators have to sit there and look at photos and pass judgment on whether a dress-up dress on a high school boy fits as intended? Or maybe there is money in the budget for the homecoming dance to pay a local drag queen to offer opinions?

Anonymous wrote:^^^Actually, Thought #3: I had friends in high school who were boys who would, in response to this, have worn a dress.

I believe it was phrased that way to allow for that possiblity. Would still need to be approved as appropriate, which I assume would mean that it would have to fit and look like it was intended, and not like a joke.

Anonymous wrote:Job done.

Yup. Not a dress, therefore no pre-clearance required. Good job, PP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Dress" as in a dress, or "dress" as in elegant clothes?

The former is not usually meant to apply to boys and also does not apply to skimpy tops and bottoms girls might wear, so it's too narrow.

The latter at least targets everybody. But it's still stupid. I would send in a photo of a ridiculous outfit and come dressed in my real dress.

No way they're asking the boys to send in a picture of their suits to make sure they're dressed elegantly for the occasion.

I have a feeling the issue isn't about elegance, more about students wearing attire that is too revealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing that in your hometown someone showed up inone of those skanky trashy homecoming dresses that look like a stripper picked it out.

As I tell my kids, stupid school rules are usually the result of A) someone's really stupid action B) Someone getting hurt C) A pita complaining or D) a combination of the three.

Stupid school rules are the result of school administrators making stupid rules. School administrators were not forced to make this rule. A skimpy dress is a skimpy dress, not a gun to the head.

Nope.

Running a school (or any other kids activity) is like organizing a wedding with 2000 mother in laws, each with different ideas on how things should be done.

This rule is a result of trampy mom who things a sexy tramp dress is a great idea for her 14 year old daughter to wow everyone at homecoming.

I bet the dress that sparked this rule was a doozy.

Agreed. Some of the girls at Homecoming last year could hardly sit down because their dresses were so short their crotches were exposed. Why is there any argument that aside from going to work in the sex industry, it isn't a good idea to wear dresses that expose your crotch, even if you're not anywhere near boys?

How is this any different than the Hs girls wearing shorts that are so short their butt cheeks are visible? I bet the dress covers more.

Anonymous wrote:

Agreed. Some of the girls at Homecoming last year could hardly sit down because their dresses were so short their crotches were exposed. Why is there any argument that aside from going to work in the sex industry, it isn't a good idea to wear dresses that expose your crotch, even if you're not anywhere near boys?

So don't wear a dress like that, and don't allow your daughters (if you have any) to wear dresses like that. There, done.