Dress Code?
The Wizard of Oz
check for underwear:
http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-142482620020429-200409.html
Damn! Sorry. You'll have to cut and paste to get the story.
--
Regards,
Wiz
ICQ# 25567613
I am not a member of The Lumber Cartel (TINLC) (tm).
Therefore, I'm definitely not Unit# 02029.
http://come.to/the.lumber.cartel/
Al Superczynski
wrote:
>San Diego gets all upset over the Vice Principal, lifting skirts to
>check for underwear:
>
>http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-142482620020429-200409.html
Guess we know where some of the Taliban are hiding now.....
--
My "From" address is munged - click "Reply To" to respond via email.
The Wizard of Oz
>
> San Diego gets all upset over the Vice Principal, lifting skirts to
> check for underwear:
>
> http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-142482620020429-200409.html
>
> Damn! Sorry. You'll have to cut and paste to get the story.
Strange, it folds back in my composer, but not in posting.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............<thoughtfully stroking beard>
Kathryn Simpson
"Ernie B." <ernie-baresch@att._REMOVE_THIS_net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1737d2dcd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> The Wizard of Oz wrote:
>
> >
> should have her head on a pike.
Link worked for me too. Oh, and I agree with Ernie.
If anyone, at school, away from school, or anywhere, compelled my daughter to
lift her dress for them, there would be absolute heck to pay.
The vice-principal should be fired. Though she will probably only receive a
reprimand.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
"Winter comes way too soon, how we spend it reflects on how we have
lived our life." (Author Unknown, but probably died happy)
Shanen Hate
San Diego gets all upset over the Vice Principal, lifting skirts to
check for underwear:http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-142482620020429-200409.html
Damn! Sorry. You'll have to cut and paste to get the story.
--
2. Yet another example of our "puritanical society" in "perfect America" going nutso. Don't get me wrong - I love this country and would be the first to pick up a weapn to defend the nation's borders. But IMHO this country is among the most backwards in belief and value systems and every year, it only gets a little worse. Instead of addressing and solving problems, we seek to legislate them away rather than educating the "collective" in the art of becoming a more harmonious unit (ok, I can dream, can't I?). - But I digressed.
3. Does anyone else besides me see something wrong with this quote? "Gentle said that even while enforcing the school dress code, it is not proper procedure to ask students what they are wearing underneath their clothes." ---Tell me....exactly what are people "wearing" underneath their clothes these days.
Later,
Shanen
Al Superczynski
>Does anyone else besides me see something wrong with this quote? "Gentle said that
>even while enforcing the school dress code, it is not proper procedure to ask students
>what they are wearing underneath their clothes."
A number of things, including: Is underwear addressed by the
dress code? If so, does that mean that all boys have to drop their
pants and all girls have to raise their skirts for inspection upon
entering the school building? Does the staff have to adhere to the
same dress code? Who "inspects" them? Etc.....
Hooda Gest
"Al Superczynski" <mode...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:l7iscukrnfcaaljev...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:28:45 GMT, Shanen Hate <ha...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone else besides me see something wrong with this quote? "Gentle
said that
> >even while enforcing the school dress code, it is not proper procedure to
ask students
> >what they are wearing underneath their clothes."
>
> A number of things, including: Is underwear addressed by the
> dress code? If so, does that mean that all boys have to drop their
> pants and all girls have to raise their skirts for inspection upon
> entering the school building? Does the staff have to adhere to the
> same dress code? Who "inspects" them? Etc.....
My only question would be:
How old are these girls and who bought the thong underwear?
When I was in high school, oh so many years ago, we could not wear shirts
outside our pants, nor bluejeans, nor T-shirts, nor shorts. Girls' skirts
had to be to the knee, no midriff could show, no halter or tube tops.
Somehow, we managed to get an education, go to school dances, and enjoy
ourselves. We did not nee to get the ACLU involved nor would any parent
demand a child be allowed to dress like a slut.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
Hooda Gest
Just a question for you and Janice...
Would you want your 16 year old daughter wearing thong underwear?
--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."
thuss
<oldfartswife623_the@obvious_hotmail.com> wrote:
>Times have changed. So have styles. The one that I hate the most is the
>guys that wear over-sized pants, worn so low that their boxers are
>showing. I'm always waiting for the pants to fall off. It's bad enough
>that they are wearing their clothes like this to school, but I really
>object when I see them wearing them while working at stores and
>restaurants.
------------ Indulgence, please.. Some of us guys have hipbones
that never fully developed, so we don't have anything to "hook" our
britches on. I've been skinny and I've been fat. And all sizes in
between. Same prob: either suspenders, or walk around all the time
holding on to belt.
Now that I am finally stylish, please don't throw water on my
wienie roast.
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Ernie B." <ernie-baresch@att._REMOVE_THIS_net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1737d2dcd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> The Wizard of Oz wrote:
>>
>> > Damn! Sorry. You'll have to cut and paste to get the story.
>> >
>> Worked fine for me. I don't blame the parents for being upset, that VP
>> should have her head on a pike.
>
>Link worked for me too. Oh, and I agree with Ernie.
>
>If anyone, at school, away from school, or anywhere, compelled my daughter to
>lift her dress for them, there would be absolute heck to pay.
>
>The vice-principal should be fired. Though she will probably only receive a
>reprimand.
----------------- Wonder how the VP would react if someonme told
her she had to hike her frocktail so they could see what kind of
drawers, if any, she had on.
thuss
<oldfartswife623_the@obvious_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ------------ Indulgence, please.. Some of us guys have hipbones
>> that never fully developed, so we don't have anything to "hook" our
>> britches on. I've been skinny and I've been fat. And all sizes in
>> between. Same prob: either suspenders, or walk around all the time
>> holding on to belt.
>> Now that I am finally stylish, please don't throw water on my
>> wienie roast.
>
>But are you wearing pants that are 3-5 sizes too large?
-- Yes. I found out years ago that the easiest way to look skinny
was to wear fat clothes.
>Are you boxers
>showing? There's a difference.
==========>Thuss<==========blushing.
Allan Smith
I'm not the addressee of the question, but I have one:
Would you want your 16 year-old son wearing a Speedo at the pool?
Allan
"Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
news:YMwz8.54216$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rick B.
<youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote:
> BTW at 16 I often went braless.
>In the summer it was much more comfortable ;-)
Yes, I remember that well, didnt we go skinny dipping in Spot pond ?
Rick B.
<youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote:
>Pick your arguments with your teenagers.
Put another way...don't discourage harmless rebellion, otherwise it
will just ratchet up to the unbearable.
J&K Copeland
"Laura" <oldfartswife623_the@obvious_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CzBz8.54598$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<g> They do tend to be harder on the girls.
(Barely) 14-year-old-girl, "But Daddy, when Jamie (older brother) was 14,
you let him go to the mall by himself."
40-year-old-father. "Yes, I did. But, he was 5'10", weighted 185 pounds
and benchpressed over 200. When you can benchpress 200 pounds, we'll talk
about it. Now that I think about it, it's because the mall is full of
14-year-old boys just like your brother, and that's another damn good
reason."
She went with a couple of girl friends. However, two different fathers
shadowed them every step of the way. (Damn lucky the security folks didn't
pick us up!)
James...
John Stansfield
teacher recently. The said teacher has now been suspended after a
hidden camera was discovered in his study, where all this took place!
Two of them were in boxers whilst the other was in normal pants. My
youngest son told me about it.
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
news:iutz8.53892$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Somehow, we managed to get an education, go to school dances, and enjoy
> ourselves. We did not nee to get the ACLU involved nor would any parent
> demand a child be allowed to dress like a slut.
I'm confused. How can one appear to "dress like a slut" when the offensive
clothing is underneath other clothing that is otherwise acceptable and thus not
visibly "slut-like"?
Now, if they were only wearing a thong, I'd say the vice-principal was within
protocol to ask the child to leave and not return until she was appropriately
dressed. However, they were, by all outward appearance, dressed appropriately.
Thus, the vice-principal had no business looking up their skirts.
Kathryn Simpson
"Allan Smith" <netsmith@(anywhere you might imagine).net> wrote in message
news:lFyz8.77464$EK.50...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> Would you want your 16 year-old son wearing a Speedo at the pool?
For that matter, would ANYONE want a 16 year old wearing a Speedo at the pool.
<g>
Yes, they are legal; but they are also ugly.
thuss
<oldfartswife623_the@obvious_hotmail.com> wrote:
>I wouldn't. At age 12, she has already turned her nose up at them. She
>thinks they are "gross". Of course, she might change her mind when she
>gets to be 16.<let's hope not>
I've heard some women call thongs "fanny flossers".
Back in the '50's, the wife of a buddy of mine told me that many girls
like to roll the bottoms ("legs") of their cotton panites up so they
showed through their skirts, and the boys would look at them. Guess
things have changed. Seems like the girls would be uncomfortable and
subject to irritations wearng what amounts to a man's jock strap,
minus leg straps.
Kathryn Simpson
"cg" <cgmail@{removethis}cox.net> wrote in message
news:b9rtcukfifga2g2al...@4ax.com...
> Different strokes for different folks. One man's meat is another's
> poison. And so on. I used to feel much like you but I've discovered
> that there can be advantages to certain guidelines. One on underwear
> wouldn't qualify in my book. None-the-less, local schools have banned
> showing gang colors. This is one I do approve of.
Therein lies the distinction. Showing gang colors is clearly visible (that is
the point <g>). What you are wearing underneath your clothes (as long as it
isn't a concealed weapon) isn't visible until you ask the child to unveil it.
Ironic.
Perhaps for the next dance, the girls should all show up wearing cg's mens
briefs. <eg>
Thomas Aldrich II
all those leaf blowers
The Wizard of Oz wrote:
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>
>Therein lies the distinction. Showing gang colors is clearly visible (that is
>the point <g>). What you are wearing underneath your clothes (as long as it
>isn't a concealed weapon) isn't visible until you ask the child to unveil it.
>Ironic.
>
>Perhaps for the next dance, the girls should all show up wearing cg's mens
>briefs. <eg>
-------------- Or dispense with undies altogether. That will
probably be next time.
Kathryn Simpson
> They already came close. I don't know if you remember the boxer
> phenomena. The girls were wearing them as shorts. That was at least
> four years ago. My daughter was still in high school. I had to take
> a few swallows but I let it pass. They were, for intents and
> purposes, shorts when worn as exterior clothing. Nothing revealing
> but it was difficult for me to get past the knowledge that they were
> underwear. Of course the cost about $10/boxer. I think they were
> actually sewn differently than a regular pair of boxers too but I
> couldn't bring myself to look and find out otherwise.
Coincidentally, Tom wanted to wear a pair of those pajama shorts to school
today. I refused to let him. Go figure. <g>
Kathryn Simpson
"thuss" <thow...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rocucuclu7815c99m...@4ax.com...
