like a hooker? sorry, i disagree. i’ve seen more skin from high school cheerleaders than that. and more “revealing” – how about gymnasts, track runners and swimmers?
http://www.youthclassic.org/game32_images/chr06038.jpg
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/features/2006/prep-aoy.html
watch out, here come the double-standard fundie fashion police.

“watch out, here come the double-standard fundie fashion police.”
Me or them? Do you have evidence that they are fundamentalists? And just because I question her parents’ judgment does that make me a fundamentalist? Why are you bringing religion into this at all? Isn’t there a common code of decency?
Are you a parent? Would you let your daughter wear that dress?

Sounds like a good lawsuit in the making.

Are not the options for prositutes to go to jail or go home?
Hopefully she will not be “PUNISHED, with a BABY!!!” if she completes the whole prositute thing.
This is what “progressive” politics have brought society. Our baby momma’s are corrupt, our teachers are corrupt, and our children are dressing like whores going to the prom and are pissed off when some sane person wants to stop them.
See a Democrat when you look at that girl.

In my opinion, the fact that the headline writer seems to associate visible human skin solely with prostitution reflects much worse on them than on the girl wearing the dress.

Okay, lefties, cough it up. Would you want your daughter to wear something like that? Drop the double standards.

Yes. If she wanted to wear it, I would have no problem with it.

“I would have no problem with it.”
Tell me this then. The ONLY reason somebody wears something like that is to attract the opposite sex. And adolescent boys have exactly ONE think on their mind. If you’re daughter’s clothing fulfills it’s designed purpose, how many sexual partners are you comfortable with her having? One? Five? As many as possible so long as she’s “protected”?
Somebody call Child Protective Services. Anonymous wants to pimp out his daughter.

The way you continue to equate “sex” with “prostitution” disturbs me. (In fact, if we decline to take your assumptions at face value, you are equating “attention from the opposite sex” with “prostitution”.)

Okay then, forget the pimp reference. What about the actual question?

I assumed it was rhetorical.
I would of course expect her to act responsibly and consider the physical and emotional consequences of her actions, short-term and long-term. I find it lurid to evaluate this in terms of number of sexual partners and will give you no such number, but I would encourage healthy long-term relationships rather than transient flings.
Still, I don’t see the connection between this dress and irresponsible sexual behaviour.

“I would of course expect her to act responsibly and consider the physical and emotional consequences of her actions”
And you’re gonna be doing this while 100 boys are leering at her and making her the center of attention and buying her things and doing whatever they can to bed her because her attire makes them think she’s easy. I have no idea why you would want to make your task so hard.

“In my opinion, the fact that the headline writer seems to associate visible human skin solely with prostitution reflects much worse on them than on the girl wearing the dress.”
Why? If that is actually something hookers would wear? Would it have been better if I said slut? How about tart or Vegas show girl?
Would you allow her to wear it if you knew it violated the dress code?

The dress shows less skin than a bikini and a bit more than the track and field outfit. But there’s the issue of context and how one is dress relative to other people. In the context of a prom it is over exposure.
So I would not let my daughter wear a dress like that. If I had an brain cramp and let her wear a dress like that, I wouldn’t let her on TV trying to explain why she wasn’t allowed to wear a dress like that. Doh!

