Lets announce your virginity to the whole school.

[Trynn]

No... Because wearing a tshirt that says I'm gay and proud doesn't tell me anything about your sex life. A virginity tshirt does...

[PearlKrabs]

I saw this exact shirt years ago when a girl at my high school wore it regularly, except hers was neon pink. I thought it was incredibly obnoxious and looking back, I still do. She also had a neon yellow one that read JESUS LOVES PORN STARS.

I should clarify I'm referring to the Virginity Rocks t-shirt. I'm quoting myself because I don't see the edit button mentioned in the FAQs :embarrassed:

EDIT: Found it. I read that it disappears I just didn't think it would be that quick. :shifty:

[DGayle]

I specifically stated that I'm very happy that students feel comfortable enough in schools to be openly gay and not ashamed of it. I do not believe that being gay is a choice while not having sex (unless it's rape), is a choice. I understand that people are upset with my comment because I'm comparing inherent sexuality (not a choice) with a lifestyle choice (deciding to remain a virgin). I understand that you think I'm comparing apples to oranges, BUT where I see the hypocrisy is in allowing some students to wear shirts that might offend someone, but not allowing other students to wear shirts that might offend someone, regardless of topic.

I guess I'm having trouble articulating what my thoughts are on this. But perhaps I'm not the best person to discuss things like this with. I was working at my job with a new office mate for over 2 months before I realized he was wearing a gay pride baseball cap so I guess all in all, unless something hits me right in the face, I'm pretty oblivious to things.

You're still missing the difference. A shirt supporting equality is supporting inclusion of people who aren't making a choice. That girl's shirt it an attempt to shame people for what, for most, IS a choice.

A better comparison would be whether or not a shirt promoting teen sex was allowed, but her shirt isn't. No shirt promoting teen sex would be allowed. One saying "God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve," might be allowed, even though the message is one of hate and is, in a way, akin to saying, "Bring back the separate school for darkies." Hateful message, derogatory, something people can't choose or change.

And you're not understanding the difference.

[DGayle]

No... Because wearing a tshirt that says I'm gay and proud doesn't tell me anything about your sex life. A virginity tshirt does...

And the proud part really is about not feeling the need to keep a part of oneself, that can't be chosen, hidden from the world like a dirty secret. It's about being proud of having the courage to face the ramifications of being openly gay in a country that is still hostile to gay people. Right now it's illegal, at the federal level, to fire someone for being a Christian. It's not illegal to fire someone for being gay. Pride is standing up and saying, "This is who I am, and I won't be ashamed of myself."

[lawfulevil]

Yes, it is immensely fucked up to wear this shirt around, because I think we can make a very GOOD argument that many of her classmates who are "not virgins" did not make the consensual choice to have sex.

Fewer than 2% of adolescents have had sex by the time they reach their 12th birthday. But adolescence is a time of rapid change. Only 16% of teens have had sex by age 15, compared with one-third of those aged 16, nearly half (48%) of those aged 17, 61% of 18-year-olds and 71% of 19-year-olds.[1] There is little difference by gender in the timing of first sex.

1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;

Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;

During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;

Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;

Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13.

Of 51,000 births among teenage mothers, 17,500 were fathered by teen males, 25,200 by men age 20-24, and 8,300 by men over age 25. Partner age gaps were considerably greater for younger mothers. For example, roughly the same number of births to girls under age 15 were fathered by men over age 25, as by peer boys under age 15.

Taken all together, we see a low overall percentage of people who've "had sex" by 14 combined with an alarming child predation rate. So no, this shirt is not appropriate.

A "choice" is only a choice when you have a CHOICE. If she wants to whip this thing back out for senior prom (by which time an estimated 2/3 of her peers will have had sex), have fun with that.

[Phoenix]

Virginity pride is still throwing sex in the faces of teenagers 24/7. If you don't want sex in schools, lose the virginity shirts along with the rest of them.

I know men who would take one look at that "Virginity Rocks" t-shirt and take it as a challenge to make sure that young girl didn't stay a virgin for long. Not approving of it, but the attitude is out there. I can just hear one chronic womanizer in particular saying, "Challenge accepted." :disgust:

To clarify, I was thinking manipulative seduction, not assault or rape.

