REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, September 6, 2010 11:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2296
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, September 2, 2010 2:04 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/02/schools-ban-boobies-brac
elets/?hpt=Sbin


Hello,

I have never understood putting shackles on free speech in High School, where students are on the cusp of adulthood and are striving to find their voice. I find it difficult to believe that any message worn on the body could provide anything more than a momentary disruption to the educational process. Essentially, once the novelty wears off, it's back to business as usual.

If some find the speech offensive and some do not, this provides vital real-world fuel for learning. Feminists can lament the carving up of the female form into desirable bits in stirring editorials. Biology students can try to explain the appeal of breasts from an evolutionary perspective. Young free speech advocates can write letters to the editor that explain the importance of protecting even offensive speech. The debate team can move from issues of free speech to questions of harrassment. When does it stop being speech, and become damaging? The sons and daughters of those who have contracted cancer can explain their take, with arguments centered around the need for more research dollars. Cancer patients can be invited to speak at the school and explain their illness and their feelings on the issue. Finally, the student representatives can campaign on the issue, with the winning representatives becoming involved in setting that year's policy on it.

Or they can just arbitrarily ban the things.

*sigh*

--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 2:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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....






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

Thursday, September 2, 2010 3:46 PM

PENGUIN


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

CANTTAKESKY


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

CANTTAKESKY


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

FREMDFIRMA


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

CANTTAKESKY


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

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

Thursday, September 2, 2010 9:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA



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

HERO


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

HERO


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

HERO


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

HERO


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

PENGUIN


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

PENGUIN


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

PENGUIN


Oops!

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

Friday, September 3, 2010 9:03 AM

HERO


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

FREMDFIRMA


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

CANTTAKESKY


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

CANTTAKESKY


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

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
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.


I will not accept this - too many people have already and the result is disastrous, it's like refusing to address crime or poverty because "That's the way it is", a form of apathy and learned helplessness which is what allows evils to prosper, and I'll have none of it.

And hey, LOOK - BOOBIES!



-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, September 6, 2010 11:21 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

I strongly disagree with your findings, Dr. Rouka. I wonder how "in the loop" you are with regard to youth culture (for all I know, you yourself may still be in high school, but you sound very much like a "grown up" in this post--and not necessarily in a good way). "Boobies" amongst college students at the University of Washington is pretty much the most inoffensive, unsexualized term used for breasts in casual conversation--by females. It is most often used in a comic, light hearted, what's-the-big-deal vein. I wonder if things haven't changed a great deal since you were in high school. Your mileage obviously varies a good deal.

I cringe just a little at your pejorative "purposefully immature" because you seem to suggest that it's automatically a bad thing and, what's more concerning, automatically sexual--which would seem to undermine your own ostensible argument on this. Language is a slippery thing and will turn on you if you're not careful. And children are very sensitive to these "hidden" meanings and know when they're being sexualized by the very folks who purport to be "protecting" them from their sexualities. (Ha, that's a laugh: protecting children from their own sexualities--good luck with that one, folks!) Of course "boobies" is purposefully immature, that's the whole point, no?

So, do we just go on talking down to kids, and catastrophizing their every utterance as unacceptably immature and sexual? "Immature" does not, in my observation, automatically equate to "sexualized." In fact that's what we should be emphasizing, not simply reinforcing the prejudice against adolescents. You may consider "immature" a pejorative, but in the case of teenagers, I'm sorry, it's just a fact. A fact we can ignore or a fact we can face. Yes, boys in our culture are given carte blanche to sexualize and ridicule women per se, but we don't change that by censorship and denial.
Quote:

This is my only concern in this case. And only if any of the students had been bothered.
I'm so glad you bring this up and continue to emphasize that we really shouldn't treat things as a problem until, well, they become a freakin' problem. Y'know, I thank (irony) the neo-cons and their deplorable "post 9/11 world view" for this ratcheting up of every "potential" threat into an "imminent" threat. WE MUST PREVENT ALL BAD THINGS before they happen!!! And best of luck with that, folks. Bad things don't/have never/never will work that way.
Quote:

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.
No one is pretending it's not the case, arbitrarily or not. That's the point of the bands: hey boys, let's think of "boobies" in a different light, shall we?
Quote:

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.
No one is thinking education happens automatically (then it wouldn't be education). You seem to be working up a strawman here of folks who believe "I ♥ boobies" is a panacea. No one here, or in the article is arguing that point, so please don't waste any time arguing against it. Give me a word for "boobies" which a self-respecting teenager would use, that doesn't reinforce oddness and otherness. Oddness and otherness goes hand in hand with adolescence and the onset of puberty. When the adult world embraces their language in a positive, and inclusive light, we move in the direction of embracing their struggle and THAT is the whole point of this sort of thing, imho.
Quote:

There's room for sensitivity, even if you're trying to change the perception of breasts in the wider public.
Ack, the "sensitivity" argument again. I'm sorry, the very old school form of "sensitivity" that advocates silence is bogus. Children do not need more silence from adults. They need respect and they need inclusion and they need to be treated as much as possible as equal partners on life's journey. Rue's favorite tag line was "silence is consent" and I think it absolutely applies here. Silence is acceptance of the status quo and only encourages more silence reflected back at us by the girls we all want to help.
Quote:

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.
There's truth here, but again you sneak in the "immaturity in adolescents" = a problem, which simply and eloquently demonizes them on the basis of age.

Adolescents ARE immature and that is perfectly as it should be. I'm sorry, it really pisses me off when well-meaning adults continually place children in these double binds and wonder why the kids turn out so effed up.

And fwiw, I've spent some time in nudist, "clothing optional" communities here in the USA and the adolescents in that context handled it quite well. Rather quickly, naked people simple become naked people. Seeing your own parents naked all the time is a serious curb to adolescent sexual obsession. And as I've said in other contexts, homosexual teenagers in this culture somehow brave the daily proximity to the naked form of their respective objects of affection and they seem to turn out okay.

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  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL