Guys! BAD NEWS!

[Guest]

School says girls must wear trousers

Owen Bowcott
Monday June 21, 2004
The Guardian

A secondary school in Suffolk has become the first in Britain to ban girls from wearing skirts and order them to switch to uniforms with long trousers. The decision by Kesgrave High School, near Ipswich, was reached after warnings were ignored and hemlines crept up to "inappropriate" levels. The new policy will come into effect in September.

"These days girls wear very short skirts which is against the school uniform policy," explained Margaret Young, one of the governors.

"Two years ago we sent out letters to parents asking them to make sure skirts were regulation length, which is just above the knee. The impact was short-lived and it wasn't long before skirts were very short again.

"We have a very active curriculum and trousers are much more practical. Now instead of having to discipline pupils on uniform inaccuracies, teachers can get on with teaching," Ms Young said.

The few complaints the school has received about the changeover are chiefly concerned with the cost of replacing the old uniform. "We simply do not want our girls going outside with a 'come-hither look'. I think many parents will find it enormously helpful." The 1,600-pupil school, which is also a state college of technology, has a large number of people cycling in every day. The short skirts look "dreadful" on girls who cycle, Mrs Young added.

The headteacher, George Thomas, said the new rules were necessary because skirts had become far too short. He said: "This is not helped by the fact there are not many practical skirts stocked by high street shops. The changes to the uniform are an issue of practicality as well as equal rights."

There have been test cases in the past involving schools which adopted the opposite policy of banning girls from wearing trousers. Four years ago a 14-year-old pupil at a school in Gateshead won a legal battle over the issue on the grounds that she was being discriminated against. Her campaign was backed by the Equal Opportunities Commission.

An EOC spokeswoman said yesterday: "This is the first time I have heard of a school with the policy of banning skirts. If anyone tried to challenge it under the Sex Discrimination Act then they would need to show that the dress code was more restrictive for girls than for boys."

 

[angela146]

I wonder if a school in Scotland would get in trouble if they tried such a policy. If they banned girls from wearing skirts, they would also have to ban boys from wearing kilts.

 

[angela146]

And now to the serious point.

This is yet another example of a school with its head in the sand. If they think trousers will prevent girls from looking sexy, they have another guess coming.

A nice snug pair of trousers can show off curves very well.

Get used to it folks. Teenagers are horny. They are going to find ways of attracting each other no matter what you do.

Do they really thing that fifteen year old boys (and fifteen year old lesbians) *aren't* going to be turned on by girls wearing trousers?

 

[angela146]

And now to a less serious point.

We need to start writing some Brittish school girl spanking stories in which the sixth-formers have their trousers lowered instead of their skirts raised.

It's time to update the fantasy.

 

[Guest]

Angela, we have a newb from Scotland, perhaps he'll see this. It's my understanding that kilts are not skirts, they're just kilts.

Perdita

 

[cantdog]

People who sit around using up perfectly good skull sweat to invent dress codes make me tired. They should have had dolls to dress up when they were young. It's the nitpicking of a pack of control freaks.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

First the French made the Muslims give up their religion-based clothing. Now the English are trying to get females to give up their gender-based clothing.

If schools uniformly embraced total nudity, I believe that most of the unnatural student behaviour would be squelched.

 

[amicus]

May I unabashedly promote my poem, "Girl in a Skirt", in hopes that it is somehow germane to the thread? thank you

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=112846

amicus

 

[angela146]

If schools uniformly embraced total nudity, I believe that most of the unnatural student behaviour would be squelched.

... and the administrators would start dreaming up "dress codes" for tatoos.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I guess I'm the only one who agrees with this. There is such a thing as appropriate dress for appropriate occasions, and teens need to learn this as much as anyone. There is also such a thing as consequenses of not following the rules, and this is one such an example. Yes, girls can be sexy without showing every inch of flesh. And for that matter, there's one more thing that it wouldn't hurt them to learn.

While they are at it, it might be good for them to learn (and for the boys as well to learn) that women are more than just sex objects. sorry, horny boys indeed...

you'll get over it

 

[angela146]

While they are at it, it might be good for them to learn (and for the boys as well to learn) that women are more than just sex objects.