[Coco]

I know men who would take one look at that "Virginity Rocks" t-shirt and take it as a challenge to make sure that young girl didn't stay a virgin for long. Not approving of it, but the attitude is out there. I can just hear one chronic womanizer in particular saying, "Challenge accepted." :disgust:

To clarify, I was thinking manipulative seduction, not assault or rape.

it's just so tacky and naive in every way. :(

[fun2beme]

You're still missing the difference. A shirt supporting equality is supporting inclusion of people who aren't making a choice. That girl's shirt it an attempt to shame people for what, for most, IS a choice.

A better comparison would be whether or not a shirt promoting teen sex was allowed, but her shirt isn't. No shirt promoting teen sex would be allowed. One saying "God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve," might be allowed, even though the message is one of hate and is, in a way, akin to saying, "Bring back the separate school for darkies." Hateful message, derogatory, something people can't choose or change.

And you're not understanding the difference.

No, I understand the difference which I clearly pointed out several times. I also clearly stated that my concerns were about free speech. Instead of harping on how I don't understand the difference, can you please address how one is free speech and the other is not?

[formergothardite]

The school dress codes say that nothing can be worn that is sexually explicit. I think advertising the status of your sex life falls into that category. It also bans anything considered disruptive, this shirt also falls into that category. After reading the dress code I'm not sure a gay pride shirt would be allowed either. Did I miss in the article where it said students were walking around with gay pride shirts? So I'm not getting where they are being hypocritical. Sure a student might want to wear a KKK shirt to school, but not allowing it isn't really violating his free speech. School is a place to learn, not a place to wear shirts saying how much or how little sex you are having.

[Miggy]

I could give you all a solution to this problem but you may not like it ...

Everyday my boys go to school in black trousers, black socks, black shoes, white shirts with school logo, black & gold tie and a black blazer. So does every other boy. My daughter wears a black skirt, white socks, black shoes, white blouse with school logo, black and gold tie, black and gold jumper (she's not eligible to wear a blazer yet) just like every other girl.

No need to worry about dress codes. No need to worry about what different people do and don't think is acceptable. I am so grateful to live in Australia where school uniform is normal and we don't have these dramas.

[louisa05]

Again, my point is NOT about expressing support for gay rights, or stating that you are gay, or stating that you are Christian. But if one group can express an opinion (i.e., I support gay rights) then why can't another group express their own opinion (i.e., I support "saving" myself for marriage). On a personal level, I think the virginity shirt is offensive for reasons many posters noted.

But for me, it's about freedom of speech. The issue of whether heterosexual and/or homosexual sex should be discussed in schools is a different matter. I went to Catholic school in the late 80s/early 90s and sex ed was non-existent, except for passing out brochures with drawings of the female anatomy to females, and drawings of the male anatomy to males. I don't know what level of sex ed is taught in schools today, public or private - do they explicitly discuss how to have sex? Do they address topics of masturbation? I do think the issue of gay sex should be addressed and regardless of sexuality, the emphasis should be on safe sex. And I think open discussions about transgender and asexuality should also be addressed.

Someone else here brought up gay students holding hands, kissing, etc. Perhaps it's because I was raised with non-demonstrative parents and am not a touchy-feely person, but PDAs make me uncomfortable, regardless of the gender(s) involved.

ETA - If it's OK for a student to wear a student to wear a shirt declaring that they are gay and proud of it, shouldn't it also be OK for another student to wear a shirt saying they are heterosexual and proud of it? After all, neither student is choosing their sexuality.

On the PDA topic, I have been in six high schools as an adult employee--three public, three private--all of them had rules against all PDA. In practice, quick hugs between students --gay, straight, couples, friends--are okay. Nothing else is allowed. I got into that topic on another site and people insisted it was horrible to not allow it. But here is my answer: if two teachers on that staff were in a relationship (married, living together or even just dating) and were kissing passionately in the hallways during passing periods, would you find that to be appropriate? The answer was always "no, but...". The schools I taught at told students that it was a simple matter of school not being an appropriate place for that much like the workplace is not the place for it as they will learn in later life. (Oddly, that was even the Christian school's explanation of the rule--probably because of the widely divergent positions of churches and parents on dating/courtship/kissing at the time).

