Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, our bodies were designed solely for reproduction and propagation. So, yes, the female body is designed to be sexually attractive to males, as well as to be able to bear and feed young. You may have other uses in mind for your body, but those activities weren't what nature had in mind.

Saying that teenage boys shouldn't be distracted by teenage girls' bodies makes as much sense as saying male dogs shouldn't be distracted by a female dog in heat. Certainly teenage boys need to control their behavior. Expecting them not to be distracted is simply folly, and displays a shocking lack of knowledge of human sexuality.

This is biologically factually incorrect -- entirely aside from the further facts that, as far as science is concerned, our bodies aren't designed for anything, and nature doesn't have anything in mind.

Every single creature on the Earth has three things that they are programmed to do: survive as long as possible, produce young and die natural deaths. Only humans have tried to twist this. We've gotten to a point that people live decades beyond where they would without medical intervention, sometimes in a vegetative state. We try to argue that producing children isn't a biological instinct, and we take steps to medically intervene when we can't conceive without help and when we don't want as many children as we might be physically capable of having. We also don't want to die when our bodies give out, thinking that 40, 50 or 60 should be too young, but if the body has been abused or is genetically not cut out for 90 years, that's the way it is.

I'm not saying that these are all bad things. My sister would have died 10 years ago, at 25, without medical intervention, and she remains alive and living with a quality of life that she can still enjoy by using numerous medications and seeing her doctors a few times every month or two. No, she shouldn't be carrying any children, ever, and she's taken steps to prevent it. While she and I discussed how long we would love when we were little kids to teenagers, and based on our family genetics we predicted 90-105, she knows that she'll be lucky if she sees 50.

BUT

The point to this is that kids are always going to be distracted by each other. We can teach them that some things don't have to be a competition, but instinct says everything is a competition, that only the best have the best chances. We can teach our children that our bodies are not here solely to have sex and produce children, but the instincts are still there, and when teens are going through hormonal upheavals, parental guidance can go out the window. Finally, I'm tired of seeing the people that cling to a dying person look at me like I'm a leper. Our family has always been one to give the person who is dying privacy, dignity. Death isn't pretty, but I would prefer to honor my family's wishes than fit someone else's idea of what is right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and am totally torn in this. Was just talking about it with a non-teacher friend yesterday. I'm all for not objectifying, but earlier this year I was walking up stairs behind a student and I glanced upwards and could literally see half her butt. Her shorts were so short she might as well have been wearing a thong bathing suit. I don't want to see that.

Look elsewhere. Not that hard.

Oh yes, but of course. As I am walking up the stairs at my place of employment I should know not to look in front of me to where I am going because there might be a bare butt. I'm sorry - but at some point looking elsewhere is just a little hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and am totally torn in this. Was just talking about it with a non-teacher friend yesterday. I'm all for not objectifying, but earlier this year I was walking up stairs behind a student and I glanced upwards and could literally see half her butt. Her shorts were so short she might as well have been wearing a thong bathing suit. I don't want to see that.

Look elsewhere. Not that hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree.

Lately I have taken to going braless. I used to be soooo embarrassed but I finally realized, at the age of 27, that it's MY BODY. I'm going to do what feels most comfortable for me.

Which means, if some dude pops a boner, or someone else is offended- I don't care. It totally doesn't affect me.

Because it's my body, for me, and I will dress for myself.

We need to stop needlessly sexualizing the female form. Our bodies were not designed solely for the male mind to be attracted to, and we need to stop treating them as such.

Amen. I've been going braless for years, and it's so liberating. I'll never go back to bras.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and am totally torn in this. Was just talking about it with a non-teacher friend yesterday. I'm all for not objectifying, but earlier this year I was walking up stairs behind a student and I glanced upwards and could literally see half her butt. Her shorts were so short she might as well have been wearing a thong bathing suit. I don't want to see that.

Look elsewhere. Not that hard.

Then in your opinion, wearing a thong bathing suit would be equally okay. Or nothing, I suppose.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but I don't have any problems with a school dress code that says that students must wear street clothes (as opposed to swimsuits or pajamas). I also don't have any problems with a school dress code that says that clothes must cover the genitals and buttocks. I have a major, major problem with a school dress code that says that students may not wear clothes that distract other students. let alone a school dress code that says that students may not wear clothes that I don't want to see.

Isn't this just splitting hairs? Why would genitals and buttocks need to be covered, except for that they would otherwise be rather distracting to other students?

For me, it's a hygiene issue more than modesty.

Really. So then I imagine you are fine with letting kids (male and female) go topless at school? Nothing unhygienic about that, right? And Saran Wrap bottoms, that revealed all but kept things "hygienic," would be okay, too, correct?

Saran wrap is absolutely *not* hygienic, nor are bathing suit bottoms. As to tops, my personal concern is that the structure of the breasts be upheld, so when she has enough to warrant needing a bra, she needs to wear a bra. Until then? I send all the kids (including undeveloped girls) out in the yard without shirts when they are eating watermelon and other juicy/messy food. As long as the 12 year old girl isn't developed and isn't uncomfortable like that, I don't think it's anyone else's business.

No one asked a question about appropriate clothing for the beach or the backyard. The question was about appropriately clothing for school.

Anonymous wrote:

No one asked a question about appropriate clothing for the beach or the backyard. The question was about appropriately clothing for school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and am totally torn in this. Was just talking about it with a non-teacher friend yesterday. I'm all for not objectifying, but earlier this year I was walking up stairs behind a student and I glanced upwards and could literally see half her butt. Her shorts were so short she might as well have been wearing a thong bathing suit. I don't want to see that.

Look elsewhere. Not that hard.

Then in your opinion, wearing a thong bathing suit would be equally okay. Or nothing, I suppose.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but I don't have any problems with a school dress code that says that students must wear street clothes (as opposed to swimsuits or pajamas). I also don't have any problems with a school dress code that says that clothes must cover the genitals and buttocks. I have a major, major problem with a school dress code that says that students may not wear clothes that distract other students. let alone a school dress code that says that students may not wear clothes that I don't want to see.

Isn't this just splitting hairs? Why would genitals and buttocks need to be covered, except for that they would otherwise be rather distracting to other students?

For me, it's a hygiene issue more than modesty.

Really. So then I imagine you are fine with letting kids (male and female) go topless at school? Nothing unhygienic about that, right? And Saran Wrap bottoms, that revealed all but kept things "hygienic," would be okay, too, correct?

Saran wrap is absolutely *not* hygienic, nor are bathing suit bottoms. As to tops, my personal concern is that the structure of the breasts be upheld, so when she has enough to warrant needing a bra, she needs to wear a bra. Until then? I send all the kids (including undeveloped girls) out in the yard without shirts when they are eating watermelon and other juicy/messy food. As long as the 12 year old girl isn't developed and isn't uncomfortable like that, I don't think it's anyone else's business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, our bodies were designed solely for reproduction and propagation. So, yes, the female body is designed to be sexually attractive to males, as well as to be able to bear and feed young. You may have other uses in mind for your body, but those activities weren't what nature had in mind.

Saying that teenage boys shouldn't be distracted by teenage girls' bodies makes as much sense as saying male dogs shouldn't be distracted by a female dog in heat. Certainly teenage boys need to control their behavior. Expecting them not to be distracted is simply folly, and displays a shocking lack of knowledge of human sexuality.

This is biologically factually incorrect -- entirely aside from the further facts that, as far as science is concerned, our bodies aren't designed for anything, and nature doesn't have anything in mind.