Girls told to wear longer skirts at school because the boys are distracted and male teachers feel uncomfortable.

Now, I don't have a son, but don't teenage boys spend quite a lot of time getting erections anyway? I think male teachers, as adults, are probably a bit less likely to get a surprise like that though!

You're talking as though the girls are sitting there with legs akimbo and sexy pants on show, or that male teachers are actually likely to be aroused by a slab of 15 year old thigh!

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace:

If you are wearing very skimpy underwear and a very short skirt, as another poster has described, you can indeed be exposing others to your nudity. Small knickers or a thong will show pubic hair and buttocks. It really is very unfair.

And yes, I do think men and boys are affected by what they see in the street. They get aroused. This is normal. It isn't normal to have to feel that way in class. The environment is formal so the dress code needs to be formal too. This precludes undies.

He should be able to get on with teaching without being exposed to skimpy female underwear (or even more graphic sights).

No, he needs to be able to control himself, if he can't he's in the wrong job.

too much flesh on display from either sex is distracting and not ideal. It's a learning and working environment

So where was the corollary advice for boys?

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace:

If a man (teacher or not) is on holiday and gets an erection, he can stick a towel over it, ignore it, leave etc. If a male student gets an erection in the middle of P3 History, he is at risk of being horribly embarrassed in front of his peers. If a male teacher gets an erection whilst teaching a class (it makes me feel a bit icky even saying it) he will probably lose his job. Now I know people will be inclined to say "Well, he should lose his job!" but again, I think that is unfair. He should be able to get on with teaching without being exposed to skimpy female underwear (or even more graphic sights).

Appropriate attire message- fine.

It's your duty to ensure all the menz are comfortable- not fine.

Kneel in public to ensure that you are complying with the duty to make all the menz feel comfortable- fuck me it's Gilead. (PP mentioned kneeling during assembly to demonstrate attire compliance)

YANBU.

Fine to insist on the dress code being followed. Wrong to say that girls are responsible for males being distracted by dress code violations. This sends the wrong message.

This.

1. The girls are not 'nude', they are wearing skirts that are shorter than regulations
2. The boys will see a lot more 'nudity' than that in the street, in clubs, on beaches - do you think they get affected 'emotionally and physically' in a negative way by that?
3. Where does 'fault' come into it? Only if they act on this emotional and physical anguish surely? Nobody's saying boys shouldn't or won't like seeing knickers. But the idea that it's a huge problem is daft.

Everyone will look at someone's arse hanging out!

But apparently it's only the boys they need to worry about distracting and "sexually provoking"?

is it ok to stare at everyone different from your sons or just the girls?

While I am uncomfortable with telling women they should cover up so that poor men are not forced to ogle them, I do think that at 15 they should be capable of understanding the basics of acceptable dress for a business and professional environment, and too much flesh on display from either sex is distracting and not ideal. It's a learning and working environment, not a beach or a night club. I wouldn't want to look at boys wearing muscle vests and showing off their nipples and armpit hair either. It's just not the appropriate place for it.

If one of the girls in a short skirt accused a teacher or a male pupil of deliberately trying to look up it as she went up the stairs it would be very difficult for him to prove otherwise, which is rather unfair considering that he may not have had much of a choice if he was directly behind her and a fews stairs down.

It's also extremely difficult to sit down in a short skirt or cross and uncross your legs without it riding up and possibly giving everyone a good view of your knickers. It isn't really fair or realistic to put the onus on male teachers and pupils to make sure they don't see it.

Teenage girls are not responsible for the feelings of boys, and certainly not male teachers - there was no need for any comment about them. Fair enough for the school to insist on a reasonable uniform that everyone has to comply with - though the sole-supplier system is often a rip-off , and it would be fairer to allow parents to buy compliant uniform from other suppliers.

That said, a PP could be right about schools getting a cut from the uniform supplier. The majority of schools face absolutely brutal budget cuts over the next few years, and Headteachers are desperately trying to minimise the effects on class sizes/ cutting non-core provision- it's equivalent to searching for pennies down the back of the sofa.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace:

I think that is incredibly unfair. As I say in another post, coming to work or going to school shouldn't be testing in this sense - heterosexual boys will be distracted by female nudity and that is completely normal. Provided they aren't going out of their way to see the girls' knickers, how can they be blamed if seeing them affects them emotionally and physically? How is this in any way their fault?