The schools I was in range from 100-600 students. I think a lot of larger schools have just given up on dealing with it and that's why you see it allowed at many schools. But there is a simple and appropriate justification for not allowing that does not discriminate.

[Walking Cat Bed]

When Elizabeth Smart was rescued, she was on an age to be this girl's classmate. You know is didn't cross that girls' or her parents' minds that there are kids and teens in EVERY school who have lived through assault and rape, and who aren't virgins through no choosing of their own.

And Elizabeth Smart -- who is still a Good Mormon/Good Christian poster girl, is very vocally opposed to purity teachings. Because these teachings make abuse victims feel like trash. (I'm not sure if she still toes the line regarding voluntary sexual activity.)

[Toothfairy]

So I guess people can wear I slept with 20 guys/ girls t shirts. Or I just got banged last night. The shirt is unacceptable and I really see no point in wearing one. So just because you're a virgin your re better than everyone else??

[lawfulevil]

Why is it every time the First Amendment comes up in the American news media, the general commentariat, or Ken Anderson's blathering, it's an attempt to justify someone white doing or saying something totally obnoxious and then whining about the results? Meanwhile the mainstream media doesn't give a single fuck about ACTUAL attacks on free speech and the freedom of the press:

aclu.org/blog/free-speech/journalism-under-attack-and-not-just-ferguson

[DGayle]

No, I understand the difference which I clearly pointed out several times. I also clearly stated that my concerns were about free speech. Instead of harping on how I don't understand the difference, can you please address how one is free speech and the other is not?

Being gay or straight isn't a free speech issue. It's a matter of who you are, something you can't choose.

Free speech also means you can't be punished my the government for what you say. Want to call the president a dumbass? It's fine, while in North Korea, you might get killed. But free speech doesn't mean you can saw or wear whatever you want wherever you want, or that there can't be other repercussions.

The only way this could be argued as a free speech issue is if kids were allowed to promote teen sex, but this girl can't wear a shirt about virginity. Since the application is equal, you've got not case.

And again, it's extremely fucked up that you can't see how being openly gay is not the same as advertising your sex life.

[DGayle]

I could give you all a solution to this problem but you may not like it ...

Everyday my boys go to school in black trousers, black socks, black shoes, white shirts with school logo, black & gold tie and a black blazer. So does every other boy. My daughter wears a black skirt, white socks, black shoes, white blouse with school logo, black and gold tie, black and gold jumper (she's not eligible to wear a blazer yet) just like every other girl.

No need to worry about dress codes. No need to worry about what different people do and don't think is acceptable. I am so grateful to live in Australia where school uniform is normal and we don't have these dramas.

Why should girls have to wear skirts? Why not allow them to wear slacks?

The problem with implementing a uniform here is that uniforms are expensive, and there isn't much that can be done to lower the cost. Without a dress code, you could buy decent-shape clothes at Goodwill, make clothes, get hand-me-downs, or shop clearance. Slacks and blazers are expensive here, and since most blazers have to be dry-cleaned instead of put in a washer, that's another added expense a lot of people can't afford.

In theory, I love the idea of uniforms, and did as a kid too, but I also see the problems with trying to have one in the US where we're already got 1 out of ever 6 kids living in poverty without the money to eat predictably, and without the money to start spending $40 or more on each pair of slacks and $90 or more on each blazer, and dry cleaning, then spending more to replace when the kid outgrows stuff. These are luxury items here, not affordable to a large chunk of the population. When so many kids don't know where their next meal is coming from, the last thing they need is their families to have to start buying fancy uniforms.

[DGayle]

And Elizabeth Smart -- who is still a Good Mormon/Good Christian poster girl, is very vocally opposed to purity teachings. Because these teachings make abuse victims feel like trash. (I'm not sure if she still toes the line regarding voluntary sexual activity.)

You missed the point. When Elizabeth was found, she was the right age to be this girl's classmate. Elizabeth was still dealing with feeling dirty and unworthy of love. What if she had been faces with a shirt, at school, about virginity rocking, when hers was violently taken from her?

[louisa05]

Being gay or straight isn't a free speech issue. It's a matter of who you are, something you can't choose.