> -------------- Or dispense with undies altogether. That will
> probably be next time.
lol, perhaps one could run a handy-cam under their dress and when the teacher
did the inspection... "Smile for the Undie-Cam." <g>
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"thuss" <thow...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:rocucuclu7815c99m...@4ax.com...
>> -------------- Or dispense with undies altogether. That will
>> probably be next time.
>
>lol, perhaps one could run a handy-cam under their dress and when the teacher
>did the inspection... "Smile for the Undie-Cam." <g>
------------ Probably be added to the Wednesday night lineup on TV
soon.
Kathryn Simpson
> Has he been reading the newsgroup again <g>?
lol. Only for the puns. <g>
Kathryn Simpson
"Janice" <youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote in message
news:opHz8.979$qP1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> You'd think huh? <G> However, there are valid reasons for wearing
> certain types of undergarments with certain clothing. It's called panty
> lines ;-) Used to be, some would go pantiless to avoid the line.
Yes, visible pantie lines and snags in the nylons. Quickest ways to ruin a
woman's night. <g>
Hooda Gest
If you had seen my son at 16, you wouldn't have bothered to ask that
question. 6'4", 250 lbs and not in great shape.
But, regardless, the answer is no. I taught my son to have some self
respect.
--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."
"Allan Smith" <netsmith@(anywhere you might imagine).net> wrote in message
news:lFyz8.77464$EK.50...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Hooda Gest
"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:i6Gz8.68540$VQ2.40...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> news:iutz8.53892$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Somehow, we managed to get an education, go to school dances, and enjoy
> > ourselves. We did not nee to get the ACLU involved nor would any parent
> > demand a child be allowed to dress like a slut.
>
> I'm confused. How can one appear to "dress like a slut" when the
offensive
> clothing is underneath other clothing that is otherwise acceptable and
thus not
> visibly "slut-like"?
Why do you suppose the question even comes up? Would it be because, as mots
of the anti-rule people here seem to think, the V-P is intrigued by the
underwear being worn? Or perhaps it's because there is some "thing-snapping"
going on? Some showing off of the "taboo" apparell?
No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a secret
fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
>
> Now, if they were only wearing a thong, I'd say the vice-principal was
within
> protocol to ask the child to leave and not return until she was
appropriately
> dressed. However, they were, by all outward appearance, dressed
appropriately.
> Thus, the vice-principal had no business looking up their skirts.
Fine. Whatever you wish to think. I, on the other hand, will wonder about
parents who think that children should be treated as adults well before they
have the maturity to act like one.
thuss
<youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote:
>Already been done. See my other reply to you.
------- I remember a few years back when the Hillsboro County
(Tampa, Fl) school board banned the wearing of sports bras as tops by
girls in PE class, or other similar events.
Down here, we've been seeing girls and women wear sports bras
as tops in malls, shops, on the street...everywhere. For years. This
garment is block-cut, nearly military in style. There is nothing
suggestive, allusive, nor provocative about it. The sports bra has
all the appeal of an upper body cast. It all boils down to :
Somebody's Always Got Something To Say".
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Janice" <youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote in message
>news:opHz8.979$qP1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> You'd think huh? <G> However, there are valid reasons for wearing
>> certain types of undergarments with certain clothing. It's called panty
>> lines ;-) Used to be, some would go pantiless to avoid the line.
>
>Yes, visible pantie lines and snags in the nylons. Quickest ways to ruin a
>woman's night. <g>
----------I always thought that stuff was kind of nice.
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> Why do you suppose the question even comes up? Would it be because, as mots
> of the anti-rule people here seem to think, the V-P is intrigued by the
> underwear being worn? Or perhaps it's because there is some "thing-snapping"
> going on? Some showing off of the "taboo" apparell?
>
> No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a secret
> fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
I can't think of any reason to justify looking up a girl's skirt or dress,
except to ensure that she is not carrying a weapon. And if anyone should be
doing that, it should be the police officer, who was apparently standing nearby.
If the kids were playing "grab-a**", then there were certainly better ways to
deal with their behavior than going on a pantie inspection. It is not a matter
of thinking she is some puritanical whacko. It is a matter of thinking that a
vice-principal should exercise better judgement. I don't think she should be
summarily dismissed without an investigation. However, if the investigation
shows that she gave the instructions to have these girls lifting their skirts
for panty inspection, especially without any regard for privacy, she deserves to
be fired.
> Fine. Whatever you wish to think. I, on the other hand, will wonder about
> parents who think that children should be treated as adults well before they
> have the maturity to act like one.
I don't think the parents want their kids treated like adults. I think the
parents want their kids to be treated with respect and dignity and I don't think
that is an unreasonable thing to expect of a high school vice principal.
Whether a child or an adult, if there is an appropriate need for girls or women
to raise their dresses or skirts to a level to which another person can see
their underwear, it should at least be done with some privacy and respect for
the child or woman involved.
As a person who has been very involved in school district policy issues, I would
certainly hope that there was a reasonable explanation for what the
vice-principal did, because if there isn't, then the District has a serious
liability concern, a nightmare of a public relations problem, and for their sake
I hope they aren't running any funding campaigns in the near future. Thus far, a
reasonable explanation for the VP's actions haven't been forthcoming. Right now
it appears that the vice principal exercised extremely poor judgment. If a
reasonable explanation does exist, it would behoove the District to make it
public very quickly, to quell the public outcry. However, that hasn't happened.
Go figure.
Kathryn Simpson
> ----------I always thought that stuff was kind of nice.
Oh, it's not a big deal, unless they are your panty lines or your nylons. <g>
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
(snippad aganst my better judgement)
>As a person who has been very involved in school district policy issues, I would
>certainly hope that there was a reasonable explanation for what the
>vice-principal did, because if there isn't, then the District has a serious
>liability concern, a nightmare of a public relations problem, and for their sake
>I hope they aren't running any funding campaigns in the near future. Thus far, a
>reasonable explanation for the VP's actions haven't been forthcoming. Right now
>it appears that the vice principal exercised extremely poor judgment. If a
>reasonable explanation does exist, it would behoove the District to make it
>public very quickly, to quell the public outcry. However, that hasn't happened.
>Go figure.
---------------Very well put. As someone else posted, there must be
more to this than what was reported. A Principal and Vice Principal
have to , by the nature of their jobs, work closely together. Now,
unless there is some common agenda agreement between the Principal and
Vice Principal, then you can normally expect that the Vice Principal
is in very bad trouble with Principal.
And surely plans to make the girls go through a display of
their underwear would have been discussed with at least one other
person. Very likely, several people were aware.
School District CEO's or Superintendents, don't like public
embaarassment. If California is like Florida, then there is a Public
Disgrace Law. If someone employed by a school district does something
to cause a "public disgrace" to the District, then they are dismissed.
The elected Board can't override a dismissal of this sort.
David Krieps
wrote:
>
>"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:i6Gz8.68540$VQ2.40...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
>> news:iutz8.53892$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Somehow, we managed to get an education, go to school dances, and enjoy
>> > ourselves. We did not nee to get the ACLU involved nor would any parent
>> > demand a child be allowed to dress like a slut.
>>
>> I'm confused. How can one appear to "dress like a slut" when the
>offensive
>> clothing is underneath other clothing that is otherwise acceptable and
>thus not
>> visibly "slut-like"?
>
>Why do you suppose the question even comes up? Would it be because, as mots
>of the anti-rule people here seem to think, the V-P is intrigued by the
>underwear being worn? Or perhaps it's because there is some "thing-snapping"
>going on? Some showing off of the "taboo" apparell?
Then deal with those problems. Jeez, I always hated the punish all
for the sins of the few. It was probably convenient, but did little
to solve the problems of the individuals concerned. That is a sort of
Lowest common denominator approach to things.
>
>No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a secret
>fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
I dunno. After having read all of the preceeding posts, I have to
wonder at the "well intentioned" person that decided to do this.
Where, exactly, was their head?
>
>>
>> Now, if they were only wearing a thong, I'd say the vice-principal was
>within
>> protocol to ask the child to leave and not return until she was
>appropriately
>> dressed. However, they were, by all outward appearance, dressed
>appropriately.
>> Thus, the vice-principal had no business looking up their skirts.
>
>Fine. Whatever you wish to think. I, on the other hand, will wonder about
>parents who think that children should be treated as adults well before they
>have the maturity to act like one.
Children are younger people. They have wants and needs just like
grown-ups. To deny that is to be foolish.
Children were getting pregnant since time began. Why did some, and
not others.
What do you think of crotchless underwear? Women in the 19th
century wore such garments to make toilet easier. Can you imagine
undoing the corsets and other things to drop trou?
One of my previous co-workers claims that the standards set before
the age of 6 is what defines the person for the rest of their life. I
believe there is some truth in that, though will allow that is not all
of the story. It does appear that the early years are the most
important. It is darned hard to convince a teenager that what they
are doing is wrong. Better to have set up the values early, so they
know it when they see it when they become teenagers.
Actually, this is all to absurd. The idea of a public, or private,
school official inspecting underwear is a bit over the top. Ensuring
appropriate behavior at a school function is one thing. Inspecting
underwear is quite another. I would not even do that for my own kid.
JMHO.
Cheers! :)
Shanen Hate
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:28:45 GMT, Shanen Hate <ha...@gate.net> wrote:
> <--snip-->
>
> >2. Yet another example of our "puritanical society" in "perfect America" going nutso.
> >Don't get me wrong - I love this country and would be the first to pick up a weapn to
> >defend the nation's borders. But IMHO this country is among the most backwards in
> >belief and value systems and every year, it only gets a little worse. Instead of
> >addressing and solving problems, we seek to legislate them away rather than educating
> >the "collective" in the art of becoming a more harmonious unit (ok, I can dream, can't
> >I?). - But I digressed.
>
> Different strokes for different folks. One man's meat is another's
> poison. And so on. I used to feel much like you but I've discovered
> that there can be advantages to certain guidelines. One on underwear
> wouldn't qualify in my book. None-the-less, local schools have banned
> showing gang colors. This is one I do approve of.
Agreed. I don't agree with what was alledgedly done (according to the article). But this
is the stuff that new laws are made of....and quite frankly I believe preceeding laws got
us to this point to some degree. Figured I'd throw this comment in cuz i'm not sure that
my meaning was clear.
I can agree with you on the gang colors. Let's stop a moment and figure out in our
evolution as a society, when exactly did gangs begin AND how did the color thing come
about? Bet we can find laws that were bending society in certain directions and this was
fallout from it. That's my point - purely conjecture with no research and proof to back it
up admittedly. But it might be a fun thing to research for someone with more time on their
hands than myself.
>
>
> >3. Does anyone else besides me see something wrong with this quote? "Gentle said that
> >even while enforcing the school dress code, it is not proper procedure to ask students
> >what they are wearing underneath their clothes." ---Tell me....exactly what are people
> >"wearing" underneath their clothes these days.
