Utah Yearbook Scandal Shows ‘Modesty’ Is a Racket


There’s been plenty of feminist criticism of the widespread tendency to use Photoshop to make women’s bodies “better”: skinnier, smoother, with fewer idiosyncratic features understood to be “flaws.” But this urge to reclaim women’s bodies and remake them according to society’s standards isn’t limited to the fashion industry.

Wasatch High School, located in a suburb of Salt Lake City, Utah, recently made headlines when a number of high school girls at the school found that their yearbook pictures had been photoshopped to make them more “appropriate.”

Part of the reason the story’s gotten so much traction is that it’s always funny to see what wildly different cultures and subcultures define as “modest.” To most Americans who are not part of a fundamentalist community, the original outfits don’t register as “immodest” at all. Some of the shirts are sleeveless or have deep necklines, but none of them would look out of place on any group of women in a casual environment like a high school. The school appears to be so out of step with standard American social norms that it’s hard to escape wondering if there wasn’t an attempt to impose a fundamentalist standard of modesty on the girls, regardless of their own religious beliefs.

But in all the pointing and laughing over this situation, it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the principle that the school was operating under is, sadly, one that is widespread in American culture. It’s a belief that because women, especially young women, have bodies that represent “sex” in a straight male-dominated society, then those bodies are eligible for more social control than the bodies of men.

While this school is extreme, anyone who went to a high school with a dress code knows that girls get policed more than boys, often in ways that are sexually humiliating. (My school made girls kneel on the ground to measure our skirt length, for instance—a submissive gesture that has a whiff of deeply inappropriate sexuality, all under the guise of stopping inappropriate sexual displays.) Hand-wringing articles bemoaning the supposed emergence of “hook-up culture” focus mostly, or exclusively, on scolding and feigning concern in the direction of girls, with boys being left to make their own choices without much concern or judgment.

Because of all this, young women are subject to way more punishment and control from legal and other authorities for their sexuality, starting with the popularity of laws requiring minor girls to notify parents if they want an abortion. And while conservatives have been throwing a fit over the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act generally, special ire was reserved for “co-eds” who want the insurance they pay for themselves to cover contraception. Unfortunately, liberals rarely counter this kind of abusive power grab over the bodies of young women with a full-throated defense of the autonomy of young women and teenage girls—most lamely say that girls are going to have sex “anyway,” and frame abortion and contraception an unfortunate necessity, when we should be talking about it as a basic human right that helps girls take control over their lives.

But what really struck me about this story was the way that the female students themselves noticed that the school seemed to have wildly divergent standards for different girls. In fact, two girls wore the same sleeveless vest in their pictures, but only one was subject to a humiliating photoshopping of sleeves over her shoulders. Another girl told the Salt Lake Tribune that the enforcement of the school’s dress code policy was incredibly unequal in this way, with some girls being singled out for more humiliation than others. She claimed that she and another girl wore the same miniskirt, but only she was punished for it, forced to wear a pair of sweatpants with “I support Wasatch High dress code” emblazoned on them.

Clearly, the school thinks some bodies are more “immodest” than others. Sometimes women are told as such because because they are tall, busty, curvy, or some other arbitrary attribute that the prudish viewer believes women should be ashamed of. But the brutal fact of the matter is there’s often a lot of class- and race-based policing, where women of color or those who are lower-income are more swiftly labeled “slut” or otherwise deemed less modest or pure than other girls.

Indeed, a recent study followed 50 girls through a Midwestern university to gauge their attitudes about sexuality and immodesty. The researchers found was that being considered a “slut” had little to nothing to do with one’s actual sexual behavior and everything to do with imposing and maintaining social boundaries. The girls separated into two basic groups: the “high”-class girls who joined sororities and had wealthy families and the “low”-class girls who came from working-class backgrounds. Both thought the other group slutty, though they often talked about it differently.

The sense that “other” women are more indecent is one that pervades society, and high school administrators are not immune, often aligning themselves with one group of kids (usually the more privileged ones) and looking askance at the outsiders, viewing them as more indecent. “We only apologize in the sense that we want to be more consistent with what we’re trying to do in that sense we can help kids better prepare for their future by knowing how to dress appropriately for things,” said the superintendent, Terry Shoemaker, tacitly admitting that the school was, in fact, treating some female bodies as inherently less appropriate than others. (Never mind that all of the girls were wearing clothes appropriate for high school photos, and it’s the school officials who are struggling to understand what “appropriate” dress looks like in our society.)

As outsiders, it’s hard to know what the metric was that allowed the school to think that Girl X looked risqué with her shoulders showing but Girl Y was somehow more wholesome—every high school has its own complex metric of cliqueishness and ideas of who is in and who is out—but the larger point stands. “Modesty” is an elusive, ever-changing quality and trying to achieve it is a game women are set up to fail, especially if they’re being marginalized by virtue of their identity. By putting women in a situation where they can be assigned the quality of “immodest” or “slut,” seemingly at random, women are kept insecure and afraid, making them easier to control and dominate. Good on the girls of Wasatch High School for standing up to that nonsense.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter: @amandamarcotte

To schedule an interview with Amanda Marcotte please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • TheBrett

    Minor correction: Wasatch High School is in Heber City, which is not a suburb of Salt Lake City.

    Otherwise, good points. I could see how this would happen in Heber City, since it’s a fairly small city and is probably very Mormon (most of the small cities/towns outside of the Salt Lake Metro Area are).

  • fiona64


    The school appears to be so out of step with standard American social norms that it’s hard to escape wondering if there wasn’t an attempt to impose a fundamentalist standard of modesty on the girls, regardless of their own religious beliefs.

    The edits were specifically made to conform to *Mormon* “social norms” of modesty, which means covering anything covered by temple garments. This is a public school, not a private religious institution. It was a wildly inappropriate thing to do, and is a fabulous example of rape culture (unfortunately): you don’t even get to decide what your yearbook photo looks like, young lady. Someone else will determine what you get to do wih your body.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Apparently Mormon men are unable to restrain themselves at the site of a bare female shoulder or the merest hint of *gasp* cleavage, but a guy who wore a t-shirt with the words “You Suck” was allowed to remain untouched. Unbelievable.

      • Kelly S

        classssy.

      • Ember1

        And then there was the “stud page”. You can be bare chested and flipping off the camera with your pants around your knees if you are male.

    • lady_black

      What was striking to me was that it was done only to “certain people.” For some young ladies, sleeveless tops were OK. Others were photoshopped, with no apparent rhyme or reason. All kinds of WTF? going on at that school.

  • Mark Bunster

    Misstep to throw abortion notification laws in as attempts to control female sexuality–I’m absurdly pro choice, to the point where I’m ok with abortion until birth, but the law there is concern with surgery on a minor. No matter how relatively safe it is to other surgeries or childbirth itself, surgery is surgery, and parents knowing is a rationally arguable principle unrelated to “controlling sexuality.”

    • fiona64

      The problem here is that said minor may have abusive parents, said minor’s pregnancy may be caused by said minor’s father, etc. Judicial bypass laws don’t always work … and not all minors have parents with whom it is safe to consult.

      • Mark Bunster

        Certainly true. But that doesn’t mean the impetus is to control sexuality.

        • lady_black

          Yeah it pretty much DOES mean that.

          • Mark Bunster

            No, it means it’s an attempt to monitor the medical history of one’s child. You are presuming far too much, as Amanda does.

          • purrtriarchy

            These teenage girls own their bodies. They are not the property of their patents.

          • Mark Bunster

            Neither technically nor universally true.

          • purrtriarchy

            So you think that parents own their kids? Figures.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            You don’t believe in statutory rape laws? Yikes.

        • beenwiser

          If we have laws that privilege a parent’s right to know over their girl’s right to safety, what is that? Parental involvement in a young women’s sexual decisions is so important to you, that you’re willing to let some of these girls be abused physically, forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth, etc. That IS about controlling sexuality

          • Mark Bunster

            I haven’t the slightest idea what the fuck you are talking about, or who you are talking to. You are asserting things I never said or even hinted. Your priorities are certainly clear: close-minded assault on dialogue. I offered no opinion on notification or permission laws. I simply stated where the impetus for them lies, and it is not reasonable to say the only impetus is control of sexuality. Perhaps you don’t have children, which makes it harder for you to understand.

          • L-dan

            Nowhere does it say that’s the only impetus. There may be others. Given the focus of the article, it doesn’t seem odd that those other angles for such laws, which are very much not the focus of the article, wouldn’t be mentioned.

          • lady_black

            I am a parent. I don’t think you make much sense.

          • Mark Bunster

            That’s because you arguing with a straw men. I said none of the things you attributed to me in that response.

          • lady_black

            Then do yourself a big favor. Stop trying to defend parental notification as *not* being about controlling women sexually. It simply IS all about that.

          • Mark Bunster

            On your say so I guess. So you don’t have anything to back you up on that any more than Amanda does I suppose.

          • colleen2

            I believe the person with nothing to back him up but arrogance, bluster and your sock puppet, Crisfunguy would be you.

          • Mark Bunster

            Read (or reread) the comments. I’ve been vetted. You’re pretty much just saying things without backing them up, and then openly insulting me. That’s not really very productive.

          • colleen2

            You bullshit trolling is not productive. I have no interest at ALL in anything you have to say . You are ignorant and Republican…a repulsive man. My interest is in pointing out that you’re full of crap and are derailing the conversation here. But, then derailing the conversation and being a jerk was your intention all along.

          • Arekushieru

            Oo, language. Must never be used when it comes to dealing with patronizing asses such as yourself. But exceptions can be made FOR those selfsame patronizing asses?