Yes, *more* than sex objects but not *less* than sex objects.

The girls' sexuality belongs to the girls. If they wish to use it, display it, flaunt it and enjoy it, there is nothing that a bunch of prudish administrators are going to do about it.

Put a girl in a simple blouse and trousers and she can still light up the hallways with a smile or a slightly feminine walk.

It's the adminstrators who need to get over it.

 

[Guest]

School Girls!

The 14th of July is the World Nude Day!

 

[matriarch]

Yes, *more* than sex objects but not *less* than sex objects.

The girls' sexuality belongs to the girls. If they wish to use it, display it, flaunt it and enjoy it, there is nothing that a bunch of prudish administrators are going to do about it.

Put a girl in a simple blouse and trousers and she can still light up the hallways with a smile or a slightly feminine walk.

It's the adminstrators who need to get over it.

Sorry Angela, I'm with Sweet'n'petite here.

Somewhere caught in the middle of this, are the teaching staff.

When it comes down to it, the children (because, believe it or not, that's what they are), are there to learn. Get their damn hormones into gear outside of school, that's plenty of time. I've read about, and seen far too many cases of boys being accused of rape, teachers being accused of inappropriate activity with pupils.

It has nothing to do with prudishness, its to do with having responsibility for the best interests, well-being, health, security and safety of ALL the children, boys and girls, and the staff.

I don't usually join in these type of threads, they can get too acrimonious, and I know this is going to bring the wrath of the 'anything goes' brigade. But I've had my say now.

And, for the record, I ain't no prude. Believe me.

Mat.

 

[amicus]

That a school administer in a public system has the right to enforce this 'dress code' is an example government once again inserts itself into the lives of its citizens.

Yes, it could happen in a private school also, but one has a choice to move a child to a new school.

Perhaps Burka's are next, the neck and lips are sexual objects also.

And what about parents? Whose children are they anyway?

In another venue I suggested that children be removed from all public institutions of education and placed in private schools or educated at home. I re iterate that here.

On the other hand...working for a local newspaper, covering high events...I wonder how any studies get done viewing the variety in dress chosen by both sexes.

Let the hormones flow!

amicus

 

[matriarch]

That a school administer in a public system has the right to enforce this 'dress code' is an example government once again inserts itself into the lives of its citizens.

Yes, it could happen in a private school also, but one has a choice to move a child to a new school.

Perhaps Burka's are next, the neck and lips are sexual objects also.

And what about parents? Whose children are they anyway?

In another venue I suggested that children be removed from all public institutions of education and placed in private schools or educated at home. I re iterate that here.

On the other hand...working for a local newspaper, covering high events...I wonder how any studies get done viewing the variety in dress chosen by both sexes.

Let the hormones flow!

amicus

I could answer aplenty on this, oh so know it all, Amicus.

But I bin warrrrrrrrrned abowt you (best pirate voice - work with me here, people)................., so I'm sayin' nuffin' any more. Ah-hahhh, me harties.

Mat.

 

[Guest]

I'm in agreement with S&P and Mat. I do think the skirt issue is plainly silly, and that's how I'd fight it if I cared to (vs. anything to do with sexuality or law, etc.)

In Venice (the only part of Italy I know), due to the number of tourists, there are signs outside all churches saying and illustrating that scanty clothing is not permitted. That applies to both men and women, the ones in tees and shorts and flip-flops. I only give this as an example of "appropriate" dress, vs. censorship or totalitarianism, whatever.

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

Part of growning up is learining how to control your hormones, and not let them control you. --not supress, but handle, deel with and not be overtaken by.

Teenagers really are neither children nor adults, and shouldn't be treeted as either, however they do still need adult guidence and even occasionally some boundaries.