>
> <--snip-->
>
> So, you guys will be thee first I've ever volunteered this to. I hope
> you will not giggle or make fun of me. I wear
>
> men's briefs.
>
OK....I can't stand it anymore. NO ONE gets it. Let me point it out again how stupid this
one part really is - "it is not proper procedure to ask students what they are wearing
underneath their clothes." Alright, that said....I don't know about anyone else, but
underwear, no matter what it is, is in fact clothing. So I don't know about anyone else,
but I frankly wear nothing under my clothes - I have no tattoos - not that there's anything
wrong with that of course!
Now I make the public apology for trying to find the slightest bit of humor in an article
that is talking about a very serious issue.
Lastly....cg, I feel much closer to you (you know, the way one feels when you're watching
TV and some acquaintance in the room rises and announces "I'm going to the bathroom now") -
hahaha. I feel in some way we are kindred spirits. I too am a "briefs man." ;-)
Later,
Shanen
Hooda Gest
> Speedo's or similar bathing suits are required on the swim team.
> Something about aerodynamics. Most US boys on the beach won't wear
> anything above the knee but in Europe it is common place. Since I live
> in an area where French and German people live let me tell you, I'd
> rather they didn't wear them <G>
>
> Hooda, I think you need to lighten up a bit. Undies are just that,
> under your clothing. Only if they can be seen need a parent be
> concerned.
Forgotten your teen years, I guess. Undies weren't always underneath. And
there's no reason for a teenage girl to be wearing thong underwear.
I realize that modesty is frowned on these days and I was certainly one of
those in the 60s and 70s who loved the micro-mini, hotpants, and see through
blouses. But there are limits and there should be some for children so they
can learn how and when to set them for themselves.
Don't provide any guidelines and children will never learn to live by them
as adults, won't be able to establish them for their children, and society
will continue sinking slowly into the muck.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
Hooda Gest
>
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> :
> : "Janice" <youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote in message
> : news:SVHz8.1056$qP1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> : > Speedo's or similar bathing suits are required on the swim team.
> : > Something about aerodynamics. Most US boys on the beach won't wear
> : > anything above the knee but in Europe it is common place. Since I
> live
> : > in an area where French and German people live let me tell you, I'd
> : > rather they didn't wear them <G>
> : >
> : > Hooda, I think you need to lighten up a bit. Undies are just that,
> : > under your clothing. Only if they can be seen need a parent be
> : > concerned.
> :
> : Forgotten your teen years, I guess. Undies weren't always underneath.
> And
> : there's no reason for a teenage girl to be wearing thong underwear.
>
> my teen years) there were some very pretty undies that could be worn as
> shirts (or men's boxers as shorts) but they were no more revealing than
> a bikini on a beach. As to no reason to wear one, there is no reason
> not to except if they showed and then that has nothing to do with
> whether they are thongs or bikini or gramma moses undies.
Panties and bras have, for most of my years, shown less than a bikini would.
That's not the point.
>
> If a girl wore one with jeans you'd never know. If she wore one with a
> ball gown you'd never know. If the problem is her undies show it's not
> what the undies are but the fact they are showing that needs to be dealt
> with. Understand? To do a panty check rather than to say to a
> particular girl, "Look, your undies are showing when you dance, please
> go home and put on something else" is not only rude but very poor
> judgement.
The problem isn't even in the showing, it's in the wearing and in the
mindset that goes with the wearing. Yes, it's rude to bring it up in public
but we don't know that's how it was done. And, by the way, I do not think it
rude when the people who supposed to set the rules and enforce them do so.
It's their jobs. We complain about how the kids have no respect for teachers
or school but we encourage that disrespect when we don't understand the
concept of discipline ourselves.
> :
> : I realize that modesty is frowned on these days and I was certainly
> one of
> : those in the 60s and 70s who loved the micro-mini, hotpants, and see
> through
> : blouses. But there are limits and there should be some for children so
> they
> : can learn how and when to set them for themselves.
>
> But, my point, is that limits should be reasonable. If my daughter
No, limits shouldn't be "reasonable" (whatever that means). It isn't
reasonable for an open highway to have a speed limit of 55MPH but we it's
there. It isn't reasonable to sit at a traffic light because it's red if
there are no other cars on the road. It isn't reasonable to hold your
tongue and not snap at someone who irritates you; it would certainly feel
better if you just called them on it.
All of these "unreasonable" things and others like them are what makes a
society polite, it's what makes us civilized. But not if we ignore them
because they aren't "reasonable".
> wanted to wear thong underwear it wouldn't bother me unless she was
> showing them off, then the issue is not the underwear, but her need for
> attention and I'd deal with that. Set rules, but don't set them so
> tight that they're only to be broken. BTW modesty is not frowned upon,
> I bet that my friends daughter has several thongs, she's a straight A
> student and is very modest.
Modesty is frowned on, or laughed at. It's ignored at best. As for setting
rules weak enough that they don't beg to be broken, that's a fallacy. Kids
need to break rules, to rebel. If the rule is so weak as to be pointless,
there's no thrill involved. So, instead of breaking the silly rules, they
break harder ones... like felonies.
> :
> : Don't provide any guidelines and children will never learn to live by
> them
> : as adults, won't be able to establish them for their children, and
> society
> : will continue sinking slowly into the muck.
>
>
> I remember when I was a teenager some parents were so strict (even today
> some are) they wouldn't let a teenage girl shave her legs or underarms.
> Can you imagine how embarrassed that made these girls feel. I'm not
> saying don't provide guidelines but make them important ones.
Yes, I knew a girl in high school whose parents refused to allow her to
shave her legs (or armpits, I presume, don't recall ever seeing for sure).
Yes, some teased her. She handled it well, even pointing out that it was
fashionable in Europe. She suffered very little for it and seemed to learn
how to defuse such teasing. Perhaps she was more well adjusted than most,
perhaps it was because she had to learn to deal with teasing from those rude
teens who thought rules against teasing were not "reasonable".
As we go through life, a lot of things seem unimportant. But we, as
individuals, don't get to decide which rules we'll follow and which we won't
without knowing the consequences and being willing to accept them if we get
caught. What these girls' parents are teaching them is "The rules don't
apply to you, the consequences won't have to be faced because we'll protect
you from them."
That's wrong.
Hooda Gest
Here is where I have the problem with those of you who jumped on the V-P
immediately. You don't know the circumstances, you don't know what preceded
the incident, you don't know who's telling the truth, but you are quick to
judge the V-P and not the teenager.
And that's all I have to say.
Hooda Gest
"David Krieps" <djkr...@nojunk.att.net> wrote in message
news:9nqucugeptm0uonfg...@4ax.com...
Yes, I've always hated that LCD approach too. Until I went into the service.
Then I found out why it was important.
> >
> >No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a secret
> >fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
>
> I dunno. After having read all of the preceeding posts, I have to
> wonder at the "well intentioned" person that decided to do this.
> Where, exactly, was their head?
Yes, I wonder about that too. I also wonder about the parents who were
immediately outraged by the actions of the V-P. Where are their heads?
>
> >
> >>
> >> Now, if they were only wearing a thong, I'd say the vice-principal was
> >within
> >> protocol to ask the child to leave and not return until she was
> >appropriately
> >> dressed. However, they were, by all outward appearance, dressed
> >appropriately.
> >> Thus, the vice-principal had no business looking up their skirts.
> >
> >Fine. Whatever you wish to think. I, on the other hand, will wonder about
> >parents who think that children should be treated as adults well before
they
> >have the maturity to act like one.
>
> Children are younger people. They have wants and needs just like
> grown-ups. To deny that is to be foolish.
But they don't have the experience or the maturity of "grown-ups" either.
That's why we have schools, rules, and guidance.
>
> Children were getting pregnant since time began. Why did some, and
> not others.
A lot less of them were getting pregnant than today.
>
> What do you think of crotchless underwear? Women in the 19th
> century wore such garments to make toilet easier. Can you imagine
> undoing the corsets and other things to drop trou?
Well, that's the ticket! Why wear any clothes at all?
>
> One of my previous co-workers claims that the standards set before
> the age of 6 is what defines the person for the rest of their life. I
> believe there is some truth in that, though will allow that is not all
> of the story. It does appear that the early years are the most
> important. It is darned hard to convince a teenager that what they
> are doing is wrong. Better to have set up the values early, so they
> know it when they see it when they become teenagers.
Well, why not just ask the teens to set the rules then? After all, they know
best anyway.
>
> Actually, this is all to absurd. The idea of a public, or private,
> school official inspecting underwear is a bit over the top. Ensuring
> appropriate behavior at a school function is one thing. Inspecting
> underwear is quite another. I would not even do that for my own kid.
I don't know all the specifics of the incident, neither do you. Yet you feel
qualified to make several judgements... all of which favor the teen... based
on that scant knowledge.
I am sure that, if you did inspect your teen daughters underwear before
leaving the house, she'd find a way to swap them on the way to the school
dance. And I am equally sure you'd be outraged at the school for sending her
home when they found her wearing the thong.
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> I don't know all the specifics of the incident, neither do you. Yet you feel
> qualified to make several judgements... all of which favor the teen... based
> on that scant knowledge.
I'm currently in San Diego. This has been on the tv news and in the newspaper
for the past couple of days. Thus far, the District is only saying that they
are investigating the complaints. Last night, one of the TV stations did an
interview with one of the kids who supported the vice-principal's actions. She
said, "They were dressed like whores. Yes, I think that what the vice-principal
did was wrong, but someone had to do something".
Reasonable is that if a child is dressed like a whore and shows up for a school
dance, send the child home to change to appropriate attire. I would have fully
supported the vice-principal and told any complaining parents to go take a
flying leap. However, that is not what the vice-principal did. Instead, she
went on a pantie inspection!
>
> I am sure that, if you did inspect your teen daughters underwear before
> leaving the house, she'd find a way to swap them on the way to the school
> dance. And I am equally sure you'd be outraged at the school for sending her
> home when they found her wearing the thong.
If any adult at school, at church, or anywhere, looked up my daughter's dress to
see what kind of underwear she was wearing, I would be as outraged as these
parents are about a vice-principal.
Part of the point you are missing here is that this is a vice-principal of a
large High School. She is a person with supposed extensive experience with
children and a whole lot of authority over them. Her policy making and
enforcement decisions in this matter were remedial at best. Parents have a
right to be concerned about the quality of judgment in a person with such
serious responsibilities for their children.
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> The problem isn't even in the showing, it's in the wearing and in the
> mindset that goes with the wearing. Yes, it's rude to bring it up in public
> but we don't know that's how it was done. And, by the way, I do not think it
> rude when the people who supposed to set the rules and enforce them do so.
> It's their jobs. We complain about how the kids have no respect for teachers
> or school but we encourage that disrespect when we don't understand the
> concept of discipline ourselves.
