ANOTHER Muslim attack

[GMDino]

(07-11-2017, 10:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: School uniform policy is not made to stop mass rapings that would otherwise be previlant in American schools.   Uniform policy is made to keep things simple and uniform to promote learning and take away from the distractions of being an individual with dress.

Yes.  Uniforms.

But there are other policies to keep girls from distracting boys in schools with no uniforms.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-11-2017, 10:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  Uniforms.

But there are other policies to keep girls from distracting boys in schools with no uniforms.

Yes it's called classroom discipline and good instruction.

[BmorePat87]

(07-11-2017, 01:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes it's called classroom discipline and good instruction.

You're totally missing his point. He keeps telling you that he's not referring to school uniforms, rather dress codes regarding the amount of skin shown by girls that boys do not have to obey. 

You then keep mentioning school uniforms. 

I'm not sure how much more he needs to spell it out.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2017, 01:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes it's called classroom discipline and good instruction.

It's also to keep from distracting boys.

Now, admittedly, probably poorly raised boys who believe women/girls are there simply to ogle and be used as they see fit.  Add that misogynistic worldview with raging hormones and you have a recipe for disaster.

Many boys/men are raised to respect women no matter their race or religion.

Some were raised correctly but can't control themselves.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2017, 02:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're totally missing his point. He keeps telling you that he's not referring to school uniforms, rather dress codes regarding the amount of skin shown by girls that boys do not have to obey. 

You then keep mentioning school uniforms. 

I'm not sure how much more he needs to spell it out.

And the point is:  Even is the good old US of A we have a structure where we are telling girls/women to dress so they don't distract the boys/men.

Does that mean the males are simply unable to control themselves?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2017, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's also to keep from distracting boys.

Now, admittedly, probably poorly raised boys who believe women/girls are there simply to ogle and be used as they see fit.  Add that misogynistic worldview with raging hormones and you have a recipe for disaster.

Many boys/men are raised to respect women no matter their race or religion.

Some were raised correctly but can't control themselves.

No all boys poorly raised or well raised will be distracted by a girl showing stuff off.  and probably the girls who are calling her a slut as well.

I think what lucie is saying is we have dress codes to keep boys from being distracted and they have dress codes to keep the boys from raping. That would be a big difference, but I'm certainly not verifying it. And dress codes are there for more than just to keep the boys from panting.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-11-2017, 02:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're totally missing his point. He keeps telling you that he's not referring to school uniforms, rather dress codes regarding the amount of skin shown by girls that boys do not have to obey. 

You then keep mentioning school uniforms. 

I'm not sure how much more he needs to spell it out.

Boys don't follow because they have two options shirts or pants. And short sleeve shirts or long sleeve shirts. Girls have more guidelines because they have more clothing options .

I know exactly what he is going on about and it's as usual nonsense.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-11-2017, 02:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No all boys poorly raised or well raised will be distracted by a girl showing stuff off.  and probably the girls who are calling her a slut as well.

I think what lucie is saying is we have dress codes to keep boys from being distracted and they have dress codes to keep the boys from raping. That would be a big difference, but I'm certainly not verifying it. And dress codes are there for more than just to keep the boys from panting.

Stop using common sense. It just confuses some

[*Nately120*]

(07-11-2017, 09:45 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What does your school districts dress code have to do with the price of tea in china?    That is not what vlad is even taking about.....  in his example the mayor had to explain its not ok to rape women and treat them like animals.     And his response was to tell women to look less attractive so these Muslims would not mistakenly treat them as animals.  

In what world is this even defended?

In what world are rapists defended?  Well, I'd say our world if you count defending and electing 2 rapists into the presidency in the span of 25 years as "defending" them.  

(07-11-2017, 10:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Western men do not treat them like animals like Muslims.   We have a handful of abusers here who go full Muslim.

Buddy, white males are a constant source of sexual offense in this country.  Toss in non-white males who aren't Mulsim and the number is even higher.  Ah well, let's just deny deny deny.