            Considering that you are not female so obviously never had to worry about it, coming on here to tell us (who would have had a better chance of facing something like this than you, any day of the week) that controlling female sexuality was not the (only) reason for implementing this law, is mansplaining, after all.

        • KristenfromMA

          All attempts at curbing abortion access are related to controlling sexuality. All of them.

          • Mark Bunster

            Says you, contra reality?

          • KristenfromMA

            Asks you, who has never – and will never – had his bodily autonomy questioned?

        • colleen2

          The impetus is to control women and girls. Clearly conservatives have no interest in controlling any aspect of male sexuality.

        • The_Easter_Bunny

          “Doesn’t mean” is not the same as “isn’t probably the reason.”

    • purrtriarchy

      Abusive parents who will beat you if they find out you had sex. Or were raped. Some patents are evil.

      • DonnaDiva

        Oh yeah, this notion that parents automatically know or want what’s best for their daughters is wrong, wrong, wrong.

        • Mark Bunster

          The notion that parents are generally entitled to know when their children have surgery is not wrong.

          • lady_black

            Then you’re totally ok with medication abortions. Good to know.

          • Mark Bunster

            Pretty much, yes. Of course, I’m OK with abortions until the moment before birth, too. Not sure what that has to do with this.

          • lady_black

            What it “has to do with this” is that not all abortions are surgery, and you’re using “surgery” as an excuse. An intelligent third grader could cipher that out.

          • Mark Bunster

            Most of the laws were drafted when that was the only kind of abortion possible.

          • fiona64

            While I still disagree with parental notification laws, this is a fair point. The majority of these archaic laws are still on the books.

          • lady_black

            No.

          • Mark Bunster

            No, what?

          • lady_black

            Medication abortions have been a thing since RU486 was approved back in the early 1990s. Most of these laws were NOT drafted prior to that. Most of them were passed subsequent to that time.

          • Mark Bunster

            It was approved in 2000.

          • lady_black

            That is simply NOT TRUE. Final FDA approval was given in 2000, but it was being used off-label before that time. I specifically remember discussing with a friend of mine in 1996 that medication abortion was available locally when she experienced an unplanned pregnancy.

          • beenwiser

            Generally abortion isn’t surgical. Just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about dude

          • KristenfromMA

            Not all abortions are surgical.

          • Mark Bunster

            Yes, welcome late to the discussion. When most of the laws were debated and passed, they were.

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, you’re calling Kristen late to the discussion when you can’t even respond to Lady-Black’s own statement that was made PRIOR to that and effectively SUPPORTS Kristen’s argument? Hmm….

          • Mark Bunster

            It’s also functionally incorrect. The first ruling on a consent law was 1976, and was revisited multiple times after that. The major case was probably Casey, 1992.

          • Arekushieru

            So, not only are you saying that Lady-Black was right, but that you also didn’t understand the point I was making. That you failed to respond to Lady-Black’s point, but accuse others of arriving late to the discussion? Thanks for playing!

      • Mark Bunster

        Yes, that’s true. That doesn’t change the rationality of the argument overall however.

        • beenwiser

          This law is actually putting teenage girls in danger. That most certainly ruins your argument that its necessary to keep teenage girls safe. Are you kidding??

          • Mark Bunster

            When did I ever argue that? Answer: I didn’t. I’ve made no statement about the laws, pro or con.

          • Arekushieru

            Wrong. You have argued no points against the law, which as has been pointed out are VERY relevant to the discussion. So, by default, you have been very strenuously arguing FOR the law. Devil’s advocates especially those who espouse the majority opinion are NOT in short supply, btw. Oops.

          • Mark Bunster

            A law that is not based on sexual control is not relevant to the discussion. Notification laws are based on surgery performed on a minor. And not arguing against is NOT arguing for. Additionally, over the past two days since it seems to matter to some (though it has no bearing on how or why the laws were passed), I said multiple times I am not in favor of the laws. Ooops.

          • Arekushieru

            Yes, I read that, already. I am not as obtuse as you, apparently. After all, you clearly did not read my above post, properly. I said, and I repeat, “WHICH AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ARE VERY RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION”. Which, y’know, kinda IMPLIES that I am talking about more than just arguing in favour of something rather than against, as well. Also, my latter statement about devil’s advocates and those who do so espousing the majority opinion has VERY much to do with reading the part about where you said you are not in favour of the laws. Oops. Besides, arguing in favour of something without arguing why something like that could NOT work, AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING, at the same time, shows bias and is, INDEED, a representation of default in FAVOUR of the law. However, to say that that is ALL I have argued is a misrepresentation of MYSELF. Again, oops? Reading comprehension not your strong suit, I take it. Seriously, using overemotional. loaded words and the lack of correct interpretation does not remind me of a Pro-Choicer but people like Chris Funguy and Me1952, Hmmm.

          • purrtriarchy

            I don’t believe that Mr. Bunster is trolling or a sockpuppet of a troll. I think he disagrees with the author’s decision to talk about parental notification laws in an article about yearbook photos.

            He is pro-choice, and I believe that he is telling the truth about that. If you check his history, you will see that he is PC and a lefty. He also doesn’t agree with parental consent or notification laws…so this entire argument is really just about semantics and how we express ourselves. He’s on our side.

          • ansuz

            The argument seems to me to be the same thing as ‘patriarchy isn’t real; men don’t sit in rooms and plot how to oppress women!’. Does that seem reasonably accurate to you?

          • purrtriarchy

            Yeah. Good point.

          • ansuz

            I’m really pissed about the prostitution laws that were tabled today. They’re just awful, and now I’m worried about all my SW friends.

          • purrtriarchy

            I’ve been out all dayday in the hot sun and am fried. What’s going on?

          • ansuz

            They basically (indirectly) criminalize all forms of sex work (advertising, discussing in public or anywhere a minor could be), while taking the worst parts of the Nordic Model — the assumptions of victimhood, etc. — and will probably end up offering any SW picked up under the laws the choice of criminal charges or ‘exit programming’ with some religious groups (there’s religious/moralistic language all over the thing, and lots of money being offered to religious anti groups).
            It directly criminalizes pimps and johns (and flat-out calls johns ‘perverts’, iirc), but the categories are so broad that it can pretty much be used to charge people who spend lots of time in the company of sex workers, which has the potential to criminalize family, significant others, friends, and whole support systems, really.

            Not to mention, it’ll make actual johns paranoid, which won’t have great effects on worker safety. Oh, and the near-blanket criminalization of sex work makes it really, really unlikely that vulnerable people will actually feel able to reach out for help.

          • purrtriarchy

            That sounds absolutely terrible. I watched an NFB documentary on the subject a few months ago and the future looked promising…and now this. The most depressing thing about the documentary was all of the former SW who were fighting for the Nordic model/victimhood narrative that you mentioned.

            It’s kind of similar to the abortion/contraception debate, actually. The victimhood thing, that is. These women are victims..they just don’t know it yet. So we should make the decision for them, because using contraception/abortion/having sex is really not in their best interests’

            How paternalistic!

          • ansuz

            It’s definitely worse than people were expecting, and also replicates some of the issues that were found to be unconstitutional in the Bedford decision.

            It’s… yeah. How on earth does it make more sense to reduce the number of options available than to reduce the need for people to take that one particular option?

          • ansuz

            Also, see this: https://twitter.com/WilsonKM2/status/474380992388796416

            EDIT: And search c36 on twitter to see lots of good comments.

          • purrtriarchy

            Reminds me of the anti mj laws from a few years ago. Up to a year for 6 plants. Which is more min jail time than a pedophile.

            You know.. Private prisons are trying to worm their way into Canada. Morality laws = keep prison at full capacity.

          • ansuz

            That sounds like Harper. Canada + religious moralizing + anti-science + big corporations…

          • purrtriarchy
          • Arekushieru

            Yeah, the Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down a part of one such motion that the Harperialists tried to pass as part of their anti-crime legislation.

            Speaking of anti-marijuana laws, the government, here, has made it most difficult for the people who will most likely need to access it for medical reasons, because they tend to be the people with the fewest resources to do so, to prevent themselves from being charged with committing a crime. Ugh. Seriously.

          • purrtriarchy

            Well if there is any profit to be made from medical mj, harper wants that money to go to corporations. Fuck the patients. They will just have to pay a premium for substandard product!

          • Arekushieru

            Ugh, they didn’t change ANY of the laws concerning prostitution, really. And they really didn’t do any consultations with (former) sex-workers, either. It’s based on the Nordic model so I should have expected this, but still…. I FIRMLY believe that the ones who should correct a wrong are the ones that created or are members of the group that FACILITATED the creation of the wrong. But that, from that point on, all decisions/discussions should be led by those who have lived such experiences. The Canadian government is so ignorant. But, what can you expect from Conservatives?

          • Mark Bunster

            At this point I can see how you’d miss it, but somewhere above I said the people pushing it at root very likely had some controlling motives–but it was publicly sold and accepted and ajudicated on, based on the concept of parental interest in surgery on their minor child. So it’s real.

          • Mark Bunster

            Holy God have mercy, one person at least understands my objection. Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I was getting at. Ben Bradlee told Woodward and Berstein after they accused someone of admitting something in a grand jury that they didn’t, “When you shoot too high and miss, everyone feels a little safer and you have to start over.” (paraphrased). The story didn’t need to go there, because it’s not quite as cut and dried as made out to be. It’s already an absurd, pathetic, all too similar story of policy that clearly IS controlling female sexuality. Anyone who was gulled into voting for one of those laws on the basis of “would you let them give your 14yo daughter a nose job without telling you?” is now thinking, “Wait a minute, I voted for that–they said a judge could bypass for any girl in trouble!” And now they’re doubting whether THIS story is really about controlling young women for archaic puritanist reasons. And you’ve lost them.

