Boobs Banned At School - What does this mean for Education Officials? by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
On the one hand.... it's school, not a gorram free speech festival. Kids should be there to learn. Wave banners and wear what you want, after the bell rings.

On the other hand....

As much as I hate to agree with AURaptor, I must.

Sometimes you have to earn the freedom to mouth off and do what you want. Finish school and when you turn 18 and become a valuable member of society, they you can wear all the boobie bracelets and t-shirts you want.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 5:55 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Eh, if the argument against this is, "Since you're still a kid we can tell you what to do" then it doesn't impress me.

There ought to be good reasons for the things we do and don't do. Even to children. Perhaps especially to children.

I still consider this a learning fail moment.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I still consider this a learning fail moment.

Indeed, Anthony. Indeed.

Or, if one is more cynical like me, I see this as just another lesson kids are supposed to learn in school: Shut up, conform, obey, and don't question authority. School is an assembly line factory for robotic and compliant employees and tax-payers. Learning to read and do arithmetic is just an occasional side effect.

The whole system is a collosal learning fail. It was designed to be.

-----
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 6:14 PM

This has nothing to do with boobies, but it highlights the futility of trying to define what is proper and reign in kids simply expressing themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
Sometimes you have to earn the freedom to mouth off and do what you want. Finish school and when you turn 18 and become a valuable member of society, they you can wear all the boobie bracelets and t-shirts you want.

Scuse me, I hate to do this - but I MUST.

Yo, FUCK YOU!

Children, especially young teens are NOT pets, they are NOT livestock, and they are NOT subhuman.

They are HUMAN BEINGS, and quite entitled to be treated as such, nor do they leave their Constitutional Rights at the door, a decision mind you, that's not only common sense, but has been confirmed by the motherfuckin Supreme Court!

"valuable member of society" my white cracker ass, most of these kids actually CARE, they actually give a shit about something, till our endless dehumanization of em grinds it right the hell out of em, till we crush their hopes and dreams and forcible mold them into the downtrodden, submissive corpo-servant drones which are "productive members of society", as if that were some kind of damned improvement ?

I was already stompin hellcamp ass at fifteen, had flipped em the bird and walked, nailing down a GED and self-graduating at sixteen cause I couldn't stand any more of this exact kinda lameass bullshit you just shovelled, and THEN I hadda dodge truant cops to get to my day job and curfew cops for my night job, both of which were hard as hell to get cause I hadda use outright fuckin extortion to get the work permit, from some petty little ego-tripping "adult" who ONLY holds that designation cause they been markin time on this little ball of dirt longer than me, despite the abysmal lack of restraint, accountability, or maturity I saw in most of em at the time, and still do well over twenty years later ?

Don't you DARE try to sell me that kids are subhuman shit, not a whit, not a penny, EVER!

Cause I'll cram it down your throat sideways every time you try.

Again, sorry, but that NEEDED sayin.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 8:34 PM

LOLOLOL. Frem just opened a can of whoop-ass!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 9:08 PM

Here, CTS, take this empty to be recycled, willya ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2010 11:02 PM

AGENTROUKA

Was anyone else sort of counting down to Frem's response as soon as Penguin's post appeared?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 2:03 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

In the immortal words of Omar Little...

"Oh. In. DEED."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 6:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, Agent, I was counting down too (smile). I knew it was coming, along with the can of whoop-ass he opened...didn't we all?

You go Frem...

Personally, I chalk it up to our heritage, the Puritan shit which is still with us. We are still a dichotomy of prurient interest and sexual suppression, so it doesn't surprise me a school would come down on anything having to do with sex...which is how they see it.

As to whether it's right or not, I'm on the fence. I believe in free speech, from birth onwards, but I also don't think teenagers with raging hormones need any encouragement... ;o)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 6:23 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Eh, if the argument against this is, "Since you're still a kid we can tell you what to do" then it doesn't impress me.

That an oversimplification. Rap is right - a school is a school. It's there for kids to learn, not for them to express themselves. There are other venues for that. There are lots of things kids can't do at school that they are perfectly capable and allowed to do elsewhere.

Just as an adult, who has the right to say anything in public, can still get in trouble if he walks into work and calls his boss an asshole. Time and place matter.