Free speech also means you can't be punished my the government for what you say. Want to call the president a dumbass? It's fine, while in North Korea, you might get killed. But free speech doesn't mean you can saw or wear whatever you want wherever you want, or that there can't be other repercussions.

The only way this could be argued as a free speech issue is if kids were allowed to promote teen sex, but this girl can't wear a shirt about virginity. Since the application is equal, you've got not case.

And again, it's extremely fucked up that you can't see how being openly gay is not the same as advertising your sex life.

The courts have typically ruled that schools can limit some student speech in order to maintain a good learning environment. Basically, anything potentially disruptive to learning can be limited or not allowed.

[Trynn]

Besides, I bet in countries with uniforms, the rich kids and or gangsters still find a way to make their clothes better than everyone.

And.... I only even halfway approve if girls get to wear pants too. but even then I don't think it solves all problems. Rich kids would still find a way for their clothes to appear richer, gangsters would still find a way to wear uniforms like the rest of their gang, etc.

[antwan]

I highly doubt there are kids coming to school with shirts saying I had sex last night or I've had Blank amount of partners. I don't think many people object to her saying she's a virgin it's the fact that she and her parents felt it was appropriate to wear a shirt that talked about it to school.

I wasn't referring to kids wearing shirts that read, "I had sex last night." I was referring to sexual preference/sexual orientation. If students are permitted to form alliances and hang posters to advertise them (and they are), then this girl should be allowed to make her statement as well. If it doesn't belong on a t-shirt, it doesn't belong on a poster either. To protect the rights of one group, we must be tolerant of another.

[doggie]

Virginity is not a group. And Christians have more support then anyone else.

[Cheetah]

Why should girls have to wear skirts? Why not allow them to wear slacks?

The problem with implementing a uniform here is that uniforms are expensive, and there isn't much that can be done to lower the cost. Without a dress code, you could buy decent-shape clothes at Goodwill, make clothes, get hand-me-downs, or shop clearance. Slacks and blazers are expensive here, and since most blazers have to be dry-cleaned instead of put in a washer, that's another added expense a lot of people can't afford.

In theory, I love the idea of uniforms, and did as a kid too, but I also see the problems with trying to have one in the US where we're already got 1 out of ever 6 kids living in poverty without the money to eat predictably, and without the money to start spending $40 or more on each pair of slacks and $90 or more on each blazer, and dry cleaning, then spending more to replace when the kid outgrows stuff. These are luxury items here, not affordable to a large chunk of the population. When so many kids don't know where their next meal is coming from, the last thing they need is their families to have to start buying fancy uniforms.

My middle schooler goes to a Title 1 (that means over a certain percentage low-income) public school and they have uniforms. They don't involve blazers and ties... it's just khaki pants or skirts with a black, white, or orange polo. Any brand is fine. You can get this stuff at Target, Old Navy, etc. Not a burden, and we keep a hand-me-down closet as well... not sure if that stuff is given out free if needed but usually they resell it pretty cheap. (Oh, in the winter they wear long-sleeved polos or a school-logo sweatshirt). I love it... it's so easy for me.

[Ivycoveredtower]

I wasn't referring to kids wearing shirts that read, "I had sex last night." I was referring to sexual preference/sexual orientation. If students are permitted to form alliances and hang posters to advertise them (and they are), then this girl should be allowed to make her statement as well. If it doesn't belong on a t-shirt, it doesn't belong on a poster either. To protect the rights of one group, we must be tolerant of another.

First of all I doubt there is groups hanging posters saying I have sex. which is the equivalent to her virginity shirt. an LGBT group is not equivalent. some schools do allow purity groups though. but even if they didn't most of that would be caught in almost any christian group on campus. A kid who wants to stay pure can find like minded people in many groups well an LGBT kid may only have that one group on campus who understands them. So no I don't think it would be unfair to allow an LGBT group at a school but not allow a purity club. Yes I do think it's fair to allow a child to wear an I'm gay and proud shirt. but not allow another to wear an I'm straight and proud shirt. (Why would someone even need one of those) :roll:

[Miggy]

Why should girls have to wear skirts? Why not allow them to wear slacks?