michele, i have 2 daughters. and yes, i would let them wear a dress like that if they chose to. their tastes run more traditional, but that doesn’t make this girl a hooker.
and when i say “double-standard fundie fashion police” i do mean you, and i’m equating you to the religious fundamentalists who’s women are required to dress in conservative garb: robes, long dresses covering as much skin as possible, complete with scarves and bonnets. no bright colors, no lipstick, no eye shadow. anything like that and they’d be a whore – not because of their actions but by how they look.
are you also going to criticize high school cheerleaders, swimmers, runners, etc for their outfits and call them hookers, too?
“Why? If that is actually something hookers would wear? Would it have been better if I said slut? How about tart or Vegas show girl?”
how do you know? do you subscribe to some sort of hookers’ dress catalog?
why not call her a victoria’s secret model? or “desperate house wives” actress? why did you pick something derogatory? is it her skin color? or maybe you’re jealous of her figure?
“Isn’t there a common code of decency?”
of course. her privates are well covered. these aren’t what i would consider… what do you call them? oh, “slut muffin clothes” when their cleavage distracts a bus driver (http://reformedchicksblabbing.blogspot.com/2007/07/bus-driver-threatens-to-kick-woman-off.html) or “too sexy” to get kicked off a plane (http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2007/09/too-sexy-to-fly.html).
“Would you allow her to wear it if you knew it violated the dress code?”
show me in print the dress code that she violated. if i knew it violated the school dress code, i wouldn’t allow my daughter to wear it to school functions. but that still wouldn’t make her a hooker.
“But there’s the issue of context and how one is dress relative to other people.”
mh, where is it written that we must all conform to michele’s or your standards? must nobody die their hair green or blue, or get a tattoo, or piercings? do we all have to drive a pickup truck to go to a tractor pull? do we all have to wear sh*t kickers and c’boy hats to the rodeo?
“And you’re gonna be doing this while 100 boys are leering at her and making her the center of attention and buying her things and doing whatever they can to bed her…”
typical, zz. blame the girl for being the problem. she’s the hooker for looking good and attractive, but the 100 boys trying “to bed her” are just boys.
“The ONLY reason somebody wears something like that is to attract the opposite sex.”
then i suggest you borrow her dress ’cause it sounds like you need some.
of course you assume that she’s looking to get sex and not to just look sexy. the two are not the same, you dolt. if she were looking to get laid, i’m certain that going to a football game with short shorts and a tee would land more hits.

“and when i say “double-standard fundie fashion police” i do mean you, and i’m equating you to the religious fundamentalists who’s women are required to dress in conservative garb: robes, long dresses covering as much skin as possible, complete with scarves and bonnets. no bright colors, no lipstick, no eye shadow. anything like that and they’d be a whore – not because of their actions but by how they look.”
I’m sorry if you are so ignorant of Christianity that you would think that what I’m saying is based on Christianity. You need to be a little better informed because you sound like an intolerant bigot.

“are you also going to criticize high school cheerleaders, swimmers, runners, etc for their outfits and call them hookers, too?”
Like MH said “context.” I’m sorry if you can’t get that.
“are you also going to criticize high school cheerleaders, swimmers, runners, etc for their outfits and call them hookers, too?”
No, but they most conform to what’s appropriate for a school function.
“typical, zz. blame the girl for being the problem. she’s the hooker for looking good and attractive, but the 100 boys trying “to bed her” are just boys.”
If you shove your breasts in some guys eye and scream “look at me” should you be so surprised that he looked?
“of course you assume that she’s looking to get sex and not to just look sexy. ”
This sums up the ridiculousness of your position.

I’m afraid I’d still find “slut”, “tart”, and “Vegas show girl”, as well as the admittedly rather creative “slut muffin”, objectionable. All of those claim a sort of entirely unwarranted moral superiority over the girl and seem to accuse her of irresponsibility or even immorality.
Like “anonymous reincarnate”(at least as the way I read them) I believe that this girl probably just chose the dress for its provocative, attention-grabbing look. I doubt very much that she was the only person trying to attend this prom who desired to be a center of attention, and I am sure that if sex was the only thing she wanted, there are rather more direct come-ons available in the world of teenagers.
ZZ, I have to say I dislike your reductionist view of teenagers as mindless sexbots. Having once been an adolescent boy myself, I feel qualified to say that they are, in fact, capable of holding several thoughts in their head at the same time – sometimes none of them sexual!

If you shove your breasts in some guys eye and scream “look at me” should you be so surprised that he looked?