And, you say the novelty will wear off, and with some things, I agree. But when talking about teenage boys, "boobs" even as just a word will not cease to distract them for a good number of years yet.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 6:57 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Time, place and manner are key. Anyway, the famous case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503 (1969) is often cited for the meaningless proposition that "Tehs students free speech rights are rad and do not end at teh door of teh school!!!!1". Since then, its been settled that most restrictions on student speech are kosher: for obvious reasons.

Teenage boys need to be exposed to more boobies, because this will totally improve their educational experience. To argue otherwise is to be a body-negative puritan. They must be taught about boobies, constantly, and shown pictures of them, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 7:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Given the manifold educational opportunities presented by this bracelet, and the alternative arbitrary denial, do you really feel that limiting expression in this instance created the optimum learning environment?

Children, and human beings in general, tend to learn best when they can also express themselves and their desires, channeling the learning experience in directions pertinent to themselves.

The entire school could have been involved in a learning explosion. Instead, they learned "No."

I suspect the lessons of "No" and "Because I said so" are already well known to these students.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 7:47 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Next thing They'll do is ban ball hitches. Damn commies!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
On the one hand.... it's school, not a gorram free speech festival. Kids should be there to learn. Wave banners and wear what you want, after the bell rings.

'The Constitution does not end at the schoolhouse gate.' That's what the Supreme Court says and I consider it one of the best lines ever used by the Court.

Students have a right to free speech. However, schools have a right to regulate conduct and to put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the speech of students. The school is not disagreeing with the content, their regulation is content neutral. Students are free to be pro-boob (or the underlying message of breast cancer awareness). They are simply limited in the manner, place, and time during which they can engage in that limited form of expression.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There ought to be good reasons for the things we do and don't do. Even to children. Perhaps especially to children.

The legal reasoning is based on the idea that the govt can limit your Constitutional rights under certain specific conditions. For example, you can't shout fire in a theater (unless there is a fire in which case its probably ok). You can't preach the gospel to a crowd gathered in the passing lane of your local highway at rush hour. You can't carry a gun in a school.

Here's the test:
1. Is the rule content neutral? Likely they are saying that things with that language and inuendo can be distracting or offensive to others. Likely they ban all clothing items that use that language in that fashion in which case they are ok. However suppose PirateNews shows up with his 'I Love Penis' t-shitrts. If they ban this but allow that, they may have a problem.
2. Is there a compelling govt interest? In this case the interest is in providing an orderly enviroment for education and limiting offensive or distracting things from that enviroment is an important consideration.
3. Is the rule limited in scope to accomplish the intended goal? They can where the stuff on their own time...so yes.

You think the school owes you or the kids an explanation. That is true...and there could be 14th Amendment implications. But likely the school fully explained its policy and nobody listened at the time or bothered to ask...thats a common theme among both kids and adults.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
We are still a dichotomy of prurient interest and sexual suppression, so it doesn't surprise me a school would come down on anything having to do with sex...

Kids...don't say "boobie", now everybody take a condum on your way home.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Teenage boys need to be exposed to more boobies, because this will totally improve their educational experience. To argue otherwise is to be a body-negative puritan. They must be taught about boobies, constantly, and shown pictures of them, too.

I agree, although I note that one can only learn so much from books and pictures...I think a more practical hands on approach would be useful.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Time, place and manner are key. Anyway, the famous case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503 (1969) is often cited for the meaningless proposition that "Tehs students free speech rights are rad and do not end at teh door of teh school!!!!1". Since then, its been settled that most restrictions on student speech are kosher: for obvious reasons.

Teenage boys need to be exposed to more boobies, because this will totally improve their educational experience. To argue otherwise is to be a body-negative puritan. They must be taught about boobies, constantly, and shown pictures of them, too.

The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." [1] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[2] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

I think you could argue that "boobies" are a distraction...

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Time, place and manner are key. Anyway, the famous case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503 (1969) is often cited for the meaningless proposition that "Tehs students free speech rights are rad and do not end at teh door of teh school!!!!1". Since then, its been settled that most restrictions on student speech are kosher: for obvious reasons.

Teenage boys need to be exposed to more boobies, because this will totally improve their educational experience. To argue otherwise is to be a body-negative puritan. They must be taught about boobies, constantly, and shown pictures of them, too.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 8:09 AM

Oops!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
I think you could argue that "boobies" are a distraction...

I vote we all take a closer look...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 9:43 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Given the manifold educational opportunities presented by this bracelet, and the alternative arbitrary denial, do you really feel that limiting expression in this instance created the optimum learning environment?

