No, this is NOT a joke:
Long Beach High School has an annual “Superhero Day” for its seniors. According to Newsday, while other students came dressed as Superman and Wonder Woman, three girls–Ashley Imhof, Eliana Levin, and Chelsea Horowitz–came attired as kid’s book superhero Captain Underpants. There was nothing remotely indecent about the ensembles: They were covered head to toe in flesh-colored tights (not see-through), sporting white jockey shorts on the outside. But the head of the school, who will henceforth be referred to as Principal Poopypants, insisted they change because they had “the appearance” of being naked.
What the hëll was he TALKING about? They were wearing capes, so seen from the back, they wouldn’t appear topless. Seen from the front, they would only appear naked if the biology teachers at Long Beach failed to teach the kids that girls have breasts. Nevertheless, the mere suggestion was enough to make Principal Poopypants issue an ultimatum that the clever teens cover up. Having no clothes to change into, the girls had to go home.
The Principal (real name Nicholas Restivo) stated he didn’t know the character, “not that it mattered.” Talk about having your underpants in a bunch. Someone should send Principal Poopypants a collection of the series.
PAD
Here is the photo that was taken by Ðìçk Yarwood for Newsday for the article.
• 
“Students are in school to learn. It’s not a freakin’ fashion show.”
We had one in high school. Girls dressed in male fashions and guys in female ones. I know. I wore a ballgown down the improvised ‘runway’. It was a one-day thing, all in fun, and no one got their knickers in a knot.
I should qualify. I’m not saying you can’t have these sorts of things. They can be fun and a bit of a break from the mundane. But it’s all secondary to the primary purpose of education, and when it crosses the line in that it interferes with the primary, it needs to be modified or eliminated.
> and when it crosses the line in that it interferes with the primary, it needs to be modified or eliminated.
OK. But did it? We know the principal got bent out of shape over it. What about the other students? Was there a riot over it? Did the girls’ classes get flooded with would-be gawkers? If not, where’s the problem?
What do you mean by “bent out of shape”? To me that phrase entails him getting red in the face, yelling and generally losing his cool. There’s no indication any of those things happened. Do you consider any time a school administrator enforces policy to be getting bent out of shape?
And I doubt there was a riot (Must it get to that before the administration acts? Imagine the story THAT would garner.) It’s more like the death by a thousand cuts. Typically you only have 40-45 minutes to complete a lesson, and there is a world of distractions anyways. You have to take attendance, you have to get the stagglers in their seats, you get two or three kids coming in with late passes from other classes, etc. This is one of the distractions the administration has control over, so the principal used his discretion and opted to remove it.
Talk about dámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t…
Just wanted to ask – does anyone know if there was a dress code or even guidelines for Superhero Day? If not, it’s hard to blame the girls for their costumes if no guidelines were provided or even suggested. Also, what other kinds of costumes were kids wearing?
The problem is we’ve let lawyers take over the world. It has gotten so bad that people forbid things just because they guess some lawyer will sue.
Anyone that could look at those pictures and see something wrong is pretty soon going to say that there is something wrong with allowing girls to go to school at all. I mean no matter how they dress girls are going to distract boys.
It was Senior Superhero Day. Three kids went as Captain Underpants, they wore 2 layers of clothing, and a bunch of you insist on making something dirty out of it.
When I was 10, my immigrant mother made me a Moon Knight costume. I thank god no one took the opportunity to tell me what a klansman was.
Captain Underpants?? I’m sorry, that’s just lazy. If you have 3 girls who want to come to Superhero Day at high school dressed as the same character, at least show a little creativity — like come as Triplicate Girl!
It was Senior Superhero Day.
During a day of school in which the educational process is still expected to take place.
a bunch of you insist on making something dirty out of it.
I don’t recall saying it was dirty. I said it was disruptive and a target for the litigious. If I’m one of the ones you are speaking of, please don’t put words in my mouth.