Oh, I really do apologise. It seems that I have entirely misunderstood your position. If by “hooker” you mean “someone who isn’t absolutely shocked, shocked, shocked that someone is looking at her clothed breasts”, your terminology is fully appropriate!
It appears that I was going by that silly old definition of “hooker” as “someone who performs sexual acts in exchange for monetary compensation”.

anonymous reincarnate: “mh, where is it written that we must all conform to michele’s or your standards? must nobody die their hair green or blue, or get a tattoo, or piercings?”
No where, but there are underlying realities that neither of us is likely to change. If I showed up at a job interview with blue hair, visible tattoos and piercings, I’m not likely to get the job if it is a corporate environment. I’d be fine if the interview was for Starbuck’s barista. That’s what I mean by context.

‘of course you assume that she’s looking to get sex and not to just look sexy.’

“If you shove your breasts in some guys eye and scream “look at me” should you be so surprised that he looked?”
golly, you must have seen a different part of that video, because the one i watched never showed her doing that. nice try though, sweetie.
“This sums up the ridiculousness of your position.”
no, it sums up the fact that you slandered this girl with one of the worst labels for a female without knowing her character. i see plenty of sexy people every day. because they have young, healthy bodies and can show some skin with the way they dress doesn’t mean that they’re on the market for sex. i’m not sorry that you don’t get that. you’re a prude and there’s no cure for that.
“I’m sorry if you are so ignorant of Christianity that you would think that what I’m saying is based on Christianity.”
you’re the one who mentioned christianity, not me. i appropriately equated you to a religious fundamentalist (pick your flavor, i don’t care, a fundie is a fundie is a fundie). and i’m content knowing that while you might be able to quote scripture ’till the cows come home, you’re not the spirit of a true christian.
“You need to be a little better informed because you sound like an intolerant bigot.”
that’s rich. you call this girl a hooker, a prostitute, a slut, and a tart – not because you know her, but because of her dress, and you have the audacity to call me the intolerant bigot?

“No where, but there are underlying realities that neither of us is likely to change. If I showed up at a job interview with blue hair, visible tattoos and piercings, I’m not likely to get the job if it is a corporate environment. I’d be fine if the interview was for Starbuck’s barista. That’s what I mean by context.”
now we get to the point. it’s not context, it’s subjective stereotyping. this girl’s dress is non-traditional. but because michele is a prude or is jealous of how the girl looks in that dress, she subjectively labels her a hooker. but because she has a double standard, a track runner showing more skin, or a gymnast showing more yet through his/her clothing, are just fine – because that’s in “context.” guess what? the context here is that a pretty girl in a pretty, non-traditional prom dress was trying to go to her school prom. and in case we forget, those “contextual” track suits were once unconventional, as were the gymnast unitards, short skirts, bikinis, etc.

“you’re the one who mentioned christianity, not me. i appropriately equated you to a religious fundamentalist (pick your flavor, i don’t care, a fundie is a fundie is a fundie). and i’m content knowing that while you might be able to quote scripture ’till the cows come home, you’re not the spirit of a true christian.”
You called me a fundie and you knew perfectly well how I would take it. This dodge is a little beneath you, don’t you think?
BTW, the Lord knows my heart even if you don’t. I don’t have to prove myself a Christian, it will be proven on the last day when Christ returns. I will be one of the multitude.
It’s funny how the Lord works, he can take even a wretched, terrible person like me and draw him to himself. I’m so thankful that I worship a forgiving God who realizes my weakness. That when I write a post and anonymous cranky people come here and make nasty comments, calling me a fundie, expecting me to be nice about it and say, “Go in peace, my child. I love you anyway” he knows I’m going to be cranky back and forgives me for it.
And you can come here and judge my Christianity all you want but I can tell you from experience that it’s real and this is what it looks like. Maybe I’m one of those prophetic Christians like Wright, you didn’t seem to have a problem with him, did you? He isn’t exactly a humble, smiley and lovey kind of Christian, is he?