          • Arekushieru

            I believe if you re-read my comments you will see that it is not me who is misunderstanding a position. It is him and now you.

            First of all I did read his comments where he stated that he was Pro-Choice, and, I do believe, indicated that very thing when I said he was playing Devil’s Advocate.

            Taking a page from his OWN rule book, I then pointed out how he was acting very much like an anti-choicer, although I never actually stated that he was one. However, I do stand by claim that he sounds very much like ‘me’ who does the very thing he accuses everyone else of doing. .

            Lastly, arguing semantics then ignoring some very salient points made by other members of this group and failing to provide your own resolutions is still doing the very thing I accused him of doing, especially when he, as a man, has no ‘skin’ in the game. Thanks.

          • purrtriarchy

            I am not misunderstanding your points. And yeah, he does not have a clue about what he is talking about and is in the wrong to ignore you and lb. I was just pointing out that I don’t believe that he is purposely trolling like the others. His reasoning is off, but he still does not support such laws.

            I am just trying to be charitable here, that’s all. However, I had forgotten about the abortion is surgery thing.

          • Arekushieru

            Again, though, I would like to point out that making a suggestion that someone *might* not be a Pro-Choicer is not the same as suggesting that someone is a troll, either, Just saying! >_<;

          • purrtriarchy

            OK. The chrisfungguy thing threw me off.

            Speaking of which, me1952 is definitely a stupid ass troll.

          • Mark Bunster

            Much of this is really just incomprehensible, sorry. I’m not the one shouting in all caps as you projected onto me. That would be overemotional I would think.

          • The_Easter_Bunny

            You are also not the one who can get pregnant. Now, if someone were passing a law that made it illegal for you to get Viagra …..

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. CLEARLY you do not have understanding of the term emphasis. And, I’m sorry, I sort of thought that other people would be like myself. Able to remember what they typed/wrote. Won’t make that mistake, again.

          • The_Easter_Bunny

            You haven’t shown that the law isn’t based on sexual control.

            You have shown that there are arguments that aren’t based on sexual control — but that’s not the same as proving that the people who support the law aren’t basing their support on a desire to exercise sexual control.

        • The_Easter_Bunny

          Sure it does. At least if the overall health of the kid is concerned.

    • DonnaDiva

      “parents knowing is a rationally arguable principle unrelated to “controlling sexuality.”‘

      There may be an unrelated principle but in a society that is ridiculously bent on policing young female sexuality it’s safer to allow minors to get abortions without informing their parents if they feel that’s necessary. Most minors do involve at least one parent in the decision without being legally compelled. It’s the minority who don’t that need to be protected.

      • Mark Bunster

        Sure–my point was that it’s not necessarily about controlling sexuality in that case. There were many other examples to offer that do not distort the issue of controlling young female sexuality b

        • The_Easter_Bunny

          “Not necessarily” isn’t the same as “yep, that’s the reason in most cases.”

          And *if* the reason in most cases is so that religiously indoctrinated parents can force bad medical decisions on their pregnant daughters, then there’s a good argument to be made against parental notification laws.

    • lady_black

      “Surgery is surgery.” Not all abortions are surgery. No parental permission is necessary to give birth. Just saying. And yes it DOES matter that giving birth is far more dangerous, particularly to the very young. If the teen trusts her parents, she will go to them. If she doesn’t trust them, I’d rather presume on the side of safety that there is a reason for it. NO parents should have the power to compel a minor to give birth. EVER.

      • Mark Bunster

        surgical abortions are surgery. Your comments on the efficacy of the laws is irrelevant to the discussion of their impetus.

        • Mark Bunster

          And quite obviously, NO ONE can deny permission to give birth. As you are aware, it just happens, eventually.

          • lady_black

            Then no permission should be needed to have an abortion either.

          • Mark Bunster

            Abortions don’t just happen. You can’t prevent a child birth. You can prevent an abortion.

          • lady_black

            Wow. You can’t prevent a child birth? Yes you can. It’s called an abortion. And yes, sometimes abortions do just happen. There are spontaneous abortions.

          • Mark Bunster

            That’s a termination. If you don’t terminate the pregnancy, it will deliver. There is no possible way to object to a pregnancy. A parent cannot get a judge to prevent a delivery, so the comparison is inapt.

            A spontaneous abortion is essentially a miscarriage.

          • lady_black

            I repeat. Births are prevented by abortion.

          • Mark Bunster

            Which has no relevance to the point, which is that an abortion is an externally governable action, while a pregnancy is a natural biological response wherein the “action” has already happened. One is a theoretical proposition, the other is a physical reality.

          • lady_black

            All abortions are not “externally governable.” Far more pregnancies terminate prior to viability ON THEIR OWN than those that are induced. You do not understand the meaning of the word “abortion” and your general lack of medical knowledge is very visible to everyone. Stop embarrassing yourself. This is at least three times I’ve corrected you, and twice on the exact same subject. NO, births do not always “just happen,” all abortions are not surgery (women lose pregnancies naturally every day and those are abortions, not to mention those induced by medication), and NO, all abortions are not “externally governable.”

          • Mark Bunster

            You are confusing abortions with miscarriages. And it’s surprising you suggest births don’t just happen–so women stay pregnant permanently and never deliver? Someone scraping your insides, or taking a pill, are external actions. A miscarriage is not.

          • lady_black

            A “miscarriage” is a layman’s term. There is no such medical term as “miscarriage.” It’s a spontaneous abortion.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, you just argued for laws based on one’s sex phenotype, which is and should be illegal. Natural should not determine laws. Therefore your premise is wrong TWICE OVER. SFS.

          • Mark Bunster

            Kindly reprint verbatim where I did any such thing.

          • Arekushieru

            “while a pregnancy is a natural biological response” So, not only have you proven that you cannot read your OWN comments, as well, you have also proven that you cannot understand scientific FACT. Where has anyone born with a male phenotype ever become pregnant? Hmm? AW.

          • Mark Bunster

            1. I’m not arguing for any law at all. I was distinguishing a pregnancy from an abortion, one being an actual thing one does (or doesn’t), and the other a state of physical being, limited naturally and biologically by the generally accepted time constraints of human gestation.
            2. Since I never argued for any law in the history of this thread, much less implied much less stated MUCH less verbatim for any kind of a law based on a sex phenotype–which a law about pregnancy wouldn’t be in any case, since it only applies to pregnant people, all of whom will be women, but for which billions of women will be just as left out of the law as all men–your triumphalism is kind of weird and misplaced. Suggesting you think I’m not aware of which sex gets pregnant among humans betrays a rather nasty streak.

          • Unicorn Farm

            ” was distinguishing a pregnancy from an abortion, one being an actual thing one does (or doesn’t), and the other a state of physical being”

            Gestate is a verb. Do we know what verbs are? They’re “doing words.”

            ges·tate

            ˈjeˌstāt/

            verb

            verb: gestate; 3rd person present: gestates; past tense: gestated; past participle: gestated; gerund or present participle: gestating

            carry a fetus in the womb from conception to birth.

            “rabbits gestate for approximately twenty-eight days”

          • Arekushieru

            Seriously, stop assuming I’m saying something, then turning around and claiming that I’m doing the same thing. Oi.

            I never said anything about you, personally, arguing for a law. Jeepers Creepers. I said that you are arguing (making a case) for a law that deals with only one side of an issue, because it only applies to one sex phenotype. Which is illegal sex/gender discrimination. Reading comprehension, PLEASE?

            You do not know what a phenotype is? Then look it up, next time. A phenotype is an expression of a genotype. Since a uterus is associated with two x chromosomes, it is a phenotype. Which means that it is an expression of a FEMALE (sex) genotype. Which means that only anyone with a uterus is affected by these laws, which is, as I said, illegal phenotype-based sex discrimination. Hmm, so, again proving you wrong.

            Finally, 100% of male phenotypes will never get pregnant. Perhaps (not the billions, as you PROCLAIM, though) a small percentage of women will not get pregnant which, of course, only applies to women who will (and have) never be(en) able to get pregnant. The two situations are not analogous.. Besides, technology has advanced far enough that organs can be replaced, but only in a host body that will not reject it. So, a woman who was born without a uterus, just recently had it replaced and is now pregnant. Gee, how many men do you think they could do that with and expect a uterus to be maintained in their body, let ALONE complete a pregnancy? Yeah, thought not.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “there is no possible way to object to a pregnancy”
            What the F*** do you think abortion is?

            “A parent cannot get a judge to prevent a delivery”
            And why do you think that is? Is it because there is no physical means to prevent “a delivery”? No, because abortion is that physical means. Why, then, do you think judges do not allow parents to force abortions? It’s not because there’s no physical way to prevent birth, its because judges and parents aren’t empowered to force women to have abortions against their wills. Similarly, they should not be empowered to force birth against a woman’s will.
            The comparison is not inapt, the comparison is perfect.

          • paulsimon

            Mark Bunster Are you arguing that a parent should be able to override the decision of their daughter and insist she carry to term? That seems draconian. Ironically, the kind of parents who would do such a terrible thing are often the same kind who are opposed to comprehensive sex education and support abstinence-only sex education. Jurisdictions where abstinence-only sex education is the policy have way higher incidence of youth pregnancy. If a teenage girl doesn’t want to involve her parents it may be an abusive household.