The problem with implementing a uniform here is that uniforms are expensive, and there isn't much that can be done to lower the cost. Without a dress code, you could buy decent-shape clothes at Goodwill, make clothes, get hand-me-downs, or shop clearance. Slacks and blazers are expensive here, and since most blazers have to be dry-cleaned instead of put in a washer, that's another added expense a lot of people can't afford.

In theory, I love the idea of uniforms, and did as a kid too, but I also see the problems with trying to have one in the US where we're already got 1 out of ever 6 kids living in poverty without the money to eat predictably, and without the money to start spending $40 or more on each pair of slacks and $90 or more on each blazer, and dry cleaning, then spending more to replace when the kid outgrows stuff. These are luxury items here, not affordable to a large chunk of the population. When so many kids don't know where their next meal is coming from, the last thing they need is their families to have to start buying fancy uniforms.

Not attacking you - just answering your points.

1) Skirts: Girls have the option of black trousers or the black & white skirt. My daughter chooses to wear the skirt. It's about half and half which they wear.

2) Cost: New, uniforms are definitely expensive. However, four years ago I bought my daughter two skirts at $60 each. She is still wearing those same skirts. I hate to think of what I would have spent over four years if she was going in casual every day.

3) Poverty: Most schools have a second hand clothing pool. At the school I teach at all items are $2 each. You can outfit a child with summer and winter uniform for around $20. (A couple a shirts, two pairs of trousers, two pairs of shorts, hat, tie, jumper, etc.) If you are low income, uniform can be provided from the clothing pool for free. One of the things we look out for as teachers is children coming to school dressed inappropriately. If we see a child coming to school in the snow with no jumper, we just get one from clothing for them.

Edited to add: Just noticed your post, Cheetah. My kids high school is public but in a fairly wealthy area, hence the ties and blazers. Uniforms vary widely here, depending on the wealth of an area. Polo top with shorts and a track suit in winter, all in school colours, is not an uncommon uniform in poorer areas.

[Phoenix]

Why should girls have to wear skirts? Why not allow them to wear slacks?

The problem with implementing a uniform here is that uniforms are expensive, and there isn't much that can be done to lower the cost. Without a dress code, you could buy decent-shape clothes at Goodwill, make clothes, get hand-me-downs, or shop clearance. Slacks and blazers are expensive here, and since most blazers have to be dry-cleaned instead of put in a washer, that's another added expense a lot of people can't afford.

In theory, I love the idea of uniforms, and did as a kid too, but I also see the problems with trying to have one in the US where we're already got 1 out of ever 6 kids living in poverty without the money to eat predictably, and without the money to start spending $40 or more on each pair of slacks and $90 or more on each blazer, and dry cleaning, then spending more to replace when the kid outgrows stuff. These are luxury items here, not affordable to a large chunk of the population. When so many kids don't know where their next meal is coming from, the last thing they need is their families to have to start buying fancy uniforms.

In junior high I had to wear two sets of uniforms. One for a performance group and one for school. In both cases each organization held a uniform exchange where families could trade uniform items or get them at very low prices because families whose kids had outgrown their uniforms would donate the uniform back to the exchange. My family wasn't rolling in money so I had two complete school uniforms, one to wear and one to wash. Same thing for my siblings. The performance uniform, I had one set for each season but since I didn't have to wear the performance uniform five days a week, that was manageable.

Uniforms do eliminate the drama of messages and logos on clothing but the whole "everyone looks like everyone else and thus are equal" ideal simply doesn't translate into practice. There were ALWAYS methods of increasing your status by tweaking your uniform. I am not talking rolling up the hemline. The cool kids whose folks had money to spare got Izod knit polos. The rest of us had to wear the 1950's style, must iron Peter-Pan collar shirts. Girls hair ornaments created a whole different pecking order as well. Free dress days while infrequent were a riot of one-upmanship even with the no text on clothing rule. Then it was brand name pants or gasp... jeans, tops, shoes etc... It was so bad a younger sister would throw insane tantrums and con the parental units into going to the mall to buy her a new outfit because her classmates had already seen her in her previous secular/street wear outfits. By then there were a few more resources to work with and to my utter and enduring astonishment our parents fell for it EVERY TIME. Ok, so our folks were idiots on that point. Bottom line, uniforms don't solve as many problems as people think they do or they amplify other problems.