I mean no matter how they dress girls are going to distract boys.
So the principal should just throw his hands up in the air and say “do as thou wilt?”
Litigious on what basis? They wore 2 layers of clothing — where you insist you see a bra in the pixelated photos, and hold against them. What defense is there against that?
Litigious in the sense that some parent is going to sue because their children were exposed to indecency in school. Would they win? I dunno–I’d like to think they wouldn’t, but I wouldn’t bet the farm against it either. But even if they didn’t it would cost the district time and money to create a defense against it.
In our district, a student was harassed by students because he was openly gay. His family sued. They didn’t sue the families of the students who harassed him-they didn’t have the perceived deep pockets. They sued the school district for not doing enough to protect him. It cost the district $250,000.
Guess what? If we hear any student call another student “gay” for any reason, it gets reported to the office now, and the students are called down for conflict management counseling.
Don’t underestimate the public’s ability to be offended or the legal profession’s ability to cash in on it.
While I personally had no problem with what they had on, schools have rules that say that undergarments cannot be worn as outer garments. He was within his legal right to send them home, even though I totally disagree with it.
So the principal was protecting the other high school students from the indecent Captain Underpants? Should a ban on the Captain Underpants books now be issued to the high shool library? To avoid lawsuits?
Is that what the principal said? Did the report establish those kids were trying to get away with wearing undergarments publicly, or did they have the sense to wear shorts on the outside of their clothing, like all the other kids on Senior Superhero day?
Not to distract too much, but just because you can see a bra outline in this picture doesn’t necessarily mean they wore one the day of the actual event. I doubt that the reporters were lined up outside the school waiting for someone to be sent home for dress code violations.
Meanwhile, I absolutely had to make today’s Dilbert comic strip my new desktop background. 🙂
So I teach a class for seniors and juniors who want to be teachers, and every Friday is News Article day, where the kids research and report on the educational issues of the week. One girl had the story of a principal who, for some reason, gave a kid on the soccer team a wedgie and was suspended. Weird story. Another girl talked about a teacher who was openly talking about her weekend’s sexcapades with students (which led into a little offshoot about last week’s South Park). Talked a little about a couple of Arizona propositions and how they might affect education, and as things petered down I brought this story out.
First of all, those of you who are still insisting the outfits weren’t see-through and bras weren’t visible, try looking at the picture on a three foot tall smart board. There is none, zero, absolutely no doubt. Couple of the boys giggled, couple of the girls gasped, and all but three students said it was inappropriate (granted, this was a group of kids who will have a biased perspective because we’ve discussed education issues and appropriateness repeatedly). The first question that was asked was, “What does the student dress code say?” I replied the only mention I’ve seen of it is when the principal states there can be no visible underwear. At that point, nobody disagreed with the decision. When I asked if this outfit would be distracting, all the girls, and all but two of the boys said it would be. For context, the two boys said it wasn’t distracting enough. One girl, however, did ask what other costumes were allowed, and the general consensus was that if other costumes showed cleavage or skin, they should have been sent home too, so they’d need to know more about the other costumes.
Anyway, just thought I’d share that.
To address some comments:
Peter David:
“The outfits were not see-through. The girls were interviewed on the news last night. They were wearing leotards, and beneath that, tank tops. So basically they were sporting two layers of clothing”
That is absolutely, positively NOT what the pictures show.
“They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which–considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.”
This is absolutely, positively incorrect for the majority of schools in America that are not a product of Hollywood.
“Furthermore, they were informed that if they did not cover up, they would receive a week’s suspension. The alternative was to leave…for which they received a cut, which is a mark on their attendance record. Get that? The principal put them in a situation where perceived, not actual, indecency compelled them to leave school for which they were then penalized.”
Standard procedure. The kids knew the rule, they knowingly violated the rule, and they must accept the consequences for breaking that rule. Calling it perceived indecency does not change the fact they intentionally violated the no undergarments policy.