> As we go through life, a lot of things seem unimportant. But we, as
> individuals, don't get to decide which rules we'll follow and which we won't
> without knowing the consequences and being willing to accept them if we get
> caught. What these girls' parents are teaching them is "The rules don't
> apply to you, the consequences won't have to be faced because we'll protect
> you from them."
>
> That's wrong.
By abusing her authority, the vice principal was also sending a message that
those with the power control the rules. That's wrong.
As a vice-principal, she had the ethical responsibility to treat the children
with respect and the interaction as a teaching opportunity, even if they were
doing something she didn't like. Certainly she had a right to enforce school
policy, but so far the school or school district has not put forth any statement
that one's choice in underwear violates any school or district policies.
Allan Smith
> mindset that goes with the wearing.
As a farmboy who did most of the raising of his his thirteen siblings before
getting a degree in Psychology and Engineering, I've gotta say that's the
biggest pile of bullshit I've seen since shortly after I pumped 15 gallons
of baking soda-water into old man Johnson's prize bull's constipated butt.
Clue - may women find them more comfortable than "regular" (or should I say
"Gest-acceptable") styles.
I'm not quite built like a woman. I think I'll let them make their own
choices, since I would not presume to be qualified to judge what is or is
not conmfortable for them, and could never speak from experience. Any number
of surveys have shown a majoryity of women think them comfortable, however.
> The problem isn't even in the showing, it's in the wearing and in the
> mindset that goes with the wearing.
Simply wearing them demsonstrates no specific "mindset". Perhaps the
"mindset" of comfort, perhaps the "mindset" of healthy "self-image". Perhaps
even of the instinctual drive to "flirt", so as to eventually continue the
species.
Tell me, what is the one "mindset" of men who wear briefs instead of boxers?
Now, suppose the boxers have little hearts on them?
> All of these "unreasonable" things and others like them are what makes a
> society polite, it's what makes us civilized. But not if we ignore them
> because they aren't "reasonable".
And it is civiized to loft the skirt of someone else's teenage daughter?
> As we go through life, a lot of things seem unimportant. But we, as
> individuals, don't get to decide which rules we'll follow and which we
won't
> without knowing the consequences and being willing to accept them if we
get
> caught.
So what exactly are the "consequences" of underwear that no one butt the
wearer ever sees? No pardon for the pun needed.
The "consequences" of them in this instance resulted from an invasion of
personal privacy. And the more severe "consequences" will be suffered by the
invader, not the invaded.
Allan
David Krieps
wrote:
>
>"David Krieps" <djkr...@nojunk.att.net> wrote in message
>news:9nqucugeptm0uonfg...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 May 2002 01:34:44 GMT, "Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
>> >> news:iutz8.53892$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
>> >
>> >Why do you suppose the question even comes up? Would it be because, as
>mots
>> >of the anti-rule people here seem to think, the V-P is intrigued by the
>> >underwear being worn? Or perhaps it's because there is some
>"thing-snapping"
>> >going on? Some showing off of the "taboo" apparell?
>>
>> Then deal with those problems. Jeez, I always hated the punish all
>> for the sins of the few. It was probably convenient, but did little
>> to solve the problems of the individuals concerned. That is a sort of
>> Lowest common denominator approach to things.
>
>Yes, I've always hated that LCD approach too. Until I went into the service.
>Then I found out why it was important.
I would reject that argument as inconsequetial to the situation..
It was important in the military. It was important to stamp out any
individuality and build teamwork. I do not think it an appropriate
action in a civilian environment.
We are trying to help our kids grow, and hopefully think for
themselves; the opposite of the military in many cases (I was six and
a half years in the military.) The military is a special case. While
leadership and sound thinking is encouraged, it has to be within the
confines of the military way. That is not how I want my kid to be
taught. If I did, I'd send her to a military school.
My disclaimer: I do not mean to speak badly of military people.
Everything has a place. I enjoyed my military service, and respect
those that serve today. I apologize if my poor composition skills
infer anything else.
>
>
>> >
>> >No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a secret
>> >fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
>>
>> I dunno. After having read all of the preceeding posts, I have to
>> wonder at the "well intentioned" person that decided to do this.
>> Where, exactly, was their head?
>
>Yes, I wonder about that too. I also wonder about the parents who were
>immediately outraged by the actions of the V-P. Where are their heads?
>
Thinking I think.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Now, if they were only wearing a thong, I'd say the vice-principal was
>> >within
>> >> protocol to ask the child to leave and not return until she was
>> >appropriately
>> >> dressed. However, they were, by all outward appearance, dressed
>> >appropriately.
>> >> Thus, the vice-principal had no business looking up their skirts.
>> >
>> >Fine. Whatever you wish to think. I, on the other hand, will wonder about
>> >parents who think that children should be treated as adults well before
>they
>> >have the maturity to act like one.
>>
>> Children are younger people. They have wants and needs just like
>> grown-ups. To deny that is to be foolish.
>
>But they don't have the experience or the maturity of "grown-ups" either.
>That's why we have schools, rules, and guidance.
>
Underwear guidance in not a thing I consider the domain of the
schools. Let them teach skills. Teach discipline (although that
should have been taught at home long before they enter school). They
should also teach respect for authority; that is not something a panty
inspection would do, I dare say.
>>
>> Children were getting pregnant since time began. Why did some, and
>> not others.
>
>A lot less of them were getting pregnant than today.
There's a lot more teenagers today too.<g>
>
>>
>> What do you think of crotchless underwear? Women in the 19th
>> century wore such garments to make toilet easier. Can you imagine
>> undoing the corsets and other things to drop trou?
>
>Well, that's the ticket! Why wear any clothes at all?
Aaargh. Bogus alert.
>
>>
>> One of my previous co-workers claims that the standards set before
>> the age of 6 is what defines the person for the rest of their life. I
>> believe there is some truth in that, though will allow that is not all
>> of the story. It does appear that the early years are the most
>> important. It is darned hard to convince a teenager that what they
>> are doing is wrong. Better to have set up the values early, so they
>> know it when they see it when they become teenagers.
>
>Well, why not just ask the teens to set the rules then? After all, they know
>best anyway.
Where did that come from? I never said anything even coming close
to that. Another bogus alert.
>
>>
>> Actually, this is all to absurd. The idea of a public, or private,
>> school official inspecting underwear is a bit over the top. Ensuring
>> appropriate behavior at a school function is one thing. Inspecting
>> underwear is quite another. I would not even do that for my own kid.
>
>I don't know all the specifics of the incident, neither do you. Yet you feel
>qualified to make several judgements... all of which favor the teen... based
>on that scant knowledge.
On this you do have a point.
I responded based upon the information in the article, and your
comments.. To be more specific, I was talking about an alleged panty
inspection. If that alleged panty inspection took place, then I would
expect some disciplinary action be taken with that vice principal. If
the alleged panty inspection did not happen, then we have had an
interesting underwear viewpoint discussion. n'est-ce pas?
Most interesting to me was the idea that somehow one's underwear is
an indicator of moral condition.
>
>I am sure that, if you did inspect your teen daughters underwear before
>leaving the house, she'd find a way to swap them on the way to the school
>dance. And I am equally sure you'd be outraged at the school for sending her
>home when they found her wearing the thong.
1) I do not inspect my daughter's underwear. The LCD approach of
Social Services might consider that some sort of child molestation.
Can you imagine my daughter going to shcool and telling a counselor
that her dad looks at her panties before going to school... See what
I mean?<g>
2) I would be outraged if my daughter was subjected to a panty
inspection at school <period>.
Cheers! :)
Kathryn Simpson
http://www.uniontrib.com/news/northcounty/20020501-9999_1mi1rbhigh.html
Apparently the policeman who was present was so uncomfortable with the situation
that he asked another school official to talk to the VP about stopping the
pantie inspection.
From the Article...
"San Diego city police Officer Greg Bisesto said that while patrolling the
dance, which was attended by about 725 students, he watched Wilson force dozens
of girls to lift their skirts. He said he heard Wilson ask the questions: "Are
you wearing underwear? If so, is it a thong? . . . Then let me check." "
""I just thought, 'Oh, my God, what is she doing?' " Bisesto said. "This is
totally out of line." "
Further in the article...
"Bisesto, the police officer, said he approached Assistant Principal Michael
Mosgrove and asked him to talk to Wilson about her behavior. Bisesto said he
does not know if Mosgrove spoke with Wilson, but he said the examinations did
not stop. "
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
"Winter comes way too soon, how we spend it reflects on how we have
lived our life." (Author Unknown, but probably died happy)
"Laura" <oldfartswife623_the@obvious_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iRZz8.266$vT1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Thanks for the update. I agree with you that if they were dressed
> inappropriately then the vp has the right to tell them to leave.
> Checking their underwear is another story. If this story turns out to
> be true, I hope she loses her job.
>
> --
> Laura <llincoln(AT)att(DOT)net
>
> http://home.att.net/~llincoln (Silly sounds and other things)
> http://home.att.net/~meaghans_mom (In Loving Memory)
> <please remove _the obvious_ before replying by e-mail>
>
> "Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:4OSz8.401$M7.8...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Kathryn Simpson
> Interesting....she did the same thing at last year's dance.
umm, I must be missing something? I don't see where it says she did the same
thing last year? I read the part about problems at last year's dance, but
didn't see anything about a pantie inspection then.
It is sad that this incident is going to define her career. I feel badly about
that. Imagine having to explain that to potential employers... "And why did you
leave your last job?" "Well, I conducted an inappropriate pantie inspection".
Perhaps she can get a job at Hanes or Fruit of the Loom. <g>
Kathryn Simpson
> Not exactly a pantie inspection, but to inspect what clothes the guy
> was wearing under his toga is pretty much similar to a pantie
> inspection to me. It is none of her business what they are wear under
> their outfits.
Oh, thanks. The way I read it, I thought that young person was talking about
this year's dance, not last years.
I agree 100%. It is none of anyone's business what someone wears under their
clothes unless it is dangerous to those around them.
Kathryn Simpson
"Wally" <el...@ChangeThisPart.com> wrote in message
news:bav0dugegp9t3go1v...@4ax.com...
> Why is it sad? She has no business working with kids.
> She is an idiot.
Having worked closely with teachers and administrators for a number of years
now, I have come to appreciate the effort it takes to obtain and maintain one's
official credentials and the tremendous amount of dedication 99% of teachers and
administrators have to their work. It is sad to see all of that effort on her
part go down the tube (tube top? <g>).
Kathryn Simpson
placed on paid administrative leave today, until the outcome of the
investigation.
Hooda Gest
"Allan Smith" <netsmith@(anywhere you might imagine).net> wrote in message
> > The problem isn't even in the showing, it's in the wearing and in the
> > mindset that goes with the wearing.