Right, there's no middle ground between the bracelets and denial.

And yes, I'm afraid that sometimes limiting expression does lead to a better learning environment.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 12:05 PM

HKCAVALIER

Seems to me we have the same choice with children that we have with any foreign culture under our thumb--we can occupy them and tell them what is appropriate for them to think and feel and do, or we can go the (mostly) untried but true route of winning hearts & minds.

The breast cancer awareness folks here went the hearts & minds route and did, I think, a pretty fair job of translating their message into teenage speak. That's the part that's always getting lost in these kinds of debates: "I ♥ boobies" is nothing new to the teenagers. Indeed, it's pretty much the way kids think and express themselves every day. The well-meaning adult's who would limit speech in these instances always forget this fundamental fact: Y'ALL ARE TOO LATE. Pandora's box is as old as last year's Christmas wrapping, and about as useful (regardless of what your grandma thinks when she collects it all and folds it up neatly in a box "for next year").

The real trick is to give children tools to deal with their "raging hormones," not pretend they don't have them, or shame them into thinking they shouldn't have them. Ah, but there's the rub: we well-meaning adults have no better tools for dealing with our own hormones and rage than we're prescribing to our kids!

Here's a thing to teach: maybe "boobies" are not necessarily "sexually suggestive." Maybe women and girls have a right to exist, boobies and all, without automatically "suggesting" anything about fucking. Maybe it's just words and we should quit acting like overgrown Beavises and Buttheads: "Heh, heh, she said 'boobies.'"

Maybe "I ♥ boobies" is actually a harmless phrase. Think of that! I think demonizing certain phrases--to say nothing of the innocent body parts to which such phrases refer--does far and away more harm than good. Teaching children to differentiate between language and actions, now that's a good thing, a powerful thing. Teaching children to differentiate between their bodies and certain actions their bodies may or may not take is even better. How's about some real sex ed in this freakin' country, instead of the denial and fear mongering and feeble wishful thinking that we've been handing out since forever only to get the same results every last time?

But no, keep the kids from growing, keep 'em in the dark--or at least make them pretend to be in the dark when they're around "their betters." And one more thing: never, ever, no matter what you do, mention the dreaded "O" word.

'Cause the next best thing to being in control, is pretending that we are! Yahoo! Shock & awe, bay-bee!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 12:27 PM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Here's a thing to teach: maybe "boobies" are not necessarily "sexually suggestive." Maybe women and girls have a right to exist, boobies and all, without automatically "suggesting" anything about fucking.

Secondary sexual characteristics fetishized by teenage boys everywhere since the dawn of time are sexually suggestive, and will remain so. I find them revolting myself, but understand that lots of folks don't. Girls do have a right to exist, I suppose, and this right must extend to their boobies. But I see nothing offensive about keeping boobies underwraps, and never, ever mentioning them.

Also, boobies are stupid. I hate boobies.

Prostate cancer kills more men annually than breast cancer kills women. I ♥ prostates.

Let me repeat: I ♥ prostates.

School children should be exposed to more prostates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Was anyone else sort of counting down to Frem's response as soon as Penguin's post appeared?

I'll have you know that single line of text reduced little miss cricket to howling giggles for damn near ten minutes, and I hadda hear about it ALL DAY.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BerserkButton

But seriously, what better way to get young boys to actually CARE than to make the connection between giving a damn now, and more boobies ?

As HKCav points out, pretending they're not little balls of raging hormones is no solution, so why not help them channel it into a positive direction ?

The more you suppress someones basic humanity, the more warped and twisted the form in which it finally expresses itself, and it WILL express itself, much like a tree root does to a sidewalk, and the sidewalk ALWAYS loses.

Nature is tougher than we could ever imagine.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2010 5:50 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Given the manifold educational opportunities presented by this bracelet, and the alternative arbitrary denial, do you really feel that limiting expression in this instance created the optimum learning environment?

Right, there's no middle ground between the bracelets and denial.

And yes, I'm afraid that sometimes limiting expression does lead to a better learning environment.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Hello,

Story, I'm actually interested in what answer you would give to the question I posed, and not the question I never asked.

As to alternatives, none were explored. Hence the birthplace of my discontent. You'll note that I actually suggested a few. The 'alternative' they chose was arbitrary denial. (Notably the choice that requires the least amount of thought and provides zero potential for education.)