“Guaranteed that you’ve seen the last of superhero day at Long Beach HS.”
Probably true, but more because of the publicity of the “outrage” than anything else. If this hadn’t gone out nationally, they’d still have dress up days.
Tom Dakers:
“Anyone that could look at those pictures and see something wrong is pretty soon going to say that there is something wrong with allowing girls to go to school at all. I mean no matter how they dress girls are going to distract boys.”
Now THAT’s a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one!
I don’t know if anyone’s posted it yet, but if someone would like to send the principle an e-mail the website for Long Beach is http://www.lbeach.org and the Address for snail mail is
Long Beach High School
322 Lagoon Dr
W Lido Beach, NY 11561-4908
-jason
Should a ban on the Captain Underpants books now be issued to the high school library?
I dunno; I’ve never read Captain Underpants as my own kids were too old when the books came out. Do they feature topless teenage girls?
And as long as we’re going to ridiculous, back-bending extremes to make our points, I guess I’ll join in. Many folks here are saying, “But it’s only simulated nudity, so it’s okay.” At what point do you draw the line? Could they draw simulated nipples on the body suits? If not, why not? It’s just simulated, isn’t it? How about putting plastic nipples on? It’d still be simulated wouldn’t it?
What if it was “rock star” day instead of superhero day? Could someone come dressed as Janet Jackson on superbowl Sunday with nude colored body stocking showing over the right breast? Heck, the girls would be in a less simulated nude state than Captain Underpants. Just slap a simulated nipple ring on there, and we’ve got next year’s theme.
Could a kid come as Mr. Hanky from South Park if he wore a brown body stocking? It’s just simulated šhìŧ, isn’t it?
Why is this such a big issue? Why is this even news-worthy? Students (and employees) are routinely sent home for more innocent apparel offenses than this one. I could see it being a big deal if they were suspended, but all they got was a blemish on their attendance record… which means exactly nothing, especially if you’re a senior. It just seems like a knee-jerk liberal reaction to, er, get your underpants in a twist over this (and no one’s more liberal than I am).
I also find it odd that some people not only expect the principal to be familiar with Captain Underpants (never heard of the character, myself), but seem to think that it has some sort of bearing on the issue, as though he would simply say, “Oh, sure, Captain Underpants. As long as you’re dressed as an established character, THAT’S okay.”
While I personally had no problem with what they had on, schools have rules that say that undergarments cannot be worn as outer garments.
Except, that’s really not the issue here: the principal said that wearing undergarments on the outside for this event was ok.
The issue, according to the principal, was “the appearance was that they were naked.”
And, based on the quotes and comments, it’s the appearance of nudity from the waist down, not waist up, that seems to be the issue.
The principal says they could’ve worn gym shorts, or had a change of clothes brought to them, but no mention specifically that they should’ve worn shirts.
I’d really love to see a follow up article on this.
You mean like introducing “topless teenage girls” into the discussion? First their bras are showing, now they’re topless. You can’t have both, which one is it?
Like your “topless teenage girls” comment, you’re the only one saying “it’s only simulated nudity, so it’s okay.”
Captain Underpants is simply not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants. Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
Considering that, the principal citing “simulated nudity” is really f-cked up.
Mr. Hanky isn’t marketed to 3rd graders. Protesting a kid showing up to school as Mr. Hanky seems reasonable. Protesting a kid from dressing up in 2 layers of clothing as Captain Underpants is goofy.
ArizonaTeach, if there was “none, zero, absolutely no doubt” their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
And as long as we’re going to ridiculous back-bending extremes…
You mean like introducing “topless teenage girls” into the discussion? First their bras are showing, now they’re topless. You can’t have both, which one is it?
The girls are simulating being topless in school. Hence the “topless teenage girls” comment. I didn’t really think it was a stretch to figure out that out. Captain Underpants, from what I’ve gathered, is about a pre-pubescent boy, no? Two completely different things. The post I was responding to was making the statement that enforcing a dress code should lead to book banning, which leaps a far greater chasm in my opinion, YMMV.