[BmorePat87]

(07-11-2017, 06:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Boys don't follow because they have two options shirts or pants.   And short sleeve shirts or long sleeve shirts.    Girls have more guidelines because they have more clothing options .  

I know exactly what he is going on about and it's as usual nonsense.

Boys can and often wear tank tops and running shorts, attire that girls would be asked to cover up if they wore. 

[GMDino]

(07-11-2017, 02:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No all boys poorly raised or well raised will be distracted by a girl showing stuff off.  and probably the girls who are calling her a slut as well.

I think what lucie is saying is we have dress codes to keep boys from being distracted and they have dress codes to keep the boys from raping.  That would be a big difference, but I'm certainly not verifying it.  And dress codes are there for more than just to keep the boys from panting.

Correct.  However int he context of what I was discussing I was trying to point out that even in America we ask girls/women to dress more modestly so as not to inflame the boys/men.

This isn't just a "muslim" thing.

[Dill]

(07-11-2017, 09:13 AM)Vlad Wrote: No it does not. That same tired song and dance the left plays each and every time. Its boring.
Its also stupid. If it were "all Muslims" then that would have to include females.

The mayor of Cologne encouraging German women to dress more modestly so as to not stimulate Muslim male  libido should tell you something.

In related stories..
This source should meet your approval.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/02/08/alleged-gang-rape-facebook-shocks-sweden/97633012/

https://www.10news.one/swedens-islamic-rape-epidemy-almost-half-of-victims-are-children/

Vlad, a few weeks back you were going on about responsible journalism. You posted a video of liberal Walter Cronkite and lamented the days journalists just reported "the facts."

So why are you posting links to 10news.one?  If you know something of journalistic standards and how to vet sources, then surely you know that the "islamic rape epidmic" of Sweden is fake news, right?

[GMDino]

This is an older story (2015) that just made its rounds on social media again.

http://shareably.co/school-sends-girl-home-outfit/?utm_content=inf_10_3000_2&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=TSE&utm_source=TSE&tse_id=INF_e4e493306d1711e784dd0bde21677fc8

Quote:Here we go again. Yet another example of an authoritarian institution shaming and over sexualizing girls bodies, while also sending them the message that their comfort or right to express themselves with their clothing is less important than allowing boys to continually see women as sexual objects.


Except that this time a school district shamed a girl that was is fully clothed.

Erica Edgerly’s little sister, Macy who was a senior in high school, was sent home for wearing a loose shirt that completely covered her chest, shoulders, and her rear end. She was also wearing pants that went past her knees.

Edgerly’s angry post where she slammed her sister’s public Texas high school, for their damaging message to girls and boys was shared more than 95,000 times.

Quote:“Today, my sister was sent home from school for wearing the clothes in the picture below. And I’m sorry but I have to stand up for my family and for women who are degraded and judged for their bodies and clothing everyday. People wonder why women feel insecure about their bodies or what they wear, And it’s because you’re told your clothing is inappropriate when you’re completley fully clothed, even whenyou’re not showing cleavage or anything. How about instead of body shaming women, school systems should start teaching 15-18-year-old boys to stop degrading women with their eyes and contributing to the rape culture of today’s society,” she wrote. “Bottom line, girls cannot go to school in comfortable clothes THAT COVER EVERYTHING because school systems are afraid that hormonal boys won’t be able to control their eyes and minds. And that is such a bigger problem than worrying about clothing.”

Edgerly also stood up for young men who are branded as beings who can’t control their hormones and only see women in a sexual manner and who actually just see a girl in shirt and pants when they look at Macy.

Quote:“No, I do no believe that all boys in middle school/high school degrade young women or sexualize their bodies. That is my point… this is not an inappropriate outfit, yet some are worried it might be seen that way, so they send girls home to change to try to avoid an issue and THAT is the problem. Not to mention, when you send someone home because of inappropriate clothing, you’re taking away from their education. So I guess it’s more important for boys to not have distractions (even when they’re aren’t any) than a woman’s education. When will people realize how big of an issue this really is?”

Probably when that older generation is no more and the younger generation is left to lead us into a less archaic and more just and civilized world, which means it’s only a matter of time.