>
> As a farmboy who did most of the raising of his his thirteen siblings
before
> getting a degree in Psychology and Engineering, I've gotta say that's the
> biggest pile of bullshit I've seen since shortly after I pumped 15 gallons
> of baking soda-water into old man Johnson's prize bull's constipated butt.
How erudite. You sure impressed me.
Did you ever come up with the documentation that I asked for in other
debates we've had?
No? I'm still waiting. Until lthen, nothing you write impresses me much.
Hooda Gest
>
>
>
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> :
>
> :
> : The problem isn't even in the showing, it's in the wearing and in the
> : mindset that goes with the wearing.: No, limits shouldn't be
> "reasonable" (whatever that means). It isn't
> : reasonable for an open highway to have a speed limit of 55MPH but we
> it's
> : there. It isn't reasonable to sit at a traffic light because it's red
> if
> : there are no other cars on the road. It isn't reasonable to hold your
> : tongue and not snap at someone who irritates you; it would certainly
> feel
> : better if you just called them on it.
>
> comfortable as I have been told they are I'd wear them and be damn to
> any prudent peroon who thought I had other reasons to wear them. I'd
> have to question the mindset of a person who would make judgement on me
> or any 16 year old girl seen purchasing a pair.
Why question the mindset of any person making judgements about you? You
certainly seem to have no problem judging others. Or did you think that it's
okay for you to judge but not others?
> : All of these "unreasonable" things and others like them are what makes
> a
> : society polite, it's what makes us civilized. But not if we ignore
> them
> : because they aren't "reasonable".
> :
> : > wanted to wear thong underwear it wouldn't bother me unless she was
> : > showing them off, then the issue is not the underwear, but her need
> for
> : > attention and I'd deal with that. Set rules, but don't set them so
> : > tight that they're only to be broken. BTW modesty is not frowned
> upon,
> : > I bet that my friends daughter has several thongs, she's a straight
> A
> : > student and is very modest.
> :
> : Modesty is frowned on, or laughed at. It's ignored at best. As for
> setting
> : rules weak enough that they don't beg to be broken, that's a fallacy.
> Kids
> : need to break rules, to rebel. If the rule is so weak as to be
> pointless,
> : there's no thrill involved. So, instead of breaking the silly rules,
> they
> : break harder ones... like felonies.
>
> This is total bullshit, I had some rules but not ones that were
> unreasonable and I committed no felonies nor did I have the urge to do
> so. Utter bull. You are placing your moral feelings on others.
> Morality has nothing to do with what clothes we wear IMHO but in how we
> treat others and ourselves and wearing "sexy" or "comfortable" undies
> isn't a crime nor is it any indication of the character of the person.
I am not placing my moral feelings on anyone. I am stating my position on
why I think these little things are important. You can disagree, many people
do. I don't much care whether you agree or not. But I don't dismiss your
arguments with a profanity.
That's why I disagree with you. You are a product of the mindset that says
no limits should be set by society but by the individual.
That's fine. You are entitled to your opinions. I am also entitled to
disagree with them and to have my own.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
>
>
>
> :
> :
> : As we go through life, a lot of things seem unimportant. But we, as
> : individuals, don't get to decide which rules we'll follow and which we
> won't
> : without knowing the consequences and being willing to accept them if
> we get
> : caught. What these girls' parents are teaching them is "The rules
> don't
> : apply to you, the consequences won't have to be faced because we'll
> protect
> : you from them."
>
> Again utter bull, we aren't talking school rules. As far as I know
> there is no school rule which addresses what is under clothes as long as
> they can't be seen. These are rules a parent makes and should only be
> up to the parent. I'm only saying make rules that are important
> otherwise you'll be hitting your head against the wall and you won't
> have children who feel they can tell you anything. When you get this
> type of open communication, chances are they won't stray far from what
> you have showed them thru life is right and wrong. There is a
> difference in demanding obedience and in showing them the proper way to
> behave.
> :
> :
>
Hooda Gest
Is that exactly what happened? She just arbitrarily jumped on this thong
pantie issue and start inspecting everyone? Do you ahev any details that the
rest of us don't? Are you willing to wait for the district's investogation
and have you already prejudged that?
>
> >
> > I am sure that, if you did inspect your teen daughters underwear before
> > leaving the house, she'd find a way to swap them on the way to the
school
> > dance. And I am equally sure you'd be outraged at the school for sending
her
> > home when they found her wearing the thong.
>
> If any adult at school, at church, or anywhere, looked up my daughter's
dress to
> see what kind of underwear she was wearing, I would be as outraged as
these
> parents are about a vice-principal.
Are you absolutely sure that's what happened?
>
> Part of the point you are missing here is that this is a vice-principal of
a
> large High School. She is a person with supposed extensive experience with
> children and a whole lot of authority over them. Her policy making and
> enforcement decisions in this matter were remedial at best. Parents have
a
> right to be concerned about the quality of judgment in a person with such
> serious responsibilities for their children.
She's a person in a position of authority. You seem to think that this is
important unless she tries to exercise that authority and then she is found
guilty by reason of teenage girl report.
Hooda Gest
I figured you didn't. I didn't think you would understand the argument
anyway.
>
> We are trying to help our kids grow, and hopefully think for
> themselves; the opposite of the military in many cases (I was six and
> a half years in the military.) The military is a special case. While
> leadership and sound thinking is encouraged, it has to be within the
> confines of the military way. That is not how I want my kid to be
> taught. If I did, I'd send her to a military school.
The military has to do that because people raise their kids the way you say.
If we taught the kids that authority is important, that there are ways to
challenge it without going to court or rioting, that individualism is
wonderful but must not bring harm to the collective population, that some
rules may seem silly but there is no harm to their psyches by obeying them,
maybe the military wouldn't have a hard time with new recruits.
Not to mention, maybe we'd have smoother traffic flows, more efficient
workplaces, and a bit more civility all around.
>
> My disclaimer: I do not mean to speak badly of military people.
> Everything has a place. I enjoyed my military service, and respect
> those that serve today. I apologize if my poor composition skills
> infer anything else.
I didn't see anything you said as disparaging.
> >> >No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a
secret
> >> >fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
> >>
> >> I dunno. After having read all of the preceeding posts, I have to
> >> wonder at the "well intentioned" person that decided to do this.
> >> Where, exactly, was their head?
> >
> >Yes, I wonder about that too. I also wonder about the parents who were
> >immediately outraged by the actions of the V-P. Where are their heads?
> >
>
> Thinking I think.
About what? The right of their kids to behave badly?
> >> >> Now, if they were only wearing a thong, I'd say the vice-principal
was
> >> >within
> >> >> protocol to ask the child to leave and not return until she was
> >> >appropriately
> >> >> dressed. However, they were, by all outward appearance, dressed
> >> >appropriately.
> >> >> Thus, the vice-principal had no business looking up their skirts.
> >> >
> >> >Fine. Whatever you wish to think. I, on the other hand, will wonder
about
> >> >parents who think that children should be treated as adults well
before
> >they
> >> >have the maturity to act like one.
> >>
> >> Children are younger people. They have wants and needs just like
> >> grown-ups. To deny that is to be foolish.
> >
> >But they don't have the experience or the maturity of "grown-ups" either.
> >That's why we have schools, rules, and guidance.
> >
>
> Underwear guidance in not a thing I consider the domain of the
> schools. Let them teach skills. Teach discipline (although that
> should have been taught at home long before they enter school). They
> should also teach respect for authority; that is not something a panty
> inspection would do, I dare say.
If the schools only taught what is in the domain of the schools, they
wouldn't be teaching feminism, environmentalism, about "Heather" who "has
two mommies", handing out condoms, or even having dances on school grounds.
The first place for teaching respect for authority is the home. The child
should already have that respect by the time he/she first goes to school.
> >> Children were getting pregnant since time began. Why did some, and
> >> not others.
> >
> >A lot less of them were getting pregnant than today.
>
> There's a lot more teenagers today too.<g>
Nice dodge. Percentage-wise.
> >> What do you think of crotchless underwear? Women in the 19th
> >> century wore such garments to make toilet easier. Can you imagine
> >> undoing the corsets and other things to drop trou?
> >
> >Well, that's the ticket! Why wear any clothes at all?
>
> Aaargh. Bogus alert.
No, no, it's the next logical step in your argument. Clothes just get in the
way of performing bodily functions anyway.
> >> One of my previous co-workers claims that the standards set before
> >> the age of 6 is what defines the person for the rest of their life. I
> >> believe there is some truth in that, though will allow that is not all
> >> of the story. It does appear that the early years are the most
> >> important. It is darned hard to convince a teenager that what they
> >> are doing is wrong. Better to have set up the values early, so they
> >> know it when they see it when they become teenagers.
> >
> >Well, why not just ask the teens to set the rules then? After all, they
know
> >best anyway.
>
> Where did that come from? I never said anything even coming close
> to that. Another bogus alert.
Ok, I'll try to make it clearer...
Yes, children are pretty much molded by the time they reach, say, 4 years
old as far as personality is concerned. They have the fundamentals that they
will use to guide their decisions in the years ahead. However, those
fundamentals need reinforcement along the way. They have to see that poor
choices have adverse consequences and the good choices get rewards on a
somewhat consistent basis outside their own little family. Otherwise, they
get retrained into adhering to a different set of values.
The best way to make sure children grow up confused is to confuse them as
they grow.
> >> Actually, this is all to absurd. The idea of a public, or private,
> >> school official inspecting underwear is a bit over the top. Ensuring
> >> appropriate behavior at a school function is one thing. Inspecting
> >> underwear is quite another. I would not even do that for my own kid.
> >
> >I don't know all the specifics of the incident, neither do you. Yet you
feel
> >qualified to make several judgements... all of which favor the teen...
based
> >on that scant knowledge.
>
> On this you do have a point.
>
> I responded based upon the information in the article, and your
> comments.. To be more specific, I was talking about an alleged panty
> inspection. If that alleged panty inspection took place, then I would
> expect some disciplinary action be taken with that vice principal. If
> the alleged panty inspection did not happen, then we have had an
> interesting underwear viewpoint discussion. n'est-ce pas?
The alleged panty inspection did take place. The question is: was the V-P
acting on behalf of the school and in accordance with school doctrine? We
don't yet know.
Were the inspections demeaning or an invasion of privacy? We don't yet know.
Were the actions of the V-P intended to prevent a repeat of an incident that
happened the last time this dance took place? We don't know yet.
I took the opposing view because:
Too many people were jumping on the bandwagon and were ready to figuratively
lynch the V-P without having all the facts.
Because it would incredibly boring to see everyone simply agree.
Because I don't think that 16 year olds are really "little adults."
>
> Most interesting to me was the idea that somehow one's underwear is
> an indicator of moral condition.
Would you say that if you found out your minister was wearing lacy silk
panties?
> >I am sure that, if you did inspect your teen daughters underwear before
> >leaving the house, she'd find a way to swap them on the way to the school
> >dance. And I am equally sure you'd be outraged at the school for sending
her
> >home when they found her wearing the thong.