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 5, 2010 7:05 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Here's a thing to teach: maybe "boobies" are not necessarily "sexually suggestive." Maybe women and girls have a right to exist, boobies and all, without automatically "suggesting" anything about fucking.

Secondary sexual characteristics fetishized by teenage boys everywhere since the dawn of time are sexually suggestive, and will remain so. I find them revolting myself, but understand that lots of folks don't. Girls do have a right to exist, I suppose, and this right must extend to their boobies. But I see nothing offensive about keeping boobies underwraps, and never, ever mentioning them.

Also, boobies are stupid. I hate boobies.

Prostate cancer kills more men annually than breast cancer kills women. I ♥ prostates.

Let me repeat: I ♥ prostates.

School children should be exposed to more prostates.

They're not as fetishized in places where they're more openly exposed without stigma attached to them, so I question your conclusion. I also note that in populations that are somewhat plus-sized, ability to call breasts a purely feminine trait goes to zero. I'd argue this is cultural.

A culture will fetishize whatever traits they encourage their population to find attractive. The ancient Greeks did not have a high opinion of women, which lead to a lot of interest in small boys and homosexuality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 5, 2010 11:07 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Daaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnn, Frem!

Please speak your mind, (lmao).

Here is a perfect opportunity for the school district to pull the stick outta their ass and join forces with the organization that promotes the breast cancer awareness bracelet. My sister is fighting complications from breast cancer. You go, Mil.

But nooooooooooo, they try and stifle the young minds that will be our future and constrict their individuality. Yes, Frem conformity is the keyword of the last 20 years or so. No one is allowed to think for themselves, hence our rather dismal position in regards to developed countries.

But I know why this is so. The writing's on the wall. We are being forced fed the agenda. People, don't believe the hype.

With these kids bucking the system and expressing themselves, it gives me some hope for the forseeable future.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 5, 2010 11:31 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

True that!

Frem quote:
The more you suppress someones basic humanity, the more warped and twisted the form in which it finally expresses itself, and it WILL express itself, much like a tree root does to a sidewalk, and the sidewalk ALWAYS loses.

Nature is tougher than we could ever imagine.
____________________________________________________________________

The more you suppress the subject of sex (which BTW always seems to be on the mind of uptight adults, hhmmmmmm), the curiouser the teens you're withholding it from will become.

The hormones ARE coursing through their veins at 100 mph and need to be addressed in some fashion to keep it from going into the red. I told my niece to speak to her daughter at 11 years old because I saw her reaction to boys. Uh Oh, here we go, I said.

So by the time their teenagers.............need I say more.

BTW, I know that teens also think about sex, especially boys, but I think it's mostly due to the fact that it is hidden and poo-pooed by adults from early on. I became curious yellow at the age of 5 and totally fell in love with the female form at the age of 10. It has not curtailed one bit since.

So parents do yourself a favor - educate or they will learn about it out in the streets, or from their friends (blind leading the blind). I spoke with my son when he hit 12 and he told me he already knew. I shit you not. His mom (a nurse) spoke to him the year before (we were divorced and she didn't share that tidbit with me).

So, Channel, positive direction........that should do it.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 5, 2010 11:43 PM

AGENTROUKA

Finally read the article.

I agree the school is overrreacting, if the bracelets didn't specifically lead to any instances of distraction or harrassment of people in actual possession of breasts, they should value the cause (cancer awareness and expression of support for the relatives of cancer patients) over the suggestive text.

I do find the term "boobies" annoying as hell, though, and slightly look down on anyone using it.

And while I think that Anthony is mostly right in terms of educational value, it's more likely that any girls who actually felt uncomfortable with "boobies" and all sexual implications being made the center of official attention (as opposed to fricking 'breasts' and breast cancer), they would likely be pressured to shut up or otherwise be termed opponents of The Cause.

It would have to be carefully moderated to avoid putting people on the spot, who are still in the process of developing their own personal relationship to sex, as well as self-esteem.

I just think that kids in school should have the same protection to opt out of sexually charged official discourse as adults in the workplace have. This is unrelated to either inofficial sexually charged discourse (haha) or sexual education, which is not sexually charged but neutral.

(Mostly talking here from the experience of being reduced to breasts as a teenager by male students. It really sucks and it takes a while until you know how to deal with that. Democracy is great but 15-year-olds also should have a right to be protected from each other, in some cases.)