“because michele is a prude or is jealous of how the girl looks in that dress,”
*snicker* *snicker* Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Michele thought the girl looked like she took a sheet and a bed spread and attempted to make a dress.
And Michele doesn’t really care what other people wear but will comment when it’s as outrageous as this.
BTW, I might say that I was wrong about the hooker part, I think it’s an insult to hookers to say they would wear something as badly designed as that dress.

You’re inferring that it is stereotyping and you don’t really have evidence for that in my example.
The hiring manager at a corporation must be aware of modes of dress and presentation at the company which is the context of that environment. The manager might think the candidate is qualified, but breaking social conventions would be a deal breaker and might be viewed as insulting.
Likewise a prom is a formal dance so there are social expectations that you wear clothing that other people view as formal wear.
I agree that standards change over time, but that is not relevant at any single point in time.

That is reasonable, though I disagree with your conclusion that the dress is unacceptable.
The fact that standards vary with time(as well as space, I will add – this whole issue seems rather alien to me) is extremely relevant to this point in time, because standards only change when people change them. Change is of course gradual, but it is nonetheless effected by individuals. If people like this girl didn’t dare to test the boundaries of their local standards, this flow of progress would be halted, and the standards would be allowed to persist even after they have been rendered irrelevant to the people they are applied to.

“That is reasonable, though I disagree with your conclusion that the dress is unacceptable.”
It’s unacceptable because the school deemed it as unacceptable. There is a standard in regards to this story and she violated it.
“because standards only change when people change them”
Yes, it really is the movement of civilization for women to dress like this in public. I would prefer that we could streamline other modes of expression then one that is so overtly offensive (such as already happening with tattoos, dyed hair and body piercings).
And since this has been rejected by society, my reaction to it isn’t outside the norm, your’s is.

The question was whether the girl was wearing any underwear and, @ 43 sec. into the newsclip, the girl claims that she had some on that night … but she isn’t very convincing. I don’t believe her.
Not wearing underwear with that dress would fall outside of what’s acceptable for me.
And I AM jealous of how she looks in that dress. Flaunt it if you got it, ‘cuz it goes too quick.

moonshadow, since they didn’t show her not wearing any underwear, i have no evidence to prove that she wasn’t.

I know, but you’ve seen Babel … it’s one way kids today flirt.

“You called me a fundie and you knew perfectly well how I would take it. This dodge is a little beneath you, don’t you think?”
not at all. you can infer “christian fundie” if you like. i can’t control what you think, which in the case of you calling this girl a hooker for her dress, is very much in line with fundamentalists of many religions.
“BTW, the Lord knows my heart even if you don’t. I don’t have to prove myself a Christian, it will be proven on the last day when Christ returns. I will be one of the multitude.”
i can’t judge your heart, only your actions and how you conduct yourself here.
“That when I write a post and anonymous cranky people come here and make nasty comments, calling me a fundie, expecting me to be nice about it and say, ‘Go in peace, my child. I love you anyway’ he knows I’m going to be cranky back and forgives me for it.”
i love how you can use the lord’s love and forgiveness to justify your bad actions in life.
then you act like you’re some saint? like you just write some innocuous post and get attacked for it? please. we react to your posts. you cast the first stones in these areas, sister. don’t be so surprised when some of us throw them back. in this manner i am happy to say that i am as guilty as you. don’t expect me (or others) to be nice and say “go in peace, my child” because we will react in kind.
“And you can come here and judge my Christianity all you want but I can tell you from experience that it’s real and this is what it looks like. Maybe I’m one of those prophetic Christians like Wright, you didn’t seem to have a problem with him, did you? He isn’t exactly a humble, smiley and lovey kind of Christian, is he? ”
i never discussed his christianity. i don’t think that he’s a humble, lovey kind of christian, nor are you; what he says and how he says it are inflammatory, so in these ways you are like wright. however, some of what wright said and was vilified by you has credibility backed by raw history. most times, you don’t and you get called on it.