>
> 1) I do not inspect my daughter's underwear. The LCD approach of
> Social Services might consider that some sort of child molestation.
> Can you imagine my daughter going to shcool and telling a counselor
> that her dad looks at her panties before going to school... See what
> I mean?<g>
So, you have to trust her... because you are afraid of an authority which
would appear to be over-stretching their bounds. Yes, maybe I do see what
you mean and why you might be quick to judge that V-P.
>
> 2) I would be outraged if my daughter was subjected to a panty
> inspection at school <period>.
I would be outraged if she were caught wearing prohibited clothing or none
at all. But I am not sure at whom I would be outraged.
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>Update on the 11:00pm news this evening. The vice-principal, Rita Wilson, was
>placed on paid administrative leave today, until the outcome of the
>investigation.
--------------Kathryn, you're closer to this thing than I am, so I
will risk a quiestion: would you know if California has an Upskirt
Law like we have in Florida? If so, then Rita might be in real hot
water bigtime. Such as a felony charge for each hemline that was
raised.
Allan Smith
> How erudite. You sure impressed me.
I'm not into convincing you of anything, Huckleberry. Paint your own fence,
and might also do your own research while you're at it.
> Did you ever come up with the documentation that I
> asked for in other debates we've had?
You seem to confuse observations and exchange of opinion with debate. It
seems to be a transferrence thing.
> No? I'm still waiting. Until lthen, nothing you write impresses me much.
My deepest sympathies for your unrequited need to be impressed, which you
sometimes project onto others as them having a need to impress you. Consider
that your perception of their needs and desires may be a projection, and
thus inaccurate.
Allan
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> Are you absolutely sure that's what happened?
According to the police officer who was also at the dance, the kids reports were
accurate. The VP has not denied doing this. She has expressed sorrow for
exercising such bad judgment.
Yup, I'm pretty dang sure that what happened was pretty much on track with what
we have been discussing. A vice principal was way out of line by conducting a
pantie inspection at a local dance.
That being said, I sincerely doubt that even today's press would report this
story on TV if they hadn't corroborated it with other witnesses. It never was
about a single child's word against an adult's.
> She's a person in a position of authority. You seem to think that this is
> important unless she tries to exercise that authority and then she is found
> guilty by reason of teenage girl report.
And the police officer also at the dance. And multiple other students. And a
couple of other adults.
Btw, yes, I do think it is important and relevant to the severity of the matter
that the vice principal was a person with authority. She abused that authority
in how she treated those children. That makes her actions much worse, imho.
Dale
pantie checks.. that would have changed my direction back in the 60's..Then
again.. no one wore a thong back then :)
"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9WbA8.75719$zN.40...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> The military has to do that because people raise their kids the way you say.
> If we taught the kids that authority is important, that there are ways to
> challenge it without going to court or rioting, that individualism is
> wonderful but must not bring harm to the collective population, that some
> rules may seem silly but there is no harm to their psyches by obeying them,
> maybe the military wouldn't have a hard time with new recruits.
The kids did not riot and have not yet gone to court. They went to their
parents. I'm thankful that their parents have the courage to pursue an
explanation and corrective action in this matter.
Would you prefer that the parents just tell the kids, "Hey, the vice-principal
was way out of line to do that, but suck it up and don't make a fuss."??
> Not to mention, maybe we'd have smoother traffic flows, more efficient
> workplaces, and a bit more civility all around.
And we'd have more tyrants who ruled the weak because no one would be willing to
make a fuss to correct any injustices.
> Yes, children are pretty much molded by the time they reach, say, 4 years
> old as far as personality is concerned. They have the fundamentals that they
> will use to guide their decisions in the years ahead. However, those
> fundamentals need reinforcement along the way. They have to see that poor
> choices have adverse consequences and the good choices get rewards on a
> somewhat consistent basis outside their own little family. Otherwise, they
> get retrained into adhering to a different set of values.
So the children's poor choices should have adverse consequences, but the poor
choices of an adult, in authority over children, should go unchallenged?
It would be a horrible shame to have children retrained to be passivists about
injustices in life.
> The best way to make sure children grow up confused is to confuse them as
> they grow.
What is confusing about standing up against something that was very wrong? I
think the children have acted very responsibly and so have their parents.
> The alleged panty inspection did take place. The question is: was the V-P
> acting on behalf of the school and in accordance with school doctrine? We
> don't yet know.
According to one of the school board members, pantie inspections are not
addressed in school policy.
> Were the inspections demeaning or an invasion of privacy? We don't yet know.
yes. According to the police officer at the party, he was very concerned about
the invasion of privacy and the manner in which the VP was going about things.
Kathryn Simpson
"thuss" <thow...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uvc2du026ri8nrlj2...@4ax.com...
> --------------Kathryn, you're closer to this thing than I am, so I
> will risk a quiestion: would you know if California has an Upskirt
> Law like we have in Florida? If so, then Rita might be in real hot
> water bigtime. Such as a felony charge for each hemline that was
> raised.
Thuss,
I have no idea about your question. Never heard of an "upskirt law". Then
again, I'm from the backwoods of Washington and am just visiting this
progressive state of California. <eg>
thuss
<kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"thuss" <thow...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:uvc2du026ri8nrlj2...@4ax.com...
>> --------------Kathryn, you're closer to this thing than I am, so I
>> will risk a quiestion: would you know if California has an Upskirt
>> Law like we have in Florida? If so, then Rita might be in real hot
>> water bigtime. Such as a felony charge for each hemline that was
>> raised.
>
>Thuss,
>
>I have no idea about your question. Never heard of an "upskirt law". Then
>again, I'm from the backwoods of Washington and am just visiting this
>progressive state of California. <eg>
-----------------------Well, after talkin' atcha about it, I did a
search to see about Flalaland's law. Sure enough, Cal has the law.
I remember it being discussed on tv when it was passed. It was
designed to protect the woman's privacy. That's the keyword. I
recall where the state legislator who authored it said that the law
excluded exposure by accident. And it also excluded posing.
The idea is that the woman/girl has the right to privacy. The
exclusions were when the wind blew her dress up, or if she fell and
her underpinnings were displayed; or if she was legitimately modelling
underwear. Before this law was passed, there was no law against
someone placing a camera under a woman's skirt and taking pictures.
If the targeted woman wanted to involve the law in this violation of
her privacy, it would have to come under some other offense; such as
assault or sight burglary.
` (This is terrible, and I have fought with myself with it all
through this post. But I can't help it: Are those pictures taken
with a camera under the woman's skirt called "flash pictures"?
Sorry about that. It was just too much.)
thuss
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 May 2002 14:19:49 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
>>news:P75A8.1688$6T5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> Are you absolutely sure that's what happened?
>>
>>According to the police officer who was also at the dance, the kids reports were
>>accurate. The VP has not denied doing this. She has expressed sorrow for
>>exercising such bad judgment.
>
>Let me add that the police officer tried to get other school officials to stop
>her, but they either did nothing or she didn't listen to them. He said he felt
>very uncomfortable seeing what was happening. Also, there was another official
>involved, but the VP mentioned was running the show.
>
>FredEx
--------------Well, if they really want to get her tail in a crack,
she can be charged with violating California's Upskirt Law.
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/33/oped997.asp
thuss
<youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote:
>: --------------Well, if they really want to get her tail in a crack,
>: she can be charged with violating California's Upskirt Law.
>: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/33/oped997.asp
>
>from what I understand it only applies to video taping. Sexual
>harassment is probably good enough and if any were under 16 she might be
>charged with something else.
>
------------Very likely could be charged with minors violations. .
On the video taping thing, I didn't get all the details re wording of
the law, but assumed it was similar to Florida's: causing the
woman/girl's private areas to be publically displayed without her
permission.
Again, the Assistant Principal showed not just poor judgement
here, but none at all. If she felt honestly that there was danger in
exposing girls' underwear, then why didn't she take the girls to a
closed area to check? If she planned to do this, as some say she did,
then she could have taken some privacy curtains from the school clinic
and set those up for checking.
>
David Krieps
wrote:
And perhaps you did not state the argument well.<shrug>
>
>>
>> We are trying to help our kids grow, and hopefully think for
>> themselves; the opposite of the military in many cases (I was six and
>> a half years in the military.) The military is a special case. While
>> leadership and sound thinking is encouraged, it has to be within the
>> confines of the military way. That is not how I want my kid to be
>> taught. If I did, I'd send her to a military school.
>
>The military has to do that because people raise their kids the way you say.
>If we taught the kids that authority is important, that there are ways to
>challenge it without going to court or rioting, that individualism is
>wonderful but must not bring harm to the collective population, that some
>rules may seem silly but there is no harm to their psyches by obeying them,
>maybe the military wouldn't have a hard time with new recruits.
The military has been doing much the same thing for many years. To
be sure, there are many very smart people that consider what works in
the military, and what does not; in addition they also very likely are
very cognisant of the laws involved as well.
What the military does, mostly in basic training, are things that
are much like what cult groups do; keep the recruits tired and
off-balance. It works to move people from independant thinking to
following orders, the chain of command, and teamwork rather than
individual effort. These are important traits in a military
organization.
While much of this is benificial in civilian life, blind obedience
is not a characteristic of civilians. We are willing to take risks
outside the box, and, hopefully, the consequences when things go awry.
In the military, taking chances can jeopardize many others. The
situation in civilian life is not so clear cut.
In the military we did have undie checks. I mean, you had to wear
them darn boxer shorts, or you were out of uniform.<g> Civilian life
has many uniforms. Which is right for you. Which is right for me.
>
>Not to mention, maybe we'd have smoother traffic flows, more efficient
>workplaces, and a bit more civility all around.
So, are we considering that we would want to run things in the
civilian world like it is in the military. Not sure that is a good
approach. I certainly would not like it.
>
>>
>> My disclaimer: I do not mean to speak badly of military people.
>> Everything has a place. I enjoyed my military service, and respect
>> those that serve today. I apologize if my poor composition skills
>> infer anything else.
>
>I didn't see anything you said as disparaging.
Thanks. I was worried, seriously. I knew lots of military people
that were independant thinkers. They also knew their limits. I was
concerned that what I wrote might infer that miltary people are
robots, conditioned to respond only the military way. That is not the
case. It is a different environment than civilian life.
>
>> >> >No, that couldn't be. It *must* be some puritanical whacko with a
>secret
>> >> >fascination for young ladies' underwear preferences.
>> >>
>> >> I dunno. After having read all of the preceeding posts, I have to
>> >> wonder at the "well intentioned" person that decided to do this.
>> >> Where, exactly, was their head?
>> >
>> >Yes, I wonder about that too. I also wonder about the parents who were
>> >immediately outraged by the actions of the V-P. Where are their heads?
>> >
>>
>> Thinking I think.