Captain Underpants is simply not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants. Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
I’ve always considered resorting to semantic exactitude a last resort of a losing argument, but so be it…copy each post into your favorite spell checker and replace “nudity” with “toplessness” and it changes the argument not a whit.
ArizonaTeach, if there was “none, zero, absolutely no doubt” their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
You’re asking ArizonaTeach to read minds now?
BTW, what about the Janet Jackson scenario? What about the fake nipples? Please don’t cherry pick, if you are going to get indignant with those whom you disagree with.
> To avoid lawsuits?
To avoid lawsuits.
Our society doesn’t need terrorists to bring it to its knees. Not when it has lawyers to to it for them.
Remember the wise words of Judge Wapner (Ret.) “You’re talking about common sense. But the law has nothing to do with common sense.” Then weep for us all.
No. Make your own point.
The merit in plain observations are not semantic: Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants.
Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
Well then I’ll just have to ask ArizonaTeach to speculate now, won’t I?
ArizonaTeach, for the sake of explaining 2 inconsistent points: if there was “none, zero, absolutely no doubt” their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why would the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
Why would he go so far as to described their costumes as “tight-fitting, flesh-colored leotards and leggings” and not simply cite the display of a bra if it was as obvious as you claim?
Mike said:
“ArizonaTeach, if there was “none, zero, absolutely no doubt” their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?”
Well, maybe I should explain what a Smartboard is…it’s essentially a giant computer monitor that acts as chalkboard. It connects directly to my computer, but I can do things like draw on the board and it also appears on my computer monitor, I can touch certain parts of the board to increase size, decrease, open files (I guess the best explanation is that it acts as a mouse/keyboard/monitor). The bottom line is, all I did was go to the Newsday website and the picture appeared on the screen in front of the class — it wasn’t a copy or a blow-up, it was the actual picture on a screen much larger than the typical computer monitor we’re all looking at.
To answer your question, though, my very first post on this subject far, far up there said “…regardless of whatever reason the principal gives (I doubt you’ll find “appearance of nudity” in the dress codes), the fact that you can see the bra through the outfit is pretty inappropriate, and I do imagine that’s against the dress code, if there is one.” So I indicated early on I wasn’t sure what was going on in the principal’s mind, but the simple fact that the outfit was see-through to the point you could see her bra (not the outline — the BRA) is a huge problem.
What I can’t understand is why these girls didn’t look at each other and say, “Geez, we look bad!” and just stay home.
“but the simple fact that the outfit was see-through to the point you could see her bra (not the outline — the BRA) is a huge problem.”
Oh, you could? Interesting.
What color was it?
If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Color, please.
For extra credit, feel free to explain how that’s remotely relevant considering the principal repeatedly cited “apparent nudity” rather than visible undergarments as the problem.
PAD
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 02:23 PM
ArizonaTeach, for the sake of explaining 2 inconsistent points: if there was “none, zero, absolutely no doubt” their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why would the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
Mike, you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as “begging the question.” Such an argument is fallacious because it relies on its own presupposition in order to support its conclusion.
In this case, you are presupposing that if the girls’ bras were showing, the principal would have said that in so many words. You do not, and cannot, know that. For all we know, the principal could have been referring to the partial visibility of the girls’ bras when he spoke of “the appearance of” nudity. Communication is tricky, and even some highly educated people don’t always express themselves clearly.
That’s why your argument falls apart. You are asserting that the principal referring only to “the appearance of nudity” precludes the possibility that the girls were asked to go home because of partially exposed bras. But that begs the question: how do you know that the principal would have said “partially visible bras” if that’s what he meant? The answer is: you don’t know.
If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Color, please.
I would say they are light colored since they are lighter than the skin color that shows through, at least as indicated by this photo (if the link shows up).
