|
|
Post by Crouton on May 14, 2014 18:32:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Taliesin on May 14, 2014 19:31:18 GMT -6
If that's the dress she was wearing then I really don't see what their problem was. And, actually, it's kind of disturbing that they would sexualise someone else's daughter in their minds that way. That's kind of... well, creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 14, 2014 19:33:28 GMT -6
Yeah that's the dress, it was fine and met the standards for length. The whole story is so creepy. And it's shocking that she was the one who was kicked out. In my books those men should have been kicked out and deemed not able to be chaperones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sorillon on May 14, 2014 19:37:34 GMT -6
I don't think that could ever really be called immodest by any reasonable definition. That's pretty strange, though the fact it was held in a church school would lead me to believe there'd be a higher potential for odd behavior like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taliesin on May 14, 2014 19:38:13 GMT -6
Yes, I have to agree with that. They're not fit to be chaperones if they're going to sexualise a young girl, and then have the gall to kick her out like their inappropriate thoughts were her fault. This is the kind of thing that leads to blaming victims of rape. It's highly disturbing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 14, 2014 19:41:21 GMT -6
Me as well, I find the whole story pretty scary. It's not her fault that those men are animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Firiath on May 15, 2014 14:39:49 GMT -6
When I read this I immediately rolled my eyes, sighed, and thought "Americans!"
I'm sorry, and I'm not saying this to offend anyone, but I only ever hear these kinds of stories from the US. However, I do think that this is a worldwide problem (this might be generalising, but you get what I mean). The girl is being blamed for arousing lustful thoughts with her dress, and nobody has a problem with those chaperones having these lustful thoughts? Seriously? So typical for "patriarchal Christianity", as it says in the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taliesin on May 15, 2014 15:51:15 GMT -6
To be honest, I personally think that putting it down to "patriarchal Christianity" is inadvertently letting those men off the hook. That is absolutely not meant as a dig at you, Firiath because I respect you and your opinions, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying. However, I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if they were Freemasons living in a matriarchy run by militant fembots, they'd still be having those disturbingly inappropriate thoughts anyway. They, and they alone, are responsible for their thoughts and actions, otherwise they could say things like, "Well, that girl made us do it!" or, "Society made us do it!" or, "The devil made us do it!" No, they did it. They need to wear the consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Firiath on May 15, 2014 16:24:47 GMT -6
I see what you mean. And I guess (actually, I know) this mindset is not restricted to Christianity, and not even to religious groups alone. Who knows when our societies will reach the point at which this way of thinking is a thing of the past. :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on May 15, 2014 17:34:16 GMT -6
There is a lot more wrong with this more than Christianity running rampant in America.
This is downright creepy and borderline rapey, to be honest. It really speaks volumes about rape culture in America. In what world should a woman have to feel bad because her dress gave man "impure thoughts"? It's just like saying that women who are raped that weren't covered in cloth from head-to-toe were "asking for it". Gender inequality and rape culture in my country really disgust me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 15, 2014 18:54:12 GMT -6
There is a lot more wrong with this more than Christianity running rampant in America. This is downright creepy and borderline rapey, to be honest. It really speaks volumes about rape culture in America. In what world should a woman have to feel bad because her dress gave man "impure thoughts"? It's just like saying that women who are raped that weren't covered in cloth from head-to-toe were "asking for it". Gender inequality and rape culture in my country really disgust me. I find it ironic that sometimes the same people who say ignorant things about Muslim women being completely covered are often the same people who victim blame girls for "not wearing enough" when they are raped or sexually abused in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on May 15, 2014 18:59:06 GMT -6
Exactly. Women in the Muslim faith are covered for their protection from men, not for degradation (the way many white Christians see it). I personally would not mind being covered from head to toe. I pretty much am almost all the time anyway. I hate showing skin. It has nothing to do with me being ashamed of my body either. I just prefer not to be looked at like a piece of meat. I very seldom where anything that shows my shoulders (though in the summer time it's almost unavoidable).
|
|
|
|
Post by Taliesin on May 15, 2014 22:27:11 GMT -6
I hate showing skin too. (Although I'm much less likely to be objectified.)
Sorry. Bad joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 16, 2014 11:45:07 GMT -6
I take a slightly different view of this issue. I can totally see evicting someone from a dance if the dress code was specified ahead of time and they deliberately ignored it. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I don't know why they thought the dress was inappropriate. I suppose they'll be more careful about communicating their requirements for a dress code in the future.
As to the chaperones thinking the young lady was attractive, I would say: so what? Most men are biologically programmed to think that women are attractive. The respective ages of individuals are irrelevant to that biological drive. I think it's stupid to pretend that people only find those who would be culturally appropriate potential sexual partners to be sexually attractive. I don't think there's any way of controlling that really. It is what it is.