>
>About what? The right of their kids to behave badly?
The rights of their kids to be free from unreasonable search,
mainly.
Yes, I wonder about thse things too. I consider underwear rules in
the same category. I will take a couple of exceptions with your
assumed incomplete list; environmentalism, and school dances.
Environmentalism is a concern that everyone should at least be aware
of. I am not certain that it could be taught objectively though.
School dances are an important part of the social life of a
teenager. As children grow, they need to be challenged with social
situations with their peers. I cannot think of many better controlled
situations that a chaperoned school dance.
I have some problems with the level of moral teaching that goes on
in schools. I am not certain that it is in the best interests of all
that kids should be influenced by schools in moral issues. After all,
whose morals are being taught.
>
>The first place for teaching respect for authority is the home. The child
>should already have that respect by the time he/she first goes to school.
Absolutely. That is probably the biggest problem in schools; the
kids that come with no respect for others, or themselves. Still, we
will encounter those people in our lives repeatedly. It is better
that all see the poor actors, and the consequences of those actors,
through school.
>
>> >> Children were getting pregnant since time began. Why did some, and
>> >> not others.
>> >
>> >A lot less of them were getting pregnant than today.
>>
>> There's a lot more teenagers today too.<g>
>
>Nice dodge. Percentage-wise.
Another dodge: Any figures you care to point to?<g>
Here's one: <http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/teen_preg_stats.html> where
it is trending down. I was really looking for statistics that went
back further, but I wonder how accurate they might be. In some eras,
this sort of thing would not be reported, so we have a situation where
we really do no know the statistics because it would have been
something hidden, and not reported.
In the case of teenage pregnancy, I want to offer an annecdote. I
have a teenage daughter. She came home the other day cramping. Her
period was late. She was concerned that she might be pregnant because
a girl at school told her that some boys using tanning beds might do
some "things" in there to pass the time. she was concerned that she
might have come in contact with the leftovers of those "things."
What I want to point out here is that despite public school sex
education, and all of the liberal hype about sex education, she still
is subject to tales about how sex works. This is still the domain of
the parents.
We had a talk, both about sex, and hygeine in tanning beds. I hope
she understands now. I thought I had covered all of this before, but
apparently her peers exert a greater influence these days. That is
the way with growing children. It is a constant challenge to parents.
That is life.
>
>> >> What do you think of crotchless underwear? Women in the 19th
>> >> century wore such garments to make toilet easier. Can you imagine
>> >> undoing the corsets and other things to drop trou?
>> >
>> >Well, that's the ticket! Why wear any clothes at all?
>>
>> Aaargh. Bogus alert.
>
>No, no, it's the next logical step in your argument. Clothes just get in the
>way of performing bodily functions anyway.
OK, back to undies.
Perhaps it is the next step that you perceived. It certainly was
not mine.
I merely pointed out that underwear was a functional thing. If you
consider the style of dress in the 19th century, dress was made to
cover up as much of the woman as possible, from the bonnet to the
ankle. (it also explains those rape scenes from the westerns where
both were fully clothed, but that is a side issue.)
>
>> >> One of my previous co-workers claims that the standards set before
>> >> the age of 6 is what defines the person for the rest of their life. I
>> >> believe there is some truth in that, though will allow that is not all
>> >> of the story. It does appear that the early years are the most
>> >> important. It is darned hard to convince a teenager that what they
>> >> are doing is wrong. Better to have set up the values early, so they
>> >> know it when they see it when they become teenagers.
>> >
>> >Well, why not just ask the teens to set the rules then? After all, they
>know
>> >best anyway.
>>
>> Where did that come from? I never said anything even coming close
>> to that. Another bogus alert.
>
>Ok, I'll try to make it clearer...
>
>Yes, children are pretty much molded by the time they reach, say, 4 years
>old as far as personality is concerned. They have the fundamentals that they
>will use to guide their decisions in the years ahead. However, those
>fundamentals need reinforcement along the way. They have to see that poor
>choices have adverse consequences and the good choices get rewards on a
>somewhat consistent basis outside their own little family. Otherwise, they
>get retrained into adhering to a different set of values.
True. Again, I have to stress that I believe this is the domain of
the parent, not the school.
As far as outerwear goes, I can support dress codes, and their
enforcement. What goes on under the outerwear is not the domain of
the school. I consider underwear checks an invasion of privacy, and
whether or not you and I might agree on this, children are entitled to
a level of privacy that does not involve school administrators
checking their underwear.
>
>The best way to make sure children grow up confused is to confuse them as
>they grow.
So how exactly does a school official lifting the skirts or dresses
of teenagers not confuse things?
As parents, we teach our children about improper behavior, and
lifting skirts is not something I would encourage. This taught these
girls subject to the search that aurthority can humiliate. If we want
to teach respect for authority, then authority had dammned well better
respect privacy. It is a two way street here.
>
>> >> Actually, this is all to absurd. The idea of a public, or private,
>> >> school official inspecting underwear is a bit over the top. Ensuring
>> >> appropriate behavior at a school function is one thing. Inspecting
>> >> underwear is quite another. I would not even do that for my own kid.
>> >
>> >I don't know all the specifics of the incident, neither do you. Yet you
>feel
>> >qualified to make several judgements... all of which favor the teen...
>based
>> >on that scant knowledge.
>>
>> On this you do have a point.
>>
>> I responded based upon the information in the article, and your
>> comments.. To be more specific, I was talking about an alleged panty
>> inspection. If that alleged panty inspection took place, then I would
>> expect some disciplinary action be taken with that vice principal. If
>> the alleged panty inspection did not happen, then we have had an
>> interesting underwear viewpoint discussion. n'est-ce pas?
>
>The alleged panty inspection did take place. The question is: was the V-P
>acting on behalf of the school and in accordance with school doctrine? We
>don't yet know.
I am certain that she thought it was, for some odd reason. (my
predjudice) I believe she was wrong.
>
>Were the inspections demeaning or an invasion of privacy? We don't yet know.
If someone asked me to drop trou so they could look at my underwear,
I'd refuse. Would you be willing? What about the shy girls?
No need to answer. Just consider the situation where girls are
asked to show their underwear to a stranger. Most kids only know who
the VP is, they are not personally attached to them unless they are
the stars, or the bad behavers. The in-betweens only know she is the
VP.
>
>Were the actions of the V-P intended to prevent a repeat of an incident that
>happened the last time this dance took place? We don't know yet.
>
>I took the opposing view because:
>
>Too many people were jumping on the bandwagon and were ready to figuratively
>lynch the V-P without having all the facts.
>
>Because it would incredibly boring to see everyone simply agree.
>
>Because I don't think that 16 year olds are really "little adults."
Fair enough.
I'm not for lynching the VP. I do think that the situation should
be looked into.
Based upon the preliminary information, I would say the VP
excercised very poor judgement, and even exceeded her authority. I am
more than willing to sit back and see what happens.
>
>>
>> Most interesting to me was the idea that somehow one's underwear is
>> an indicator of moral condition.
>
>Would you say that if you found out your minister was wearing lacy silk
>panties?
Why would I want to know what underwear my minister was wearing. I
tend to judge people on their actions rather than their choice of
underwear.
Actually, I consider this sort of argument facetious. There are
many different people in the world. It is an unfortunate
characteristic of the human race that considers anything different
threatening. Instead we should be in wonder at our differences, and
enjoy those differences.
>
>> >I am sure that, if you did inspect your teen daughters underwear before
>> >leaving the house, she'd find a way to swap them on the way to the school
>> >dance. And I am equally sure you'd be outraged at the school for sending
>her
>> >home when they found her wearing the thong.
>>
>> 1) I do not inspect my daughter's underwear. The LCD approach of
>> Social Services might consider that some sort of child molestation.
>> Can you imagine my daughter going to shcool and telling a counselor
>> that her dad looks at her panties before going to school... See what
>> I mean?<g>
>
>So, you have to trust her... because you are afraid of an authority which
>would appear to be over-stretching their bounds. Yes, maybe I do see what
>you mean and why you might be quick to judge that V-P.
You are really missing the point here. I do trust my daughter. It
is not because of any governmental agency. It is because I raised
her, and I have had my trust consistantly reinforced by her behavior.
In that I feel truly blessed.
>
>>
>> 2) I would be outraged if my daughter was subjected to a panty
>> inspection at school <period>.
>
>I would be outraged if she were caught wearing prohibited clothing or none
>at all. But I am not sure at whom I would be outraged.
So again we get back to underwear. Outerwear is one thing.
Underwear is quite another. If the underwear is comfortable, then go
for it. While I agree with dress codes for outerwear, underwear is
private.
I will gratefully encourage schools to enforce appropriate clothing
at school and school functions. I will not support panty checks. I
consider that something that is an invasion of privacy.
If there are behavior problems, then deal with those problems, not
the choice of underwear.
Cheers! :)
Hooda Gest
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> news:P75A8.1688$6T5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Are you absolutely sure that's what happened?
>
> According to the police officer who was also at the dance, the kids
reports were
> accurate. The VP has not denied doing this. She has expressed sorrow
for
> exercising such bad judgment.
The cop expressed his disapproval to the V-P but took no action to stop it.
Why not?
The V-P expressed sorrow? Perhaps because of all the publicity and the
threat to her job and to her bank account (lawsuits)?
>
> Yup, I'm pretty dang sure that what happened was pretty much on track with
what
> we have been discussing. A vice principal was way out of line by
conducting a
> pantie inspection at a local dance.
Please try to avoid being on any jury that hears a lawsuit from this case.
>
> That being said, I sincerely doubt that even today's press would report
this
> story on TV if they hadn't corroborated it with other witnesses. It never
was
> about a single child's word against an adult's.
LOL! Please play closer attention to the press. And not just today's.
>
>
> > She's a person in a position of authority. You seem to think that this
is
> > important unless she tries to exercise that authority and then she is
found
> > guilty by reason of teenage girl report.
>
> And the police officer also at the dance. And multiple other students.
And a
> couple of other adults.
None of these adults took any action to stop the activity. I wonder why?
>
> Btw, yes, I do think it is important and relevant to the severity of the
matter
> that the vice principal was a person with authority. She abused that
authority
> in how she treated those children. That makes her actions much worse,
imho.
If she abused the authority then she'll get punished. Meqanwhile, she is
being villified in the press and in here.
Hooda Gest
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> news:R75A8.1689$6T5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > The military has to do that because people raise their kids the way you
say.
> > If we taught the kids that authority is important, that there are ways
to
> > challenge it without going to court or rioting, that individualism is
> > wonderful but must not bring harm to the collective population, that
some
> > rules may seem silly but there is no harm to their psyches by obeying
them,
> > maybe the military wouldn't have a hard time with new recruits.
>
> The kids did not riot and have not yet gone to court. They went to their
> parents. I'm thankful that their parents have the courage to pursue an
> explanation and corrective action in this matter.