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2006-10/26086790.jpg
If you CAN’T see it, then I suggest you see an optometrist at your earliest possible convenience.
Presupposing something and knowing something aren’t the same thing, and I’m relying on less presupposing than anyone saying otherwise:
What’s your problem?
The merit in plain observations are not semantic: Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants.
Ergo, there is no simulated nudity.
Simulated toplessness then, as I said. Move on.
Mr. Hanky isn’t marketed to 3rd graders. Protesting a kid showing up to school as Mr. Hanky seems reasonable. Protesting a kid from dressing up in 2 layers of clothing as Captain Underpants is goofy.
This once again presupposes everyone seeing the person wearing the outfit is familiar with the source material. If they aren’t, then all they see are three teenage girls attempting to look topless during school hours.
Still waiting on your answer to the Janet Jackson scenario….
It seems to me reasonable for schools to have dress codes, to maintain discipline or to counteract to a degree the need of teenagers to look different. Although it seems that by definition the regular dress code was suspended on this day.
But I have a problem with the idea that high school seniors need to be protected from simulated nudity, or the visibilty of bras or whatever, and that these things will somehow distract them or prevent them from functioning or cause them to loose control of themselves. High school seniors should be taught to retain their calm even in the face of possible visible bras.
Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2006 06:46 AM
The outfits were not see-through.
They appear see-through in the Newsday.com photos.
The girls were interviewed on the news last night. They were wearing leotards, and beneath that, tank tops. So basically they were sporting two layers of clothing. The principal made it quite clear: The girls were singled out, not for any actual nudity or inappropriate display of undergarments. They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which–considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.
If they were wearing tank-tops underneath the leotards, then I would agree with you that the principal overreacted. In the photos shown at Newsday.com, however, it does not appear as though they are wearing anything but bras under their leotards. I guess it depends on when the photos were taken.
Posted by: Peter David at October 27, 2006 06:46 AM
Furthermore, they were informed that if they did not cover up, they would receive a week’s suspension. The alternative was to leave…for which they received a cut, which is a mark on their attendance record. Get that?
Yes, I do indeed “get that.” But one mark on one’s high school attendance record is really no big deal, even if it was the result of an unfair decision on the principal’s part. I was late for homeroom once during my senior year in high school. It was because the five-minute warning bell malfunctioned and didn’t ring. So the first bell I heard was the “your ášš should be in your seat already” bell. My homeroom teacher acknowledged this, and also acknowledged I was only 30 seconds late. Nevertheless, she was a slave to the letter of the law and she gave me detention. Was it fair? Hëll, no. Was it worth crying about? Absolutely not.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
Presupposing something and knowing something aren’t the same thing, and I’m relying on less presupposing than anyone saying otherwise:
No, that’s false. You are relying on a presupposition to support your conclusion.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
The character isn’t nude.
Agreed.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
The girls weren’t nude.
Agreed.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
The principal didn’t send them home because their bras were showing.
Unless the principal said explicitly that he did not send them home for this reason, you don’t know that.
I used to work in journalism. In a perfect world, journalists would never get anything out of context, would never leave anything important out of an article in their haste, would never let a bias cloud their reporting. But this isn’t a perfect world and those things happen all the time. And they can be subtle enough to not be readily apparent.
So, just because the principal was quoted as saying that the girls were sent home to change because of “the appearance of” nudity doesn’t mean partially visible bras weren’t part of the issue.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 03:01 PM
What’s your problem?
That’s a bit like asking me when I stopped beating my wife.
I don’t have a problem. I’m simply debating with you. Why does that constitute a problem?
I have a problem with the idea that high school seniors need to be protected from simulated nudity, or the visibility of bras or whatever, and that these things will somehow distract them or prevent them from functioning or cause them to loose control of themselves.
All I can say to this that you’ve never taught, have you? My God, a kid breaks wind, and you’ve lost the class for five minutes.
