Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something

I’m sure almost every high school boy would agree that teenage high school girls should be allowed to wear extremely revealing clothing in school

(Global News) It all started when Grade 11 student Lindsey Stocker was singled out by Beaconsfield High School officials for the length of her shorts.

“I was in violation for showing my legs,” she said.

Last week, Stocker had decided to wear a pair of shorts, the length of which two vice-principals decided was unacceptable during a tour of the school.

This was determined during a “finger-length test,” where school officials apparently asked students to stand up with their arms at their sides. If the girls’ fingers hung past the length of their shorts, the shorts were considered too short for school.

“It was in front of my entire class,” Stocker said. “I felt attacked, it was humiliating.”

Now, if you look at the photo at the link, the shorts aren’t really that short. But, the rules are the rules. This is where it dives into idiocy

She said that she had been affected by the recent massacre in California, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger opened fire on a group of students after publishing a manifesto, in which he laid out his plans to exact revenge for being rejected by women.

“He didn’t pull that out of nowhere… There are girls everyday, girls in my grade, that go through, not fun things.”

To link not being allowed to wear skimpy shorts to class to Rodgers is idiotic. She also trotted out the “rape culture” meme. All because the little snowflake was told to adhere to school policy.

A couple points. First, it’s Canada. How hot can it be? Second, she knew the rules. Third, let’s face an uncomfortable truth: high school boys love seeing women wearing skimpy clothing. They are obsessed by sex. It doesn’t mean they’ll act on it, it doesn’t mean a girl who wears skimpy clothing is a “slut”, it’s not an invitation to rape. But, it damned sure is a distraction for boys (OK, really, any woman in skimpy/sexy/tight clothing is a distraction for men, age appropriate). Our eyes and brains are wired that way as part of evolution. Get over it.

Furthermore, another uncomfortable truth is that young women will wear this type of clothing to be noticed by boys! Shocking, eh? Again, it doesn’t mean they are looking for sexual contact (despite liberals pushing young women to be sexual creatures), nor to be raped. Does anyone actually think Lindsay didn’t want the boys to look at her legs?

Perhaps culture shouldn’t push young women to be hyper-sexual. There have always been dress codes. The purpose of being at school is to learn. This little special snowflake is “challenging the dress code”, because it is All About Her. Just like so many are being taught. Out of control narcissism.

I’m certainly dating myself, but we didn’t have these problems when I attended high school during the 1980’s. Nor even college.

One final observation: if it’s hot out, aren’t you supposed to wear loose fitting, lightweight, loose woven clothing? Yes. yes you are. In essence, Lindsay, and all the people “defending” her, are pissed off that she got caught breaking the rules, so are doing what they do best: changing the subject.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    I was most impressed by the reporting from Montreal. Don’t we all wish the US media could be as competent.

    Both sides had the chance to present their story, and both the girl and the school officials did an excellent job explaining their positions. She is correct that boys should learn not to objectify women. The school was correct in explaining their reasonable dress code and her violations.

    As expected, Teach stumbled by implying girls that dress like her are slutty and that he’s an expert on how hot it was in Montreal that day, and how Canadian girls should dress. Or maybe, as the wise Canadian teenager suggested, we teach boys to treat women as people and not their own personal playthings.

    But Teach is a member of the American Taliban who view women as the property of males, and that their existence here is to please him. If he gets a chubby from watching teen girls in shorts, it’s their fault for wearing clothing that is too tight, too short, too revealing, too sexy, too pretty… Perhaps they should wear burkas, so that the Teach’s of the world won’t get too aroused.

  2. Bigfoot says:

    When I read about this, I had two reactions.

    1. It gets warm enough in Montreal to wear shorts? Oh yeah, it’s because of global warming/climate change/whatever they’re calling it now, and it’s Bush’s fault.

    2. The dress code appears to be dependent on the combined length of a girl’s arms, hands and fingers. The proportion of this combined length to her height is going to vary somewhat from one girl to the next. It would make more sense to have a maximum distance above the knee or a minimum distance below the rear end.

  3. john says:

    Both Big Foot and Teach must have flunked Earth Science in middle school. The highest temp recorded in Canada was 34 Centigrade which equals 113 F That was in have center of the country where of course they have a continental climate
    Montreal has hit 99 F

  4. Thursday morning links

    Update on sherpas The Real Medieval History Behind Game of Thrones’ Trial by Combat Another federal judge rules on legality of NSA surveillance Klavan:  Homofascism Should Be Crushed 10 States Most Dependent on the Federal Government

  5. deepred says:

    1967-1974 The golden age of the mini-skirt. Boys hair got longer, girls skirts got shorter. Most of my teachers at the time were old -school. Tried to enforce a dress code but were simply overwhelmed. The times were passing them by. But I remember all those beautiful legs. made it difficult to concentrate on class-work.

  6. JTW says:

    I’d not call that a “reasonable dress code”…

    Such “dress codes” are what causes boys/men to consider women to be sex objects…
    What’s next? A return to “the good old days” where women are required to wear ankle length skirts, bodices, scarfs and veils to cover their hair else someone might get aroused by them?
    It wasn’t too long ago that those were the norm, and I know there are people longing for a return to those days.

  7. deepred says:

    That’s the way it is in Islamic countries that enforce Sharia law. If a women wears a knee length skirt, get gang raped by three men, she’s the one that going to receive the 100 lashes. That’s why women wear “burkas” to save men from temptation. Did you know that Stockholm is one of the rape capitals of the world. Don’t take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

  8. Seamus says:

    To deepred

    ” But I remember all those beautiful legs. made it difficult to concentrate on class-work.”

    Exactly the point.

    And as for the idea that girls should not be seen as “sex objects”, the complaint is utterly meaningless when the girls dress like sex objects.


Pirate's Cove