An example of the state inserting itself into your life is when laws are passed about what you can where in your own home. What you wear in school, should be decided by the school. That is logical. It would be illogical to say that the school can expell you for dressing 'slutty' (or any other way) after school hours. That would be inserting itself in your life. With all due respect, get a grip amicus

Public school is a privalige. It's not a hardship to follow some basic rules of conduct and dress. Nor is it some kind of infringement of human or civil rights. As I said, dress appropriately for your circomstances and focus on the task at hand. (Education, socialization, ect. not hormones running wild) There is a time and a place for everything. I set the rules for my house (however repressive they may seem to some) and school administrators set the rules for there facillities.

 

[Owlz]

School says girls must wear trousers

Owen Bowcott
Monday June 21, 2004
The Guardian

A secondary school in Suffolk has become the first in Britain to ban girls from wearing skirts and order them to switch to uniforms with long trousers. The decision by Kesgrave High School, near Ipswich, was reached after warnings were ignored and hemlines crept up to "inappropriate" levels. The new policy will come into effect in September.

"These days girls wear very short skirts which is against the school uniform policy," explained Margaret Young, one of the governors.

"Two years ago we sent out letters to parents asking them to make sure skirts were regulation length, which is just above the knee. The impact was short-lived and it wasn't long before skirts were very short again.

"We have a very active curriculum and trousers are much more practical. Now instead of having to discipline pupils on uniform inaccuracies, teachers can get on with teaching," Ms Young said.

The few complaints the school has received about the changeover are chiefly concerned with the cost of replacing the old uniform. "We simply do not want our girls going outside with a 'come-hither look'. I think many parents will find it enormously helpful." The 1,600-pupil school, which is also a state college of technology, has a large number of people cycling in every day. The short skirts look "dreadful" on girls who cycle, Mrs Young added.

The headteacher, George Thomas, said the new rules were necessary because skirts had become far too short. He said: "This is not helped by the fact there are not many practical skirts stocked by high street shops. The changes to the uniform are an issue of practicality as well as equal rights."

There have been test cases in the past involving schools which adopted the opposite policy of banning girls from wearing trousers. Four years ago a 14-year-old pupil at a school in Gateshead won a legal battle over the issue on the grounds that she was being discriminated against. Her campaign was backed by the Equal Opportunities Commission.

An EOC spokeswoman said yesterday: "This is the first time I have heard of a school with the policy of banning skirts. If anyone tried to challenge it under the Sex Discrimination Act then they would need to show that the dress code was more restrictive for girls than for boys."

Ah, the British & their 'stiff upper lip'...too damned conservative!

 

[Remec]

<snicker>

While they are at it, it might be good for them to learn (and for the boys as well to learn) that women are more than just sex objects. sorry, horny boys indeed...

<eyebrows up in astonishment>
They are?

<grin>
<wink>
<ducking for cover>

 

[Remec]

Public school is a privalige. It's not a hardship to follow some basic rules of conduct and dress. Nor is it some kind of infringement of human or civil rights. As I said, dress appropriately for your circomstances and focus on the task at hand. (Education, socialization, ect. not hormones running wild) There is a time and a place for everything. I set the rules for my house (however repressive they may seem to some) and school administrators set the rules for there facillities.

Actually, until you reach a certain age, public school is a requirement. To keep a child out of school (in this country, at least), requires paperwork to be filed and proof that they are meeting the standards of education that would be expected of them for their age/grade level.

Now, having said that, I would agree that the job of schools is to educate those who want to be there while making an attempt to convince those who don't why they should, and to do both in a safe and secure environment where distractions are kept to a minimum.

If banning skirts is what it takes to achieve this, then those in charge of making such decisions are perfectly within the scope of their responsibilities to make it so. But, I find that argument to be specious at best. Wearing clothing meant to draw attention to one's body can be distracting, but isn't it more disruptive of the school day to call attention to such individuals and focus everyone else's thoughts on them.

eg,"Hey, did you see that outfit Mary was wearing?"
"Or wasn't wearing."
"Yeah, so you saw it."
"No, heard about it. They pulled her as we came in this morning and sent her to detention while they tried to contact her parents to bring her a change of clothes."
"Bummer."
"Yeah, like they have nothing better to do with themselves."
"Really"


Sorry, I'm rambling, aren't I?
They've always had dress codes of differing degrees of draconity through every generation of schoo children throughout history. Several local public schools here now require the children to actually wear uniforms. The idea being that the kids won't be trying to impress each other with the latest fashions if they all look exactly alike.