Jerry C, Bill Mulligan, Luigi: thanks for your kind words, by the way. It wasn’t like I was on a ledge or anything! But it’s nice to know someone besides me is finding value in my ramblings here. I guess I won’t take “a break” after all.
Great, now I can’t get out of my head that scene from “Friends” where Rachel finds out that Ross slept with someone while they were “on a break,” and Ross screams, “We were on a breeeeaaaaak!!!!!” 🙂
Peter David: The outfits were not see-through.
Luigi Novi: The garment Ashley Imhoff is wearing in that photo Jerry linked to does not look like a tank top at all.
Peter David: They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which–considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.
Luigi Novi: Where are such students allowed to wear those things?
Peter David: All on a day in which many seniors were also wearing leotards or tight fitting clothes.
Luigi Novi: Vis a vis Restivo’s claim about “perceived nudity”, leotards and tight-fitting clothes are usually not flesh-colored, and probably do not cause such a perception, in his view.
rrlane: Again, if a kid is wearing a T-shirt with a guy blazing up a joint displayed on it, he’s not being sent home for wearing a T-shirt. He’s being sent home for what the T-shirt represents.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, the widely held belief that laws criminalizing a certain things are wrong. How DARE such a child form an opinion!
R.J. Carter: Not to distract too much, but just because you can see a bra outline in this picture doesn’t necessarily mean they wore one the day of the actual event. I doubt that the reporters were lined up outside the school waiting for someone to be sent home for dress code violations.
Luigi Novi: A valid point. But why would Ashley Imhoff wear less during the photo shoot than she did during that day? Wouldn’t that only undercut her position? Moreover, the news story is dated October 25, the same day as the incident, which would indicate that the reporting and photo shooting took place the same day. How much time would she have had to change, and again, why would she take off her tanktop, and replace it with just a bra?
rrlane: Could a kid come as Mr. Hanky from South Park if he wore a brown body stocking? It’s just simulated šhìŧ, isn’t it?
Luigi Novi: LOL!
Robert Fuller: I also find it odd that some people not only expect the principal to be familiar with Captain Underpants (never heard of the character, myself), but seem to think that it has some sort of bearing on the issue, as though he would simply say, “Oh, sure, Captain Underpants. As long as you’re dressed as an established character, THAT’S okay.”
Luigi Novi: No one here that I can recall has indicated this. Who said this? Which post?
Mike: ArizonaTeach, if there was “none, zero, absolutely no doubt” their bras were showing, on the 3 foot board printed from the original image files the Newsday photographer sent you, why did the principal, who was there, cite simulated nudity and not the display of undergarments?
Luigi Novi: Perhaps some of us disagree with him on his stated point, but have found another reason to agree with him that at least one of the girls’ version of the outfit was inappropriate. Bill Myers also provided a possible explanation of this.
Mike: The merit in plain observations are not semantic: Captain Underpants is not nude. The girls are pretending to be Captain Underpants.
Luigi Novi: I do see a bit of semantics here. Toplessness is a form of nudity. It is partial nudity. Rrlane was pointed out that the costumes exhibited simulated toplessness. Just because she said simulated “nudity” doesn’t mean her point wasn’t made. I don’t agree with her position, and I understood her.
Peter David: What color was it? If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Luigi Novi: It appeared to be of the same color as the bodystocking, though lighter, so it may have been white. How is this relevant?
Peter David: For extra credit, feel free to explain how that’s remotely relevant considering the principal repeatedly cited “apparent nudity” rather than visible undergarments as the problem.
Luigi Novi: See third exchange above this one.
Are you actually telling me that you cannot see the bra in this picture? Seriously?
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidres1026-pg,0,5767405.photogallery?coll=ny-main-bigpix&index=3
“For extra credit, feel free to explain how that’s remotely relevant considering the principal repeatedly cited “apparent nudity” rather than visible undergarments as the problem.”