“It’s unacceptable because the school deemed it as unacceptable. There is a standard in regards to this story and she violated it.”
you’ve yet to show us that school dress code in print and how her dress violated it. the fact is that it was a subjective call to make, and i subjectively disagree. until someone can quantify exactly what part of the printed dress code for that school she supposedly violated, i stand by my own subjective opinion.
mh,
“And since this has been rejected by society, my reaction to it isn’t outside the norm, your’s is.”
was there a society-wide vote on this dress that we missed?

sorry mh, i was going to add this to the last comment i made but decided to do a separate one.
you know that it’s stereotyping as much as i do. nowhere has the person’s qualifications or character been discussed. only appearance and what that first reaction carries with it. that’s stereotyping. that’s what michele did when she labeled this girl as a hooker. that’s what you did when you said, “I’d be fine if the interview was for Starbuck’s barista.” that’s what airlines did when they only hired women and only women of a certain size and appearance.
“The hiring manager at a corporation must be aware of modes of dress and presentation at the company which is the context of that environment. The manager might think the candidate is qualified, but breaking social conventions would be a deal breaker and might be viewed as insulting.”
i guess that the difference between us is that i would hire the person based on their qualifications and not appearance. there is no job where i have worn the same style of outfit that i interviewed in.
what different social conventions apply to employees at starbucks if it isn’t society saying “oh, that’s just how starbucks employees look?” would be ok for employers to discriminate against gays, because their employment could be viewed as insulting by some customers?
really, i do understand the point that you’re making. i just believe that it’s fundamentally wrong (not your point, but that society uses these stereotypes and then justifies it).
“Likewise a prom is a formal dance so there are social expectations that you wear clothing that other people view as formal wear.”
sure, which is why, i think, she chose to wear a gown and not shorts and a tank top.
“I agree that standards change over time, but that is not relevant at any single point in time.”
i think anonymous the second adequately addressed the issue of changes and their relevance in time.

“Michele thought the girl looked like she took a sheet and a bed spread and attempted to make a dress.”
nice try at changing your stance. no, it’s in writing what your intent was – that this girl dresses like a hooker, not that her dress was unfashionable, or that it may (or not) have violated a dress code that specifically addressed appropriate dresses allowed for prom.

I think we’re too hard on kids today and too uppity.
In my day, I wore a sleeveless, black dress, cut above the knee, with a tastefully tattered skirt and great legs at a time when others wore full-length, pastel dresses with high lace collars and poofy crinolines. I had worn my dress to a fraternity formal earlier in the spring. The dress was fun, spunky.
No teacher or chaperone said anything negative to me about my dress. I guess I was one of those trying to change the standards; like a flapper on the way to a speakeasy.

On another thread, michele comments that she and Brian H. probably like the same movies, music, books, etc. I’m curious in her list because I suspect that I wouldn’t.
But this thread reminded me of the very funny Mike Nichols movie, Postcards from the Edge …
Suzanne: Do you remember my seventeenth birthday party when you lifted your skirt up in front of all those people?
Doris: I did not lift my skirt, it twirled up! You only remember the bad stuff, don’t you? What about the big band I got to play at that party, do you remember that? No, you only remember that my skirt accidentally twirled up!
Suzanne: And you weren’t wearing any underwear.
Doris: Well!

anonymous reincarnate
This is where I think we just have divergent world views.
I don’t think it is a matter of right or wrong for groups to have dress codes or social expectations. I think it is human nature and simply what is.

“nice try at changing your stance. no, it’s in writing what your intent was – that this girl dresses like a hooker, not that her dress was unfashionable, or that it may (or not) have violated a dress code that specifically addressed appropriate dresses allowed for prom.”
I didn’t change my stance, I thought she looked like a hooker and still do.