What a person needs to evaluate when they're attracted to another is whether it is appropriate to pursue that attraction or not. In the case of mature men (who are likely married) chaperoning a high school dance, it just is not appropriate for them to pursue a teenage girl. They should have been telling themselves to ignore their feelings for that very reason.
After reading that article, it sounds to me like the chaperones weren't hitting on the girl or anything like that. Instead, they seemed more worried that the girl would attract the notice of the teenage boys at the party. I assume they thought the boys couldn't handle that, which was probably why she was asked to leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of holding dances for kids of that age? So they get practice in dealing with adult social situations? If the chaperones were worried that some of the boys were going to get the "wrong idea" about this girl and maybe do something to her, they should have been vigilant for that and intervened only if necessary. On the other hand, if they were really worried about it, did nothing and then something happened, I can see why they might err on the side of caution. It is the possible need for this kind of caution in our society infuriates me.
Seriously, I think we need to change the way we think about sexuality. I think that a person of either sex should be able to walk down the street naked without fear of being molested. I really take an issue with people thinking that anyone who dresses "provocatively" has somehow waived their right to say "no" to sex. Imagine if "no" unequivocally meant "no" for everyone and that not respecting that answer was just not an option. If that was our cultural standard, it wouldn't matter what anybody wore to a party now, would it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Liv the Librarian on May 16, 2014 15:00:17 GMT -6
As to the chaperones thinking the young lady was attractive, I would say: so what? Most men are biologically programmed to think that women are attractive. The respective ages of individuals are irrelevant to that biological drive. I think it's stupid to pretend that people only find those who would be culturally appropriate potential sexual partners to be sexually attractive. I don't think there's any way of controlling that really. It is what it is. My problem isn't with them being attracted to her, that's natural. What a person needs to evaluate when they're attracted to another is whether it is appropriate to pursue that attraction or not. In the case of mature men (who are likely married) chaperoning a high school dance, it just is not appropriate for them to pursue a teenage girl. They should have been telling themselves to ignore their feelings for that very reason. After reading that article, it sounds to me like the chaperones weren't hitting on the girl or anything like that. Instead, they seemed more worried that the girl would attract the notice of the teenage boys at the party. I assume they thought the boys couldn't handle that, which was probably why she was asked to leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of holding dances for kids of that age? So they get practice in dealing with adult social situations? If the chaperones were worried that some of the boys were going to get the "wrong idea" about this girl and maybe do something to her, they should have been vigilant for that and intervened only if necessary. On the other hand, if they were really worried about it, did nothing and then something happened, I can see why they might err on the side of caution. It is the possible need for this kind of caution in our society infuriates me. No, she was asked to leave because the chaperones couldn't contain their impure thoughts about her. The high school boys are supposed to want to get jiggy with high school girls, but they older males kicked her out because THEY couldn't contain their thoughts, which is extremely wrong, in my opinion. The male chaperones should have been the ones to leave, not kick out the girl, who was following the dress code and doing nothing wrong. Seriously, I think we need to change the way we think about sexuality. I think that a person of either sex should be able to walk down the street naked without fear of being molested. I really take an issue with people thinking that anyone who dresses "provocatively" has somehow waived their right to say "no" to sex. Imagine if "no" unequivocally meant "no" for everyone and that not respecting that answer was just not an option. If that was our cultural standard, it wouldn't matter what anybody wore to a party now, would it? And no, it wouldn't matter what anyone wore to a party, and I don't think it should. I choose to remain as clothed as possible at all times, but other women choose to show off cleavage, booty cheeks out of their shorts etc, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just disgusts me that if a woman wants to dress in a manner that shows off her body that all of the sudden she seems to be "asking" for rape, or if she's drunk she's "asking" for rape. America seriously needs to get it's head out of it's butt and realize that no woman is EVER asking for rape and the only time she's asking for sex is if she literally asks for it or if she consents to it. "No" means "no" and that's that. I don't know how Canada is about sexuality, but I know that America is extremely warped. We show violence on TV without an issue, but if a woman shows a tit, it's all of the sudden rated R. Look at the The Walking Dead for instance. There's zombies, death, violence, and no sex. Sure, it has an MA rating, but it's on regular TV. Same with THe Vampire diaries. I can literally watch someone get their throat ripped out on that show, but it's on the CW. If any of those shows had graphic sex and not graphic violence on them, they'd have to be on HBO, Cinemax, or Starz. What is so wrong with the human body that I can watch it get torn to pieces on regular television, but if two people are having consensual sex, it automatically gets moved to subscription based TV? |
|