Because the principal also cited the fact that their undergarments (underwear on the outside of pants or sweats was ok, but not this) were visible, it was a distraction, and the was causing a commotion.
Now, for a passing grade, please explain, with cited sources, why it’s ok for students to cause distractions and commotions at a high school and why a principal shouldn’t try to put an end to it.
Are you actually telling me that you cannot see the bra in this picture? Seriously?
Actually, what’s too funny is that the girl in the front looks like she’s, um, stuffed a sock in her underpants.
The irony is, she probably would have looked less risque if she had forgone the bra altogether.
Rrlane was pointed out that the costumes exhibited simulated toplessness. Just because she said simulated “nudity” doesn’t mean her point wasn’t made. I don’t agree with her position, and I understood her.
I’m going with more than my initials from now on since this is the second time on this board people have assumed I’m a female. Is there something inherently feminine about alliterative initials (rr)?
–Rich Lane
The Notoriously Manly Rich Lane wrote:
I’m going with more than my initials from now on since this is the second time on this board people have assumed I’m a female. Is there something inherently feminine about alliterative initials (rr)?
Nah, Rich, but on a comic-related site, there’s something inherently feminine about “Lane”.
“All I can say to this that you’ve never taught, have you? My God, a kid breaks wind, and you’ve lost the class for five minutes.”
If that’s the situation, is the problem the fact that someone broke wind, or that high schools seniors react in such infantile and undisciplined way?
Nah, Rich, but on a comic-related site, there’s something inherently feminine about “Lane”.
Good point. 🙂
If that’s the situation, is the problem the fact that someone broke wind, or that high schools seniors react in such infantile and undisciplined way?
The latter, certainly. And you would get equally infantile and undisciplined reactions when simulated nude, partially nude, or topless girls sit in the classroom.
I just want to say, if anyone sees a headline about a North Carolina teacher busted for downloading pictures of underaged girls so he can determine their bra colors…well, I hope you’ll all feel very happy with yourselves.
The answer is–probably white or off white, judging from my own experiments with trying to make a full body costume. She should have gone with a flesh color.
Also–a safety tip from Uncle Bill to ambitious Halloweeners–don’t try to make a full body suit by painting latex and gelatine onto flesh colored body suits. It looks great but after an hour or so you will be sweating buckets of bodily fluids, followed by coma and death.
Also, never simulate a blind man effect by peeling off the inside membrane of a hard boiled egg and placing it over your eyes like a contact lens. Or am I the only one stupid enough to have tried that idea? (I blame Lon Chaney).
unh, hunh.
Well. let me rephrase then:
Thanks, Bill, for helping me drive my point home with less and less ambiguity.
If the principal says he objected to the “simulated nudity,” he is trying to benefit from a whole new quantum of virtue than if he said he objected to the “simulated toplessness.” Everyone is against the display of nudity in high schools.
If he wants to object to the simulated toplessness, let him say so, and risk getting laughed at for it. Until then he shouldn’t benefit from misrepresenting these kids. There’s no defense against that kind of manipulative bs.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 04:26 PM
The principal sent them home for simulated nudity.
I read the Newsday.com article and did not find one quote where the principal used the word “simulated.” Is there another article where he was quoted using that word? If so, would you mind citing it? If not, then you’re putting words in the principal’s mouth.
Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2006 04:26 PM
Thanks, Bill, for helping me drive my point home with less and less ambiguity.
You may be driving home your point with “less and less” ambiguity, but unless you can demonstrate that the principal used the word “simulated,” you are also doing so with less and less accuracy.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 27, 2006 04:24 PM
(I blame Lon Chaney).
Not global warming?
“Peter David: They were singled out for *perception* of nudity which–considering the micro-miniskirts and belly-baring outfits girls ARE allowed to wear on a DAILY basis, is completely ridiculous.
Luigi Novi: Where are such students allowed to wear those things?”
Long Island. I’ve had three daughters go through LI schools and seen exactly the types of outfits I’m describing. How many daughters have YOU had in LI schools, Luigi?