          • Mark Bunster

            Nope. Not at all. I’m totally against consent laws and almost entirely against them for practical reasons in notification cases. I voted against Oregon’s in…2004? I’m just saying that the impetus for them was both sold and voted on as a rational concept because it involved surgery on a minor child. That’s not really arguable. Was there deeper motive for their introduction? Sure. And they probably remain even in the age of chemical abortion partially by legislative inertia, but also to maintain the sexual control. But the laws are there because many people made a calculus about abortions as surgery and drew a straight line between their own kids and ANY surgery done without their knowledge.

        • sentimental_carp

          Surgical abortions are not surgery. There is no cutting, no stitching. The process is done by dilating the cervix so a tube attached to a vacuum aspiration machine can be inserted, which then uses suction to remove the contents of the uterus. They are extremely safe and have no complications and no impact on future fertility 99% of the time.
          I volunteer on a hotline that helps minors in my state go through the courts to get permission from a judge when they can’t get it from their parents and/or guardians. There is no reason why these young women should not be able to just go to the clinic without all that hassle.

          • Mark Bunster

            You should take that up with the medical community, who most definitely considers it surgery.

        • lady_black

          NO SIR. You are the one being irrelevant. Simply repeating “surgical abortions are surgery” over and over does not make your premise any more logical.

          • Mark Bunster

            If you are a parent concerned about someone performing surgery on your child without your knowledge, and surgical abortions exist, how is a law regarding notification for surgical abortions not logically connected to the surgical nature of many abortions?

          • lady_black

            And if a minor needs a C-section and the parents refuse permission, do you really think the doctors will listen to them? Hmmmm?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            We have laws concerning the health of the child vs. the wishes of the parents.

            This has nothing to do with that. You’re just being obtuse.

    • beenwiser

      Sure. Notifying your parents that you are pregnant has “nothing” to do with controlling sexuality. Teenage girls across the nation are being forced by law to reveal their pregnancy to their parents. If it takes an act of congress to get a girl to reveal that secret to her parents, you think maaaaaaaybe she had a valid reason to keep it secret? Give these girls some credit

      • Mark Bunster

        There is no law I’m aware of that forces anyone to reveal their pregnancy.

        • fiona64

          Well, a law requiring parental permission to terminate a pregnancy would rather require revealing said pregnancy …

          • Mark Bunster

            Right–but only in the context of terminating it. If you don’t terminate it, there’s no surgery and you don’t need to notify anyone.

          • lady_black

            No pregnancies end in surgery. I see. You really have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, do you? All pregnancies terminate. Have you ever seen a woman permanently pregnant?

          • Mark Bunster

            You need do nothing to deliver a child. It happens. A terminated pregnancy is not the same as a birth. I’ve worked in this area–have you?

          • lady_black

            A termination is the end of something. And since two of my pregnancies and three of my sister’s pregnancies have ended in surgery, it does not “just happen.” That’s a gross over-simplification of birth. If one of my pregnancies had not been surgically ended, both my son and I would be dead. As it happens, we aren’t dead because surgery was done.

          • Mark Bunster

            So without surgery a baby won’t deliver? That’s interesting. Wrong, but interesting. You might need to do surgery to save a delivery and/or a mother, but you don’t need to do anything for a delivery to occur. They happen naturally. A birth is not referred to as a termination.

          • lady_black

            You are an IDIOT. No in my case a baby would NOT have delivered. The placenta was under the baby and covering the cervical os. Since the placenta would have been delivered first, there would have been no further delivery. I would have exsanguinated and death stops labor. You are just plain wrong. When a woman perishes in labor, there is no forthcoming birth. Don’t argue with me. You don’t pack the gear. Lots of pregnancies end in surgery.

          • Mark Bunster

            You just repeated what I said in the penultimate sentence above but claim you disagree, and I’m the idiot?

          • colleen2

            You are indeed an idiot.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “They happen naturally.”
            Does the word “Pitocin” mean anything to you?

          • fiona64

            Or Caesarean section?

          • Unicorn Farm

            Right?? Seriously. I drafted an *informed consent form* for augmentation of labor a few weeks ago. I drafted an informed consent form for VBAC before that.
            There’s an article on this website about forced cesarean without consent!
            The concept of consent is utterly relevant to the process of gestation and birth. Unless you have an ideological reason for it not to be.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “You need do nothing to deliver a child. It happens.”
            Right. The word “labor” means “sit still and be passive.”

          • beenwiser

            “You need do nothing to deliver a child” You don’t care if mom-to-be gets any medical care? How can you be so concerned about surgery risks and just keep ignoring the risks of being pregnant and giving birth?

          • badphairy

            “You need do nothing to deliver a child.”

            You’re a special little sneauxflake, aren’t you.

          • ldwendy

            “You need to do nothing to deliver a child.”

            Oh really?

            Then please explain why I was rushed to the hospital after “doing nothing” for 28 weeks, and that my first daughter had to be delivered by emergency c-section.

            I had preeclampsia (pregnancy induced hypertension). I might have died without the baby being removed.

            Please stop making such inane statements.

          • Mark Bunster

            So we’ve had hospitals and surgery longer than women have been giving birth? That’s interesting.

            What happens during the delivery, or to insure a safe delivery that leaves both mother and child, doesn’t change the fact that if you are pregnant, all you need to do to deliver the baby eventually is wait. You need do nothing else. Bad or good prenatal care, healthy pregnancy or not, one way or the other it will come to an end. You need to do nothing. Not so inane. Factual.

          • lady_black

            Yes. It will end in death for a lot of women who “just do nothing.” Idiot.

          • Mark Bunster

            Fully stipulated. How does that change the absence of necessary action for delivery?

          • lady_black

            I guess that depends on your definition of “necessary” and your planned outcome. In my mind, anything needed to ensure a healthy mother and neonate is necessary, and your assertion that no action is necessary is a lot of malarkey.

          • ldwendy

            “if you are pregnant, all you need to do to deliver the baby eventually is wait. You need do nothing else”

            Apparently you think all women are baby delivery machines who simply pop out babies after an uneventful 9 month gestation/waiting period. Your lack of empathy for the possible complications that some women
            endure to bring wanted children into this world is breath-taking.

            You’ve just insulted every woman on this site who have had to deal with serious and/or life-threatening complications after becoming pregnant . . . especially for women for whom doing nothing (aka “waiting”) was not an option.

            Pregnancy is not a disease, but it sure isn’t a state of wellness. I will attest to that.

          • Mark Bunster

            No, I don’t–but in either case the welfare of either mother or child has nothing to do with there being an action necessary before one can deliver.

          • lady_black

            He has no clue.

          • fiona64

            You keep doubling down on this surgery business … despite how many times you’ve been reminded that the majority of abortions nowadays are performed with medication. Why is that?

            And, dimwit, the pregnancy eventually becomes fairly obvious and will reveal *itself.* I don’t care if you are pro-choice; you’re being deliberately obtuse.

          • Mark Bunster

            Because the laws mostly predate the widespread use of chemical abortion. I made that point earlier, and it was commented by someone else as a fair point.

            I don’t disagree with you about revealing a pregnancy; the point is its self revealing, no parental notification is contemplated.

            Your descent into ad hominem is telling.

          • fiona64

            If you don’t want to be called out as a dimwit, stop behaving like one.

          • Mark Bunster

            Poor response, essentially doubling down on what you know is inappropriate and a white flag on substance. You offer nothing to rebut the assertion that notification/consent laws might possibly have been driven and approved on bases other than the intent to control female sexuality. You as the person without a useful response and yet adhering to the same position and calling out the speaker, might take a moment and consider why you think someone ELSE is dimwitted.

          • fiona64

            You go around shouting “surgery consent, surgery consent, surgery consent,” despite having been told already that the majority of abortions are no longer surgery … really, the only reason I can see for this is that you do not understand simple English.

            I’m done with you, Mr. Concern Troll. You’ve made your position very clear; it’s okay if girls are forced by their parents to remain pregnant, but not if they don’t *want to be pregnant.*

            Good day.

          • Mark Bunster

            1. I am not shouting.
            2. How many times must it be explained that almost all abortions were surgical at the time these laws were debated and passed? I’m good on diction; how are you on comprehension?
            3. How on earth you decide that I’m for parental consent laws, despite the myriad times I have stated otherwise, suggests either a learning deficiency or, more likely, a closed mind and overwhelming ideological bias that shuts down any dialogue that might intrude on your fortress of false consistency. The latter choice is bolstered by the use of as hominem as a distraction from actually listening and engaging. Whose position you are arguing with is unclear; it’s obvious you’re not even reading what I’m writing and hear something totally different in your head.

          • Arekushieru

            Tone-policing, now? Wow, whodathunkit? The frustration is all on your side and even if it wasn’t you are the only one that’s allowed to lash out? Seriously? Entitlement much?

            She has offered SEVERAL rebuttals to your so-called ‘theory’. That you don’t like them is not her problem. Besides, as I’ve said before, your rebuttals are nothing more than mansplaining.

            So, if anyone deserves to be frustrated and lash out, it IS her. Oops.

          • purrtriarchy

            I don’t disagree with you about revealing a pregnancy; the point is its
            self revealing, no parental notification is contemplated.

            Not necessarily, no. Why do you think so many babies end up abandoned in dumpsters?

          • ansuz

            I’d also be interested in seeing statistics on suicide attempts and youth pregnancy.

          • purrtriarchy
          • purrtriarchy

            What Mr.Bunster here is ignoring that when it comes to sexual matters, there is a lot of baggage, specifically cultural and emotional, involved with sex and pregnancy. It’s not like asking your parents consent to get your tonsils removed. Your parents aren’t going to shame you and beat the shit out of you for inflamed tonsils are they? Sex is a whole different animal, and Mr. Bunster is ignoring that aspect of it.