And who went to the press?
>
> Would you prefer that the parents just tell the kids, "Hey, the
vice-principal
> was way out of line to do that, but suck it up and don't make a fuss."??
Actually, I can. I can see a parent contacting the school (not the press)
and asking the principal to explain the actions of his subordinate. I can
see a parent going to the school board and demanding an investigation.
What I see is the media being notified, I see outrage on the part of parents
about the V-P's alleged actions and not much about the possibility that
there is something else to this story.
>
> > Not to mention, maybe we'd have smoother traffic flows, more efficient
> > workplaces, and a bit more civility all around.
>
> And we'd have more tyrants who ruled the weak because no one would be
willing to
> make a fuss to correct any injustices.
Maybe, maybe not. Did we have school teachers and principals acting like
tyrants back when there was respect for school authority? If so, how has the
lack of respect improved that situation?
>
> > Yes, children are pretty much molded by the time they reach, say, 4
years
> > old as far as personality is concerned. They have the fundamentals that
they
> > will use to guide their decisions in the years ahead. However, those
> > fundamentals need reinforcement along the way. They have to see that
poor
> > choices have adverse consequences and the good choices get rewards on a
> > somewhat consistent basis outside their own little family. Otherwise,
they
> > get retrained into adhering to a different set of values.
>
> So the children's poor choices should have adverse consequences, but the
poor
> choices of an adult, in authority over children, should go unchallenged?
No, bthey shouldn't go unchallenged. And I never advocated that they should.
>
> It would be a horrible shame to have children retrained to be passivists
about
> injustices in life.
And I never advocated that they should.
>
>
> > The best way to make sure children grow up confused is to confuse them
as
> > they grow.
>
> What is confusing about standing up against something that was very wrong?
I
> think the children have acted very responsibly and so have their parents.
It's HOW you stand up that matters.
>
> > The alleged panty inspection did take place. The question is: was the
V-P
> > acting on behalf of the school and in accordance with school doctrine?
We
> > don't yet know.
>
> According to one of the school board members, pantie inspections are not
> addressed in school policy.
Nor are the responsibilities of the school authorities when the students
start "flashing" others during a dance (see report which describes the
previous year's "MORP").
>
> > Were the inspections demeaning or an invasion of privacy? We don't yet
know.
>
> yes. According to the police officer at the party, he was very concerned
about
> the invasion of privacy and the manner in which the VP was going about
things.
But not concerned enough to actually interfere with it and stop it.
thuss
wrote:
>
>>
>> > The alleged panty inspection did take place. The question is: was the
>V-P
>> > acting on behalf of the school and in accordance with school doctrine?
>We
>> > don't yet know.
>>
>> According to one of the school board members, pantie inspections are not
>> addressed in school policy.
>
>Nor are the responsibilities of the school authorities when the students
>start "flashing" others during a dance (see report which describes the
>previous year's "MORP").
>
------------ Hmmm. Wonder if the schools could require that girls
wear dance sets at these doings? Then they could flash and moon to
their hearts content without running into decorum problems.
Kathryn Simpson
> ` (This is terrible, and I have fought with myself with it all
> through this post. But I can't help it: Are those pictures taken
> with a camera under the woman's skirt called "flash pictures"?
> Sorry about that. It was just too much.)
lol. Either that or they are over exposed. <g>
Kathryn Simpson
"Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> Please try to avoid being on any jury that hears a lawsuit from this case.
lol, don't worry. I'm a registered Washington State Voter. I can't legally
sign a petition in California, let alone serve on a California jury.
Maybe next year. <g>
Hooda Gest
>
>
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
>
> :
> : I am not placing my moral feelings on anyone. I am stating my position
> on
> : why I think these little things are important. You can disagree, many
> people
> : do. I don't much care whether you agree or not. But I don't dismiss
> your
> : arguments with a profanity.
>
> or their parents who allow it. Sorry about the profanity don't normally
> use it but the "Bob Jones" mentality just disturbs me. What is fine for
> you and yours is ok, but I find it annoying when others wish to classify
> me or others as immoral or wrong because we follow another doctrine.
I see. I can't imply that parents and schools which permit certain faddish
items of dress are libertine but you can imply that I am some kind of
radical fundamentalist.
I got it now.
> :
> : That's why I disagree with you. You are a product of the mindset that
> says
> : no limits should be set by society but by the individual.
>
> You have no idea what I'm a product of. My parents were very strict,
> but about things that mattered, not about undies.
Right. Not that thongs were even available when you were young so you really
have no idea whether they would have permitted you to wear them. But they
*only* were strict about things that mattered. Did you really think that at
the time, r was this something you came to understand as you grew older?
Never mind, I'd want an honest anwser and I don't feel I will get one now.
Especially after I have been labeled as part of "Bob Jones" camp.
> :
> : That's fine. You are entitled to your opinions. I am also entitled to
> : disagree with them and to have my own.
>
> Yes you are, but state them for yourself. I do believe I said it was a
> parents choice, however, I get the impression you don't think so. You
> think it's societies choice. But who is socieity? Isn't it just a
> bunch of individuals? Yes, there are certain rules that need to be made
> for the good of all individuals but there are other rules of conduct
> that are personal choices of an adult and in the case of a child the
> parent. There was a rule at the school that no undies could show, they
> should have gone with that and not with the type of undies. That is
> where the VP made her grave error. If there was a problem the year
> before, it should have been addressed in advance with letters to the
> parents explaining what is and is not appropriate for the function. It
> is not appropriate for anyone to have a child lift his or her clothing
> to reveal whether they have undies on and what type. Society (or
> individuals) deemed this to be abuse.
Whatever. Sorry, have to go study Bob Jones' teachings now.
Hooda Gest
According to some, that should be an individual choice and not something the
school authorities should concern themselves with.
We should all lighten up.
Hooda Gest
points made but because there is no point to be made here at all. I took a
stance that said:
We don't know all the facts.
I don't think 16 year old girls should be wearing thong underwear.
We are being too quick to judge the vice principal and too willing to excuse
the teens.
For that, I am now labeled as a Bob Jones mentality type and obviously
considered to be too uptight, regimental, and in favor of tyrants.
I cannot debate or discuss any subject where the minds are closed to the
possibility that what is "mainstream" may just be wrong.
DaleB
wears, if anything, under her clothing?
--
For help with setup and configuration look on http://help.rr.com
For help on dial access you can look here http://dialaccess.rr.com
Support 816 743 2444
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
news:EUpA8.2422$vT1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
J
wrote:
>We don't know all the facts.
>I don't think 16 year old girls should be wearing thong underwear.
>We are being too quick to judge the vice principal and too willing to excuse
>the teens.
>
>For that, I am now labeled as a Bob Jones mentality type and obviously
>considered to be too uptight, regimental, and in favor of tyrants.
>
>I cannot debate or discuss any subject where the minds are closed to the
>possibility that what is "mainstream" may just be wrong.
It's strange how many of today's (often self-proclaimed)
'mainstreamers' are merely yesterday's sublimated rebels. These days,
if one honors something traditional or accepts something on faith, one
risks being called a blind reactionary by the 'enlightened ones'. But
then we all _ know_ that change is good, right? <TIC>
Personally, I could care less what kind of underwear (if any ) some
16-year-old is wearing; unless a student's dress is causing some kind
of disturbance, i.e., a major distraction to the learning process,
the school administration should care less, too.
J D
Hooda Gest
>
>
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> :
> : "Janice" <youkno...@notworldnet.com> wrote in message
> : news:cV9A8.1179$vT1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> :
> : I see. I can't imply that parents and schools which permit certain
> faddish
> : items of dress are libertine but you can imply that I am some kind of
> : radical fundamentalist.
> :
> : I got it now.
> :
>
> to raise their children as long as the children are breaking no rules.
That's nice. Not relevant to this particular discussion however.
> If you wish to raise your children to be "little" hooda's (not saying
> you do, just if you wish, then by all means you have a right. Just
> don't tell ME or anyone else that this is the only way. I mentioend Bob
Please point out where I said anything like that.
> Jones because I live here (not that you are a memeber of their camp). I
> find that they have the impression as do many fundamentalist Southern
> Baptists that if you aren't one of them they you are the enemy. I base
> this on past statements about Catholics and about converting Jews.
Also not relevant to this discussion. And you brought it up in response to
my opinions, not in regards to catholics or converting Jews.
>
> :
> : Right. Not that thongs were even available when you were young so you
> really
> : have no idea whether they would have permitted you to wear them. But
> they
> : *only* were strict about things that mattered. Did you really think
> that at
> : the time, r was this something you came to understand as you grew
> older?
>
> they permitted me to wear halter tops without a bra, but did I think
> they were liberal at the time? Only politically <G>
> :
> : Never mind, I'd want an honest anwser and I don't feel I will get one
> now.
> : Especially after I have been labeled as part of "Bob Jones" camp.
>
> Oh, so you feel I'm not honest? I too can play this game of
> misinterpreting what's been said. No I didn't label you a part of Bob
> Jones camp, just felt your stepping a tad over your side of the fence.
> See my paragraph above above my thoughts regarding Bob Jones. :
No, I was playing your game. Not mine. You have decided that I was
portraying a Bob Jones attitude, you decided that I am telling you how to
raise your children, and you are deciding what I say is what you think it
is. But you sure don't like it when I do that to you.
Hooda Gest
>
>
>
>
> "Hooda Gest" <Be_@One_With.Calm> wrote in message
> : I snipped everything from David's post not because I couldn't answer
> the
> : points made but because there is no point to be made here at all. I
> took a
> : stance that said:
> :
> : We don't know all the facts.
> : I don't think 16 year old girls should be wearing thong underwear.
> : We are being too quick to judge the vice principal and too willing to
> excuse
> : the teens.
> :
> : For that, I am now labeled as a Bob Jones mentality type and obviously
> : considered to be too uptight, regimental, and in favor of tyrants.
>
> whether we had all the facts only that 16 year old girls undies are
> their business as is the type of protection they use during the time of
> month.
> :
> : I cannot debate or discuss any subject where the minds are closed to
> the
> : possibility that what is "mainstream" may just be wrong.
>
> human.
Wrong about what exactly?
Kathryn Simpson
"DaleB" <da...@boarnet.tzo.com> wrote in message
news:yiqA8.2426$Fr2.8...@twister.kc.rr.com...
> Doesn't any one think that it isn't anyone else's business a 16 year old
> wears, if anything, under her clothing?
I think that gets us right back to the original objections of the students and
the parents. ;=)
Rick B.
wrote:
>Doesn't any one think that it isn't anyone else's business a 16 year old
>wears, if anything, under her clothing?
Absolutely !
No child of mine would ever set foot again in a school that pulled
that stunt.
Dale
teacher had lifted someones dress to check their underwear.. Probably bodily
injury.
"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:nEwA8.77422$zN.42...@twister.socal.rr.com...