“Peter David: What color was it? If you can see the actual bra rather than simply an outline, that should be an easy question.
Luigi Novi: It appeared to be of the same color as the bodystocking, though lighter, so it may have been white. How is this relevant?”
Because the assertion was that the bra itself–not the mere outline–was visible. I was pointing out that, were that the case, the color would be definitively evident. Except it’s not. Several people, including yourself, speculate that it’s white, maybe, it appears to be, may have been. Except that’s not necessarily the case at all, particularly if–as the girl asserted on the news (I’m assuming you didn’t see the news item) she was wearing a tanktop (which she held up) under the garment (which she also held up.) As I said, two layers of clothing. They were punted not for what was actually there, but what was suggested. Which is ridiculous.
“Are you actually telling me that you cannot see the bra in this picture? Seriously?”
I see the outline of something that might be a bra. On the other hand, it could just as easily be a bathing suit top. Or a cut-off tank top, which is what she showed the TV news reporter. You don’t know, nor do I. You did, however, conspicuously dodge the question. You claimed you could see the bra, not merely the outline. To which I said, if that were the case, you should easily determine the color. Your response? You dodged the question.
“For extra credit, feel free to explain how that’s remotely relevant considering the principal repeatedly cited “apparent nudity” rather than visible undergarments as the problem.”
Because the principal also cited the fact that their undergarments (underwear on the outside of pants or sweats was ok, but not this) were visible, it was a distraction, and the was causing a commotion.”
Nice try, except…no. Other students were wearing underwear on the outside as well. Principal Poopypants claimed that, because they wer wearing them on top of pants or shorts, that was “acceptable.” Furthermore, you just blew your own argument. On the one hand you’re stating that it was the (non)visible bra that was the tipping point…yet now you’re claiming that, had they put on pants or sweats, everything would have been okay. Meaning…what? They would have worn sweats over their heads? If pulling on shorts or sweats ostensibly would have solved the problem, then you’ve just proven that the outline of the bra is what I was saying from the start: Completely irrelevant.
“Now, for a passing grade, please explain, with cited sources, why it’s ok for students to cause distractions and commotions at a high school and why a principal shouldn’t try to put an end to it.”
It isn’t and he should. And had the girls walked in on a normal school day dressed in that manner, not only would he have been within his rights to punt them from the school, but I doubt it would have made the news. However if, as the principal, you are encouraging the students to show up in ensembles that are little more than tights and undergarments in the best of circumstances, then it’s completely ridiculous to throw out three girls who are wearing tights and undergarments, especially when their flesh is covered from throat to foot. In this case, it was the principal who created the commotion. Could the girls cause students to do double takes? Sure. I’ve no doubt. At which point the students then realize, no, they’re not nude because, hey…no breasts…and we’re done.
They were funny costumes on a day when funny costumes were in order, and they weren’t indecent by any stretch of the law, school code or the imagination. Everything else is just nonsense.
PAD
PAD: Everything else is just nonsense.
No new information is being added now, nor are there any new insights. Time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
When I quoted “simulated nudity” I wasn’t quoting the principal. I merely continue to use the term because it still seems to apply.
From the first google search:
I can’t read your mind, Bill Myers. If you know a more apt word, lay it on us. Otherwise, what’s your problem?
They were funny costumes on a day when funny costumes were in order, and they weren’t indecent by any stretch of the law, school code or the imagination. — Peter David
I never thought this would be true of a writer, but apparently there are a lot of people out there with more imagination than you. And, possibly, better vision (or acquaintance with the shape of a bra.)
It’s a flesh colored top worn with the intent of communicating “I’m not wearing a top”, lie or no. Full length flesh-colored body stocking costumes of Eve, Lady Godiva, or Botticelli’s Venus would have been equally distracting, and equally inappropriate for a school setting. I’m supporting the principal… on principle.