          • beenwiser

            I think this guy has got to be trolling. Noone with his command of the language could fail to understand what everyone is saying the way he pretends to.

          • Mark Bunster

            I’m not ignoring it at all. I’m saying there are alternate reasons that exist for why those laws came to me.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yes. And those alternate reasons do not override a teenage girl’s right to medical privacy.

          • Mark Bunster

            Something I have yet to disagree with.

          • purrtriarchy

            http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100607/NEWS/100609870

            A 30-year-old Polk Township man has been arrested for his role after a 13-year-old girl performed a self-induced abortion using a pencil. Michael James Lisk has been charged with rape and concealing the death of a child.

            State police were alerted to the case on Sunday after staff at Lehigh Valley Hospital treated the girl, who said she conducted the “home abortion” on herself using a lead pencil last Wednesday.

            She subsequently became violently ill and began having contractions before ultimately delivering a baby at her residence

            The girl had no legal access to abortion in Pennsylvania, where her parents must consent.

          • purrtriarchy

            Here’s another case, 14 year old girl hides pregnancy, mom sticks head in sand, delivers baby, kills it:

            http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/10/02/girl-14-accused-choking-newborn-death

            I doubt such a thing would have happened if she had a bout of appendicitis, because there is no shame associated with appendicitis. There is, however, with sex and pregnancy. And parental notification laws essentially put girls on the spot, and deny them the privacy they are entitled to.

          • Mark Bunster

            Yep.

          • Arekushieru

            Appendicitis is surgery and it’s probably one of the earlier surgeries that was performed. Yet, there is no shame and stigma attached to it. And no laws forcing parental notification. The FACT that there is stigma and shame attached to pregnancy and having an abortion, yet it still requires parental notification is evidence that this issue is much bigger than being about having surgery. So, you just agreed to something that contradicted your own stance. Hmm,

          • fiona64

            I am the one who said it was a fair point … but you are still doubling down.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, please, your being a patronizing ass and you’re worrying about what someone ELSE is calling you? Why not look to your own attitude first, please and THANK you.

          • beenwiser

            OK… So its ok with you if a teenage girl carries a pregnancy to term and gives birth without her parents finding out? Thats way more risky than an abortion. How did she hide her pregnant belly? How did she get prenatal care?

          • Shan

            “How did she get prenatal care?”

            The thing is, she CAN. Without her parents being required to be notified that she’s pregnant.

          • beenwiser

            Well yeah, that IS the point- a young woman is legally entitled to be pregnant and give birth in secret, but a doctor can’t end the pregnancy without a permission slip. Pretending that sexual politics and religion are irrelevant there is just preposterous. If parental notification laws were intended to be broadly about surgery, they wouldn’t be written specifically about aboriton.

          • Shan

            And presumably a pregnant minor could also consent to a C-section without parental permission OR notification. And the last I checked, that was surgery.

          • Arekushieru

            And C-sections, at least primitive ones, have existed since the time of Caesar. Hmm, wonder how our concern troll missed THAT?

        • Jennifer Starr

          I would hope that my child would trust me enough to come to me if she was pregnant. I would hope that she would want me to be there with her to listen, to hold her hand and to support her through whatever choice she made. But I don’t support any law that forces a teen to do that. Not every family is going to be supportive and helpful, and for teens in an abusive situation, it’s often difficult or impossible to get a judicial bypass. The law says that a teen is old enough to decide to carry a pregnancy, so she should also be old enough to decide to terminate one.

          • Mark Bunster

            I don’t support the laws either.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Then what precisely are we doing here? If you don’t support these laws, what are we even discussing?

        • beenwiser

          Dude… Parental notification means you can’t end your pregnancy without telling your parent. That means either you reveal your pregnancy, or it reveals itself. What are the other options here? Miscarriage? Wear baggy clothes for a few months and then throw the newborn in a dumpster?? For gods sake would you get a clue?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Or have a child instead of killing it.

            I know, being an adult is difficult. I’m sure you’ll figure it out.

    • ansuz

      Wait, I’m confused. Why are minors presumed to be able to consent to pregnancy, when they are not presumed to be able to consent to abortion (and some of them aren’t even presumed to be able to consent to sex)? In the list of ways for pregnancy to end — abortion, miscarriage, vaginal birth, c-section — I’d be least concerned about physical or psychological damage to a young person from abortion.

      • Mark Bunster

        How many doctors are fucking teenage girls? What does sex have to do with consent for minor surgery?

        • purrtriarchy

          Kinda slow on the uptake aren’t you

          • Mark Bunster

            No, pretty quick on it actually. You’re just not really listening.

          • purrtriarchy

            Your children are not your property.

          • Mark Bunster

            No, but they are in my custody and I am liable for harm that comes to them in terms of neglect.

          • purrtriarchy

            Wrong. There are plenty of medical procedures that young people can undergo without parental consent. Why can’t abortion and contraception be two of them? Because it all comes down to controlling female sexuality.

          • Mark Bunster

            Plenty of medical procedures, or plenty of SURGICAL procedures?

          • purrtriarchy

            Stuff that is more dangerous than an abortion.

          • Mark Bunster

            So that’s a no, your point isn’t relative since we are talking about notifications for surgery.

          • purrtriarchy

            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.html

            http://law.gsu.edu/cscott/spring08/draft_minors_consent_outline_1.htm

            There are plenty of articles on the subject. Minors have a right to PRIVACY and are not the property of their patents.

          • lady_black

            It goes back to what I told you in the first comment. NO PARENT should have the right to force a minor to undo gestation and birth. PERIOD. And I AM a parent, so I know what I’m talking about. No person should EVER have that much power over another. Not even your own child. I would like to think every young woman has the kind of parent she could go to with an unplanned pregnancy, and that every parent would support whatever decision the young lady made. That would be great. But it’s not reality. I agree, you are derailing this discussion with phony concern trolling. And you are being deliberately obtuse. It simply makes no sense that a 13 year old mother can consent to surgery for her child. But she isn’t quite mature enough to decide what to do with her own body.

          • Mark Bunster

            I agree no parent should have that right. I never said otherwise. I’m not derailing a discussion; I’m pointing out an overreach that is labeled as a foremost example of the point she is trying to make. Bringing parental notification into a discussion about modesty codes wasn’t MY idea.

          • lady_black

            It certainly WAS your idea. YOU brought it up.

          • Mark Bunster

            Perhaps you should read the article again.

          • colleen2

            You most certainly ARE derailing the conversation.

          • colleen2

            I am afraid I do not agree with your self assessment. Perhaps we simply disagree with you.

        • ansuz

          Disorganized, because I’m in a bad place mental health-wise, ATM, and my ADD is worse than usual.

          The point is that we have higher standards for consent to abortion (and we even have higher standards for consent to sex) than we do for consent to pregnancy.
          (NB: the bit about ‘consent to sex’ is an aside. It’s relevant, but not an exact parallel.)

          If someone cannot consent to sex or abortion, how the hell can they consent to pregnancy?

          If individual doctors want to make a policy of not performing abortions on minors without parental consent, that’s their prerogative. I think they’re being selfish (not always a bad thing, but I do think [EDIT: lost train of thought]) in choosing to cover their asses over reducing harm.

          I think that the societal assumption of consent to things that our bodies do (mostly; it’s along the Catholic ‘natural law’ lines, with assumption of consent to ‘ordered’ things and assumption of non consent to ‘disordered’ things) is a huge problem. I also think it’s worth pointing out that those assumptions become magnified and grow teeth when they’re about female sexuality.

          And… I’m getting close to personal territory that I don’t really feel up to talking about today.

          • Mark Bunster

            We have higher standards of consent for abortion than sex or pregnancy, yes. That’s because one is done as part of a contractual arrangement between a licensed, certified professional and a minor child–one who cannot technically sign a contract, although cash payment for an abortion is a fair proxy. The other is done by two people in (assumedly) consensual private action. And the point I’m trying to make is that you can insert ANY other word to modify “surgery”–heart, foot, laparoscopic, gender reassignment–and understand that there is a higher standard. So to presume that notification laws are at least VOTED on by people with the thought that parents should know what surgery is done on children in their custody, and is all about controlling female bodies, is an over presumption.

          • Mark Bunster

            That should say are NOT at least voted on…phone version of the site is hard to work with.

          • fiona64

            That’s because one is done as part of a contractual arrangement between a licensed, certified professional and a minor child–one who cannot technically sign a contract, although cash payment for an abortion is a fair proxy.

            There’s a reason I emphasized that quote. When a teen gives birth, she is considered an emancipated minor for purposes of making medical decisions for her own child in most states. No one sees a problem with this, but they think that the same chid who is mature enough to have and care for a child is *not* mature enough to make the opposite decision? Really?

          • Mark Bunster

            Emancipated as to HER offspring. She’s not emancipated from her parents by default, however. A 12 year old mother isn’t suddenly granted full rights of adulthood because she gives birth.

          • lady_black

            And this makes sense to you?

          • Mark Bunster

            Yes, it does actually. But that has nothing to do with the rational basis for notification.

          • fiona64

            Way to miss the point … again.

            I’m not even surprised anymore.

          • lady_black

            Concern troll is concerned.

          • colleen2

            If a 12 year old child is pregnant the ‘father’ who is endangered her life by ejaculating into her vagina is, statistically speaking, almost always an adult male. Who deserves to be shot. I understand that for the religious right, rape is no big deal, just another form of conception as your last VP candidate says. Any parent who forces his 12 year old daughter to carry that pregnancy to term is no better than the man who rapes her.