I think overall the issue should rather be ignored unless actual students are complaining or it does cause distraction and then those specific issues should be adressed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2010 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
... it's more likely that any girls who actually felt uncomfortable with "boobies" and all sexual implications being made the center of official attention ...

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Here's a thing to teach: maybe "boobies" are not necessarily "sexually suggestive." Maybe women and girls have a right to exist, boobies and all, without automatically "suggesting" anything about fucking.

You both, IMHO, have pointed out the crux of the issue. It is less a matter of free speech and more a matter of the sexualization of "boobies."

Boobies are highly sexualized in our culture. It is the same reason that breastfeeding in public is even a debate.

And here you have a bracelet that tries to put "boobies" in a different context, to turn the sexual objectification on its head and starting thinking of them as a natural part of one's body that one would wish to protect. We would have no debate if we were talking about "I love feet" or "I love necks." This ban reinforces this sexual objectification.

This article recently made an impression on me:

http://www.nursingfreedom.org/2010/08/why-children-should-witness.html

Quote:

The cultural contrast between Scandinavia and the US was incredible to take in, particularly in how I observed children reacting to the sight of breastfeeding. In Scandinavia, I never once saw a child or a child’s parents react with alarm, disgust, shame, or even slight concern when they witnessed myself or other women breastfeeding in public. On a train in Denmark, a group of 15+ teenage boys boarded while I was nursing my son. One sat right next to me and offered a kind smile. Another boy noticed and looked for a second but didn't behave awkwardly at all. The rest likely glanced my way at some point (they were only a few feet away from me), but none acted like it was a big deal - probably because in Denmark, as well as in Sweden, breastfeeding rates are much better than in the US, and the sexualization of breasts is much less profound.

I have nursed around the world and can attest to the same observations. I got less disapproval nursing in Egypt in public (Muslim country where women need to cover up from head to toe, and the sexes are separated on trains so they can't accidentally bump into each other) than I do in the States.

Why? Because everywhere else, people understand that is what breasts are REALLY for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2010 2:40 AM

AGENTROUKA

I actually disagree.

The term "boobies" is purposefully immature and generally not used in a neutral context. That's why it's more likely to conjure a more immature (that is sexual) context than something like "breasts". The TERM is not neutral. Which I made clear a few words away from the quote you chose, btw.

This is my only concern in this case. And only if any of the students had been bothered.

I KNOW that there is an issue of overt sexualisation of breasts, but the solution is not to arbitrarily pretend that it's no longer the case and ignore any real discomfort that might occur, especially in young girls who are only recently growing their own and are still learning to deal with the (currently still sadly often) inappropriate reactions of classmates.

I think a decent argument could be made that calling them "boobies" only reinforces a perception of oddness and otherness. And just saying "boobies" a lot is not automatically empowering or desexualising.

There's room for sensitivity, even if you're trying to change the perception of breasts in the wider public.

ETA: Regarding the "what breasts are for" in other countries... I would suspect that at least in Europe the difference in perception is less that people automatically think "breasts = breastmilk" vs. sexual implications, but rather that more visual exposure in nonsexual contexts creates the third context of being completely neutral. Kids see their mothers naked a lot more often in Europe than in some other places. Also strangers. That's a pretty decent practice. Doesn't necessarily stop immaturity in adolescents, of course. (See my case.) Just in adults.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2010 3:36 AM

OPPYH

Not even an issue really. Principals have absolutely every right to call the shots in their school. What they deem appropriate/inappropriate is the choice for them to make.
A few years back a local middle school around here went to all uniforms for students. Like in Japan(where this is common) the students lost their identity, and started excelling in their studies.

I'm not saying its right(I got sent home from high school for wearing a Miller Lite t-shirt once) but this is the way the cookie crumbles.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2010 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The term "boobies" is purposefully immature and generally not used in a neutral context.

I disagree.

Any "immature" aspect of boobie is adding the "ie" at the end. Otherwise, "boob" no more a sexual term than "breast." "Tits" may be sexual, "hooters" may be sexual, "cowazongas" may be sexual. But not "boob." Boob is generally kiddie slang for breast, and kiddie slang is purposely asexual.

That is not to say that older kiddies approaching or going through pubescence won't use the word "boobie" or "boob" in a sexual context, but it is the neutral word for "breast" used, by and large, by children of all ages.

As far as context goes, any synonym of "breast" is going to be as sexualized breasts are in uptight Anglo cultures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2010 9:27 AM