My mom has stories of being sent home for wearing jeans. My wife once told me a similar story and she's only 7 years older than me. I knew people who were pulled from the school population for too short skirts and shorts...for too tight shirts...for shirts that had "inappropriate" messages, images, slogons, or just words on them...there's always going to be something that is supposedly counterproductive to the educational system.

IMHO, it tends to be something from within the system much more often than anything the students bring into it.

 

[emap]

I'm not really sure I like the no skirts ruling, I had plenty of wonderful fun in a skirt in school, but I do see where this is coming from, they are right though skirts are getting shorter, and tighter, I see women walking around in stores with skirts so high and tight you can practically see their panty color, a few I have seen panty when they are standing up. I'm not saying this is bad, I've been known to wear practically nothing in public before I am going to say that this is where the rapes are coming from, hormones going wild leaves little in the way of self control on many of those boys, add in drugs and drinking, then toss in young ladies wearing a really short skirt, and you get rape

This isn't the way I would partically take away the temptation, personally I would make their parents actually parent instead of that, but as some have pointed out, that's the government going into their business, here in the US that can't happen, well it can but clothed in the morons 'home security act.' Can't actually do that, to in your face about it. Pants being the best offer to them since skirts will just get higher no matter how long they are cut, besides, if she's willing, a pair of pants doesn't make it harder

I know that's why you men aren't liking this

 

[matriarch]

Actually, until you reach a certain age, public school is a requirement. To keep a child out of school (in this country, at least), requires paperwork to be filed and proof that they are meeting the standards of education that would be expected of them for their age/grade level.

Rem, in England, PUBLIC schools are private, fee-paying schools.
The others are STATE schools.
A confusing difference, but should make S&P's piece more sense to those across the pond.

School is mandatory until the age of 16 in England.
Children can be educated at home, under the tutorage of parents but there are rules about the standards that education must achieve.

(I work for a local education department).

Mat.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Perhaps what I meant was that those of us who live in countries that have public schools are privaleged.

I realize that it's a legal requirement, however not every one in the world is so lucky to have the opportunity to be 'required' to have a basic education.

Actually, until you reach a certain age, public school is a requirement. To keep a child out of school (in this country, at least), requires paperwork to be filed and proof that they are meeting the standards of education that would be expected of them for their age/grade level.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Basicly, I meant that *school* is a privalege, weather it is manditory or not.

Even in places where it *is* manditory, you can get expelled if you abuse that privalege.

All of us (kids and adults) don't know how lucky we are to have access to free schooling. If we did we'd wear what they told us (especially when the expectations are perfectly reasonable) and shut up about it. When we stop yelling about our rights, close our mouths and open our ears, we might actually learn something. We might learn about a world with bigger problems than being forced to wear pants for a few hours every day.

It is a privalege to be born in a part of the world where education, which is highly valuable, is free and accessable. It is a privalege to spend your childhood/adolescence learning in a classroom instead of a sweatshop or a whore house or married to some 50 year old tryant w/ no means of escape.

Ok, I sound like an old woman now. I'll get off my soap box.

Rem, in England, PUBLIC schools are private, fee-paying schools.
The others are STATE schools.
A confusing difference, but should make S&P's piece more sense to those across the pond.

Mat.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't know. Frankly, pants don't seem a big deal. In fact I think the breakdowns of the sexual divide that it will cause will be intriguing to say the least. I in fact wonder if there will be an effect akin to Terry Pratchett's "Monstrous Regiment". I admit that people being forced to wear a type of clothing is stupid and I am against school uniforms in general. That they have changed one type of uniform for another matters very little. There are uniforms and there are non-uniforms and those are the divides.

Furthermore, high school nostalgia. My old high school had a thong check at a school dance (how's that for invasion of liberties) and a careful perusing of the dress code only really required a thin cloth around the bellyh button and nothing else. Fucked up days, they were.