          • lady_black

            NO.

          • lady_black

            You’re doing fine. He’s being deliberately obtuse. Witness bringing up “doctors fucking teenage girls.” The only one bringing that issue up is him.

          • Mark Bunster

            Because NO ONE consents to pregnancy. You consent to SEX. You BECOME pregnant. So the issue of consent regarding pregnancy is a nonsensical construct, which I pointed out by making another nonsensical construct to illustrate how nonsensical the first one truly is. When the test comes back positive, who in human history has said “I object! I did not consent to this fertilization!”?

          • ansuz

            I do not consent to lots of things my body does. This leads to lots of physical and psychological discomfort on my part.
            Yes, it’s not a common way of framing it, but it’s a way of framing that I think can be very useful.
            When someone is pregnant and wants to be pregnant, they are actively consenting to that pregnancy at every moment (assuming that they, at all times, felt that removing consent was a valid option).

            “When the test comes back positive, who in human history has said “I object! I did not consent to this fertilization!”?”
            I dunno, I’d probably have a panic attack, puke, and then either head straight to google to find the nearest abortion clinic (if feeling otherwise psychologically okay) or for the vodka and the paring knives to attempt some ill-advised amateur surgery (if feeling the way I do today). I feel like that’s pretty clear as a declaration of non consent.

          • Arekushieru

            We should also ask him, “when the test comes back negative, who in human history has said “I object! I did not consent to this non-fertilization!”?” Oh, that’s right, it’s been pretty much the implication under ANY of those circumstances. Hmm. I wonder why….

          • lady_black

            Lots of women choose not to consent to pregnancy. In fact, I’d say that contraception use is objectively refusing to consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy requires ongoing consent. Pregnancy is something that happens, yes. Continuing one requires ongoing female consent.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You’re being an idiot. One absolutely consents to pregnancy. If you have an abortion, for example, you are withdrawing your consent to pregnancy.

            Minors are not required to seek permission from their parents to carry a pregnancy to term (which carries much more extensive health risks than abortion), so why should they be required to seek permission to have an abortion?

          • lady_black

            Fertilization is not pregnancy.

          • ansuz

            Thanks, lady_black.

        • lady_black

          That’s a pretty disturbing fantasy that nobody here (other than you) has brought up. Obtuse is not a good look for you.

    • L-dan

      Out of curiosity…was this one tiny point in an article about ridiculous modesty regulations really something that needed comment? It’s kind of textbook derailing.

      Also “young women are subject to way more punishment and control from legal
      and other authorities for their sexuality, starting with the popularity
      of laws requiring minor girls to notify parents if they want an
      abortion.”

      How does this actually say that such laws are a conscious attempt to control female sexuality? It notes that they are subject to more punishment and control for their sexuality. Which is undeniable there. Regardless of the stated reason for such laws, it does punish and control girls more than boys due to an element of being sexual. Thus your post is even more of a derail than it initially appeared.

      • Mark Bunster

        So any critique on the points made is “derailing?”

        And are you really asking how it says those laws are an attempt to control female sexuality, when the text then immediately gives a foremost example (“starting with”) of a situation where punishment and control is being asserted? On what basis are you or she saying it is due to being sexual? I’m saying the rationale presented and considered for notification laws by many voters is that it is surgery performed on a minor. You are saying that’s false on its face, which seems rather absurd.

        What I’m derailing is asserting things without basis in an attempt to strengthen a narrative. If we want to talk about offensive photoshopping, talk about it. Don’t link it to things that are not clearly linked.

        • L-dan

          Well, critiquing one minor sentence without addressing the rest of the article does tend to feel like it, yes.

          Disingenuously insisting that the push for parental notification laws is only about parental concern to be included in the decisions of their children makes it seem even more like derailing, yes.

          Those pushing such laws are not doing it for the benefit of those kids or their parents. They are pushing them to create restrictions on abortion, period. Restricting abortion is very much driven by desire to control women’s sexuality, as is the photoshopping above. It’s not a far stretch. And such laws *do* restrict and punish female sexuality (or the results of it) even if the intent was merely to create better parent/child communication.

          • Mark Bunster

            It’s because that one minor sentence is an unnecessary reach into an entirely different subject in an attempt to tie them to together when it held little value. Is puritan photoshopping of only girls’ photos in ridiculously tame outfits not ENOUGH to discuss in the context of outrageous “male protection” policies? Why go onto that thin ice in the first place? I apologize for my rampant nuance.

          • Arekushieru

            Hmm, nuance? Oh, you mean like the NUANCE that you will never be subject to such rampant puritan photoshopping OR parental notification laws because you are not, and never have been, a GIRL, the nuance that you oh-so-obviously MISSED???

          • Mark Bunster

            You have way too much derangement and hatred in your heart for me to bother replying further. You’re clearly not interested in an intellectual discussion; you just want to yell and blame people wildly. Find someone else for that.

        • Shan

          “I’m saying the rationale presented and considered for notification laws
          by many voters is that it is surgery performed on a minor. You are
          saying that’s false on its face, which seems rather absurd.”

          Keep in mind that there are also laws giving pregnant minors emancipated status with regard to their medical care, subject to confidentiality laws preventing the parents from being informed of the pregnancy. But ONLY if they intend to STAY pregnant, not if they want to get un-pregnant. So, no, the rationale for the parental notification laws isn’t really that abortion is surgery performed on a minor, not when carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is much more serious.

    • Amanda_Marcotte

      Since childbirth is much more dangerous than abortion, if it were a safety issue, parental notification of intent to give birth would be the law.

  • Richard Hughes

    Nice work Talban… I mean Utah Schools.

  • lady_black

    Who knows what drives her misogynistic bent and who cares? That should have told you all you needed to know about her.

  • Margaret Whitestone

    Why not just institute a uniform policy-all girls must wear burqas lest the poor boys think of sex. Problem solved. Of course that would make it hard to tell the girls apart but who cares so long as the cause of “modesty” is preserved.

    • cjvg

      Hmm, why does that sound so familiar?
      Oh I know, because we fought a war to free the women of Afghanistan and Irak from that kind of oppression

      • paulsimon

        Well it was more to keep public money flowing to the privately owned military contractors and in the case of Iraq to secure access to their oil for US companies, but there has been a limited positive effect on access to education and other benefits for Afghan women.

  • Borya

    The concept that appearance is inherently linked to sexuality (and intelligence) is prevalent in our society. The idea that certain kinds of dress go hand-in-hand with certain kinds of behavior is everywhere and it’s easy to absorb these ideas if you don’t actively educate yourself and think critically about why they’re so absurd and illogical.

  • expect_resistance

    Amanda – We had to do the same thing at the Catholic high school I went to. To measure the girls uniform skirt length they would make girls kneel on the ground to measure it. I always thought this was humiliating.

  • Peeping Tom

    Well, I can’t speak for all guys, but when I was going to high school, I certainly didn’t mind girls wearing skimpy outfits. ^_^

  • CJinPA

    These are locally controlled schools reflecting the local standards. They may not be everyone’s but that’s the beauty of diverse thought.
    Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with the photos in their original form. I wouldn’t have had a problem with it. But each community is allowed to have its standards. Let’s try live and let live.

    • lady_black

      They are not allowed to have different standards for different people.

      • CJinPA

        Actually they are. It’s their school. It’s a photo. Let’s not make everything a federal crime, OK?

        • purrtriarchy

          Nope. These girls were singled out and discriminated against.

          What if they altered the photos of all the black kids? Hey, its their school, they can discriminate against groups of people based on arbitrary rules!

          • CJinPA

            LOL…”First they came for the halter tops, next they’ll come for the black children!!” Lighten up folks. Not everything is The Next Great Civil Rights Battle. This is not part of some great gender battle. An administrator went too far. A local issue to be handle by local folks. Everyone else should butt out and go about their business.

          • purrtriarchy

            1) that does not change the fact that the girls were discrimibated against

            2) we would not know that he went too far if people had not complained about it in the first place

          • CJinPA

            1. Schools discriminate against inappropriate dress all the time. It’s called being adults. (I do not agree that the dress here was inappropriate, but it’s not my call.)
            2. The students and parents were perfectly right to speak up. It’s the outside knuckleheads trying to claim ‘modesty is a racket for patriarchal blah blah bumper sticker cliché’ that are wrong.

          • purrtriarchy

            1) they only picked on some girls, not others. THR discrimination was not applied equally.

            2) yes, modesty is a huge part of patriarchal culture.
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/06/on-modesty-and-moving-the-bar.html

          • CJinPA

            Modesty is a huge part of culture. It’s called being civilized. This concept is not confusing except to the 23% of Americans who identify as feminists. Most school teachers and administrators are women. They just want a non-disruptive learning environment where at least a few hours of the day kids aren’t being sexualized. Yes, they sometimes make the wrong call. That makes them human. Not Stepford Wives.

          • purrtriarchy

            Modesty and purity culture objectify women. Nothing that those girls were wearing was offensive.

            The problem with your kind of thinking is that it reduces woman to mere body parts. The argument that you just made could be applied to showing too much ankle. Oh no, the s1ut showed an ankle, and all the boys are going to be distracted now, quick, stone her to death for immodesty.

            How Taliban of you, really. A burka is a necessary part of culture. Its called being civilized!

            P.s. I can also tell that you are a racist, classist piece of shit, by the implication that any indigenous culture that does not fully clothe their women is somehow ‘uncivilized’.