Teenage boys are bound to look if girls skirts are so short they are showing their knickers

Boys will be boys, eh?

And girls will be girls then!

Because DN was laughing the other day that her friend had a fake tattoo on her arse!

Everyone will look at someone's arse hanging out!

Totally agree with CoolJazz re uniforms that consisted of comfy trousers for both girls and boys. I'd have no issue with sports kit TBH - nice tracksuits for both.

Meanwhile, I totally agree that the girls should not have been told they were a distraction, simply that their uniforms did not meet the dress code. Perhaps both girls and boys should have been told to smarten up in the name of school image or something? Or individual offenders could have been sent home with a note? But in the scenario the OP has described all the girls were given a clear message that they are a distraction to boys.

I equally think that if the dear boys have been distracted they need to be given some education in making sure they modify their behaviour to prevent them being distracted.

Meanwhile - as for the 'poor teenage boys are just a mess of hormones and can't help themselves' this just smacks of old sexist stereotypes. Adolescent girls also have hormones and are thinking about sex, but they have to exercise restraint because of the boys and are not excused for their behaviour!

I'm fairly sure if there was a fashion for the boys, which involved very short shorts & an occasional flash of ball sack, I'd be distracted too. Nothing to do with perving, it's just not appropriate. Not all men or boys are rampant perverts.

Yet another "nothing sexist here folks, move along, nothing to see here" thread!

There is nothing sexist about telling girls to wear appropriate clothes for a workplace, or in enforcing a uniform.

There is a lot sexist in telling them that they should do this specifically because they are being distracting to boys and male teachers. Because women and girls are not responsible for how men and boys feel or behave. And saying that they are is a dangerous lesson to teach.

What about when the male teachers go on holiday, and sit on a beach anywhere hot? How do they control their massive boners, and their raging pumping hormones then? When they can see a lot more than some 60-deniered thigh?

tinytemper66:

And actually, if I'm honest. I wouldn't blame a male teacher even for feeling distracted by a teenage girl (say, 15) flashing her knickers at him in class. Obviously he should be professional and ignore it and he shouldn't be in any way 'unable to control himself' (ridiculous phrase anyway) but the reality is that he will have been exposed all his life to images of young women in underwear that are overtly and deliberately sexual: underwear adverts, music videos, films, magazines and yes, probably pornography. It is not fair to expect him to be able to compartmentalise to the extent that he doesn't even notice a female crotch six feet away from him. Coming to work shouldn't be a test to see if you're a pervert. No wonder they feel uncomfortable.

The code is there to make sure everyone can get on and learn, so if one group is at risk of not being able to do that because of the actions of another group

The boys are 'at risk' of nothing other than making poor decisions about whether to get on and learn.

Makes me think of the thing where good girls seated next to naughty boys to civilize them. And then girls' clothes apparently the chief reason boys can't learn. Girls aren't there to make boys feel comfortable, or help them learn.

(plus, all very heteronormative!)

I agree with what was said by a pp, why are skirts part of school uniform at all? Why does no one question this?
Women and girls don't have to wear skirts at all, trousers and shorts are far more practical for school, for both boys and girls.

I'm fairly sure I have read this thread with the exact same wording at least twice before on here. Someone better than me at searching can probably find the previous threads.

Teenage boys are bound to look if girls skirts are so short they are showing their knickers

Boys will be boys, eh?

Amazing how I managed to control myself around girls in short skirts when I was at school. Those poor boys with their wandering eyes and desperately short attention span. If they're so easily distracted, maybe they should see someone about their inattentiveness?

Why don't they just change the uniform to trousers ffs

ElisavetaFartsonira:

You're giving me a bit of a headache.

If we don't know that the boys need to have the uniform code reiterated (as nothing like this is mentioned in the OP's post) what on earth are you complaining about? If there was a double standard on display I would agree with you, but so far all we know is that the school felt it necessary to speak to the girls but not the boys.

Plus, there is nothing wrong with telling them that their breaches of the uniform code are having a negative effect on the boys. The code is there to make sure everyone can get on and learn, so if one group is at risk of not being able to do that because of the actions of another group, telling them so is just telling the truth.