          • CJinPA

            Whaaaa? I said many times that I didn’t find the photos to be offensive. I defended the school’s right to be wrong, and certainly to be free of harassment by distant feminists.
            Are you trying to sound as irrational as you can? So if a school doesn’t let a student wear a bikini to class, it’s just as indefensible as coming to class with an exposed ankle?? You can’t possibly mean this. One does not lead to the other.
            Of course you resort the WMD of choice by people who can’t have a rational debate: the race card. I’m racist because I note that civilized societies value modesty. Each culture can set their own standards for modesty, but they have standards. You argue for none, a notion that every culture on the globe would reject.

          • purrtriarchy

            Modesty is a huge part of culture. It’s called being civilized. This
            concept is not confusing except to the 23% of Americans who identify as
            feminists.

            and what is considered ‘modest’ is purely relative

            as I said, there are muslim leaders who would argue the same thing, that feminist s1uts dare to show their eyes, and that this is uncivilized, because men cannot control themselves

            and yes, your entire stance is RACIST because you are associating the state of being clothed with a superior state of being. That without clothing, people are ‘uncivilized’ ‘savages’. Which is patently bullshit.

          • CJinPA

            Yes, it’s relative. A school in Utah can set its own standards. Western Culture can set its standards. Whatever naked society you keep referring to can set THEIR standards. See how it works? But a society WILL set standards. If they offend you – tough. Dress the way you want.
            Again, your attempt to link school dress codes to the Taliban only makes sense to a fellow feminist. I take it you think students should be allowed to wear bikinis to class?

          • purrtriarchy

            Modesty = civilization was the original point you made. Stop trying to worm out of it. It’s ridiculous. Modesty has fuck all to do with how ‘civilized’ or ‘not civilized’ a particular culture is. FFS.

          • CJinPA

            Ha. You’re blind to your liberal racism. “Look at those people, they have no modesty and they seem quite happy.”
            Yes or No: Students should be allowed to wear bikinis to class.

          • purrtriarchy

            Nice try but no cigar.

            The indigenous tribes don’t fetishize the female body the way you and your ilk do. They live in egalitarian cultures, where men and women are equal, and women aren’t viewed as mere sexual objects that must be covered lest they force men to stumble with their wicked s1utty ways. It is modesty and purity culture that fetishizes women, and surprise surprise, these are the very cultures that view women as *property*.

            And no, students should not be allowed to wear bikinis to class, but it has nothing to do with modesty, its for the same reason that people shouldn’t be walking around barefoot and bare chested in a restaurant- hygiene. However, if class is on a beach, I see no problem with bare chests and bikinis.

          • CJinPA

            The reason for school dress codes is to avoid disruption. (It’s literally the meaning given in most dress code policies.) It’s to provide a zone where kids can be kids and just focus on learning. It reflects reality. It is about the children; it’s not just another field of battle in the never ending Feminist War on Everything. If you think there is a dangerous shortage in sexualized teen clothing, or not nearly enough teen bodies carved up with tattoos that they’ll regret when they mature, or a stifling attention to learning and not enough on the pop industry’s latest edicts on what to wear…keep on being outraged.
            And thanks for answering the bikini question. I should have asked that first and saved us a lot of time.

          • lady_black

            This school is not using dress codes to “avoid disruption.” Unless a dress code is UNIFORMLY ENFORCED, it becomes less a “code” and more a form of gas-lighting females. If sleeveless shirts are wrong, then they are wrong for EVERYONE, including males. Even worse is singling out “a few” girls for different and degrading treatment while allowing others to get away with the same “infraction.” That’s classic, mentally abusive “gas-lighting.” That term refers to tactics designed to make people doubt their own perceptions, in case you didn’t know. And coloring over a girl’s body in a photo to obscure some innocuous tattoo (regardless of how you feel about tattoos) while printing a photo of a male classmate wearing a T-shirt that says “You Suck” also falls under the classic gas-lighting technique. This isn’t about wearing a bikini to school. Nobody was doing that. This is about the alteration of women’s bodies to portray them as more “acceptable” to the viewer. That’s wrong in itself. Doing it in a hit and miss fashion is even worse, as in “It’s ok for you, but NOT for that other person over there.”

          • CJinPA

            I was pretty clear that I don’t agree with altering these photos. So I won’t keep repeating it.
            My defense was of school dress codes themselves, and the right of each school to set their standards. School district dress codes usually include the words “to prevent disruptions.” That is the purpose of them. There is no psychological warfare going on here, for goodness sakes. Just sloppy application of a legitimate policy.

          • lady_black

            If you have a “policy” that is being “sloppily applied” then it isn’t a “legitimate policy.” Such a policy needs to be re-thought.

          • CJinPA

            Come on. EVERY policy can be applied poorly, that doesn’t call into question every policy. But they have to do a better job than this school did, absolutely.

          • lady_black

            If a policy is being “poorly applied” then it’s not a policy. It’s abuse, and yes it ought to be called into question. This is in fact a classic defense of abusive “policies.” “It’s not about that, really. It’s just being ‘poorly applied’.” If the net result is abusive, then that becomes what is intended.

          • CJinPA

            So you are now saying dress codes should be abolished? Based on ONE school poorly applying the policy in ONE instance? If you don’t want codes of dress for children just say so; it would explain the reaction by folks around here. Lots of people think kids should wear whatever they want to school. If you believe that, fine, but just admit it. I think most teachers and parents see dress codes as logical and helpful.

          • lady_black

            What I want to see, is that any “dress code” specifies uniformity. As in literal uniforms. There is nothing wrong with requiring a school uniform, clearly spelled out. For example: “Navy blue, black, or brown slacks must be worn. Shirts/blouses must be white, button-down, and long or short-sleeved with a collar. A tie, matching the slacks may be worn.” That’s a GOOD dress code. Nothing is left open to interpretation. Where you get into trouble is with subjective terms in dress codes, such as “no shirts featuring disruptive language” and “clothing may not be revealing.” Either you are going to require a specific uniform, or not. Fuzzy language is not a good policy, and only leads to problems. What is “disruptive” or “revealing” is too subjective and leads to unnecessary humiliation of students.

          • CJinPA

            I agree it’s difficult and can be subjective. I’m not ready to concede that our society so divided that we can’t agree on what kids should not wear to school. And to be clear, there are usually measurements involved, it’s not as fuzzy as “not revealing.” A lot of it is common sense, and the vast majority of parents impose their own dress code before the school has to. It works in hundreds of thousands of schools day in and day out. But this was definitely a screwup by this school.

          • lady_black

            To the contrary, many school districts (including quite a few around my area) have realized the inherent error of trying to enforce subjective dress codes and have gone to a uniform policy. Putting in “specific measurements” is also troublesome, as human beings are not uniformly sized, and the same length skirt that might be deemed “too short” for one person isn’t on another. That’s where school uniforms come in. Everyone wears exactly the same clothing style. I believe you are surprised that I am in favor of school uniform policies, rather than “dress codes” and are putting up a weak defense out of your shock that I don’t believe kids should wear “anything they want” which is a ridiculous position. But when you can’t get a group of adults on the same page as to what “acceptable office attire” is, then the problem is with your policy, and not with how people interpret it. I’m in favor of leaving as little to the imagination as possible.

          • CJinPA

            I am not “shocked” by your view. I appreciate it.My point is that it is not contrary to my point at all. Uniforms make the dress
            code easier, but it’s still a dress code. (Note that measurements in my district are “X inches from the knee” etc. So all body sizes are accommodated.
            It’s really not controversial.) My defense of dress codes is that they work.
            There are close to 130,000 schools in America, and one incident at one of those 130,000 schools is poor sample size to draw a conclusion about dress codes. I
            refuse to concede that adults can’t agree on general guidelines, because we obviously can. Plus I think it’s healthy when the school community stands up to the pop culture industry and says, “Nope. They’re not wearing that. Not here.”
            Adults have otherwise sacrificed kids to whatever the popular culture is selling.

          • lady_black

            And if everyone wears slacks, there is no need to waste a lot of time measuring people’s knees. That’s just DUMB.

          • CJinPA

            Here’s the thing, of those 130,000 schools at least 100,000 have dress codes. Multiply that by the number of students, parents, teachers and administrators, and you have millions of Americans who have basically agreed on general clothing guidelines, and follow them day in and day out without trouble, Without notice, really. There’s rarely a need to measure, because people use common sense and common decency. This shouldn’t be a point of irritation. It’s what America is about: local citizens entering into millions of little agreements without the need for wholesale bans or government intervention. It’s not perfect, but it’s what free people do.

          • purrtriarchy

            School district dress codes usually include the words “to prevent disruptions.

            So since the dress code was not applied uniformly, are you saying that some girls were more ‘disruptive’ than others? That they were more naturally s1utty or something?

          • purrtriarchy

            So the girls who were singled out were more disruptive than others who were dressing the exact same way? Is that its? yes or no?

            And thanks for answering the bikini question. I should have asked that first and saved us a lot of time.

            Are nudists uncivilized because they like to walk around with no clothes? Are theocracies that keep women locked in the house, and if they do go out, covered head to toe in a tent, more civilized than said nudists?

          • CJinPA

            I don’t know why some students were singled out. You don’t either. Unless I missed it, the article doesn’t say. It seems like the people who called them out did a poor job of being consistent. What other explanation could there be?
            Nudists do their thing on private and/or designate property, so no that’s not uncivilized. They are recognizing the need to restrict their practice. No, the treatment of women in strict Muslim societies is not civilized. Fortunately, holding women hostage has shown to be NOT NECESSARY in the 99.99999% of nations that value basic decorum and modesty.

          • purrtriarchy

            No, the treatment of women in strict Muslim societies is not civilized.

            why not? they value modesty! Especially in public places so the women don’t ‘disrupt’ the men!

          • CJinPA

            Why not? Um, maybe it’s the denial of education. Or the rape. Or death for adultery. Or forced marriage. Or child rape.
            But yes, go ahead and claim that school dress codes are worth mentioning in the same breath as you repeatedly have. The lengths Western feminists will go to claim victimhood is appalling. #FirstWorldProblems #ItsNotAboutYou

          • fiona64

            I’ll be over here, patiently waiting while you learn the difference between Turkey and Afghanistan.

          • fiona64

            Yes or No: Students should be allowed to wear bikinis to class.

            Which class?

          • purrtriarchy

            And I can’t help but notice that you focus exclusively on female modesty and those evil feminists, who dare to challenge it. Of course. Because only women are sexual objects. A man can wear short shorts and not be accused of being a s1ut, or of causing others to ‘stumble’ but suddenly a woman does it and she is guilty of destroying civilization. Because of course, civilization = female modesty, in your universe.

            Your attitude objectifies women. Just in a different way. It treats them as sexual objects that must be covered up. If anything, it draws even MORE attention to female sexuality, as the female body is suddenly something that is ‘forbidden’, nee evil, since, as you keep stating, immodesty = the end of civilization.

          • CJinPA

            School dress codes are gender neutral. Boys can’t wear short shorts either. If it is unevenly applied, that’s another matter. But no one is trying to use dress codes to oppress girls. If they were, it isn’t working, as boys have been dropping behind academically for years, with seemingly little notice or care.

          • purrtriarchy

            Actually, boys have been allowed to wear short shorts, while the girls were singled out. And as LB said, the boy was allowed to wear a ‘you suck’ t-shirt, while certain girls were penalized.

          • CJinPA

            Where does it say boys wear short-shorts? Were there girls that wore “you suck” shirts that were called out? The shirt is obviously not appropriate for any student.

          • purrtriarchy

            Here is another story:

            https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/parenting/lindsey-stocker-dress-code-shorts-beaconsfield-high-school-quebec-canada-153056456.html?vp=1

            The dress codes are applied to girls..but not to boys.

            And the misogynist principal even had this to say:

            “””When I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and
            boys, he said that boys ‘misbehave more’ and are ‘outgoing.’ He said
            that girls are ‘reserved.’””

            “”They don’t really care what guys wear. They just kind of target the girls first.”””

            ^because guys aren’t sexual objects you see, only girls.

          • CJinPA

            OK, so now we’re searching the globe for stories to support
            your complaint…
            **According to Los Angeles-based child psychologist Fran
            Walfish, PsyD, prohibiting young girls from wearing especially short shorts is appropriate, especially if dress codes for boys are equally enforced. And while it’s admirable that Lindsey challenged what she feels are archaic gender rules,
            her actions may not be effective. “She could have written the school a respectful letter explaining her stance instead of speaking to the media,” Walfish tells Yahoo Shine.**

            So, it’s appropriate. There is NO evidence it was not
            equally enforced. And the complaint was registered by a disrespectful drama queen trying to impose her view on the vast majority of students who just want to learn in peace. (You expect anyone to believe she developed that view on her own, when it’s clearly a regurgitation of feminist rhetoric drilled into her by an exploitive adult? Please.)

            (p.s. Look at rates for discipline. Boys do act up more. Go
            tell a teacher it’s not true and watch her roll her eyes at you.)

          • Renee Goodwin

            Bingo, the burka concept is exactly what the Photoshopping was about

          • fiona64

            Modesty is a huge part of culture. It’s called being civilized.

            So, the “Wasatch Studs” page, showing shirtless, tattooed male youths flipping off the camera was okay (after all, that was allowed in the yearbook), but bare shoulders are immodest?

            A tank top is “uncivilized”?

            Give me a goddamned break.

          • CJinPA

            What on earth are you ranting about? I said I didn’t have a problem with the photos as they were.

          • fiona64

            You were the dumbass who said that “Modesty is a huge part of culture. It’s called being civilized.” So, perhaps you should ask yourself what YOU are ranting about. There was nothing “immodest” about those photos … except to some Mormon control freak in a photo lab.

          • Renee Goodwin

            I think it wasn’t just the photo lab, I got the feeling the school endorsed it or was complicit/instrumental in causing the photos to be modified. I had read about this on another website that was a little more in depth and the quotes from the school’s administration led me to believe that was the school’s choice to have the photos modified

          • fiona64

            It’s part and parcel of rape culture: someone else making a decision about these girls’ bodies I’m sorry that you are unable to see that.

          • CJinPA

            The term “rape culture” is especially appalling when we’re seeing headlines about how women and girls are treated in countries with actual rape cultures. #FirstWordProblems

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry that you’re not bright enough to understand how so-called “modesty culture” is contributing to rape culture by objectifying women … and that we have a rape culture in this country.

          • CJinPA

            Read world news. And then don’t ever write such nonsense again.

          • fiona64

            You can go straight to Hades.

            No love, a sexual assault survivor.

        • lady_black

          No, actually they AREN’T allowed to censor the same styles on different girls.

          • CJinPA

            You mean, legally not allowed. As in, call in the lawyers and haul them to court?

          • lady_black

            Yes, legally not allowed. You apparently have no idea how it feels to be singled out for disparate treatment. Nobody said it was “a crime.” It wasn’t right, and as it was pointed out, it extended to “some” girls being sent home to change clothes while other girls wearing the same styles were not singled out for humiliation at this high school. If it had been my daughter, I would be PISSED OFF big time. There’s something really skeevy about having someone draw different clothes on your body because (in their tiny little minds) your own clothes don’t make the cut. Just another way of gas-lighting girls. Good practice for when they have to deal with sexism all their lives, I guess.

    • fiona64

      This was a Mormon photographer enforcing Mormon standards of modesty on students’ photographs … students who may or may not have been Mormon. It’s quite obvious, if you know anything about temple garments and what areas of the body they cover.

      The students’ photographs were used on their school IDs without a problem from the school … but they were altered in the photo studio for the yearbook. The SCHOOL did not do this; one individual did.

      • CJinPA

        Where does the article mention Mormons? The school has the right to alter the photos but not an outside photographer.

        • fiona64

          You clearly know nothing about Utah and how entwined the Mormon culture is there … or about Mormon “modesty standards” for young women. Young women are taught that the sight of a bare shoulder will so inflame a young man that he will be unable to control himself. Furthermore, they added sleeves to female *angels* in a Carl Boch painting (and removed their wings) so that the angels would be modest enough. Here are a few places to remedy this gap in your education:

          http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/06/05/mormon-shoulder-war-whats-stake/

          http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58028697-180/modesty-lds-magazines-mormon.html.csp

          http://durangoherald.com/article/20140606/LIFESTYLE06/140609660/0/Lifestyle02/Does-modesty-mantra-harm-women

          http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54142351-180/bloch-church-angels-modesty.html.csp

          You’re welcome.

          • CJinPA

            LOL….Yes we all know there are lots of Mormons in Utah. You said that this was not done by the school but by the photographer, which was not referenced in any of the above information. Then you posted links that don’t address who actually altered the photos (in fact most are not even about this case.)
            Let’s recap:
            * I said the photos looked fine to me as is, but the school has a right to impose its own standards. Both opinions stand.
            * I said modesty is a key facet of civilized behavior. This is not controversial outside of the 23% of Americans who call themselves “feminists.”
            * The concept of modesty predates Mormonism by centuries.
            * There are 130,000 K-12 schools in the U.S. Almost every one has a dress code. Enforced, disproportionately, by female administrators. Tell them they are part of the “rape culture.” I dare you.
            The spectacle of entitled Western feminists trying so desperately to siphon off sympathy from actual victims of oppression worldwide is truly sickening.

          • fiona64

            It’s really not my fault that you are too stupid to understand facts when they are presented to you. You are misogynistic rape apologist … nothing more, nothing less.

            What’s truly sickening is that you think that your own contribution to rape culture … by pretending that it doesn’t exist … is somehow righteous.

            Casse-toi. Tu as perdu.

          • CJinPA

            Ha. If we edited out your histrionics and insults, your posts are nothing but disjointed claims. Anything that came close to being a fact, I demonstrated was not relevant.
            I’ll admit it’s sometimes entertaining to watch a commenter completely lose their grip. But it can be troubling too – Like telling a cashier she gave you the wrong change and having her suddenly shriek “Murderer!!” It’s uncomfortable for those who witness the disproportional response. I really didn’t come here to pick fights. I wanted to test the strength of the claims being made. Task accomplished.

            Quick Tip: simply adding the word “culture” to a specific
            crime does not make it a Super-Claim in which everything you don’t like about society – such as the inability of kids to go to school in their underwear – can be logically labeled as a cause of the crime.

          • fiona64

            Thanks for demonstrating once again your total ignorance of reality in this country. Here is a good place to start rectifying that unfortunate gap in your education:
            http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/rapeculture.html

            You’re welcome.

          • CJinPA

            Another Tip: If your aim is show how smart you are, in the most condescending way possible, do not go within 100 miles of a loon who shrieks: “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”
            Or belches: ”Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior” and is ”the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women.”
            Again, you can’t simply take a problem that has plagued every gendered species that ever existed, blame it on whatever modern cultural trend doesn’t fit your politics, and expect to be taken seriously.
            So how do we bring our discussion to a mature conclusion? Agree that I’m “pro-rape” and you’re…what’s the equivalent…“pro-castration?” That doesn’t feel mature.

          • fiona64

            Thanks, once again, for proving my point.

            Good day to you, MCP.

          • CJinPA

            Sorry we couldn’t bridge our differences.

            Your passion is a credit to your cause.