• Mon, Apr 8 2013

Junior High Bans Slutty Girls From Wearing Tight Pants Because They’re Distracting Young Upstanding Gentleman

shutterstock_113194798Petaluma Junior High School has rolled out a new dress code that is reportedly for the female set only. Teens and tweens have been hereby instructed to leave their skinny jeans and leggings at home, specifically because they’re proving to be distracting to the young men folk. And that, of course, is the problem of everyone’s daughters — not, say, the looky loo boys themselves.

KTUV.com reports that parents and students are rightfully “upset” over being told to modify their dress for male eyes. A school administrator reportedly held a super important Let’s Ban Tight Pants meeting — taken out of class time by the way — and laid out the following nonsense:

At Kenilworth Junior High in Petaluma, a school administrator pulled all the girls aside Thursday afternoon and told them they couldn’t wear pants that were “too tight” because it distracts the boys.

Instead of heading to their last class Thursday, all the female students reported to the multi-use room and when they found out what it was about there was quite an uproar.

And sure, there’s some teens in “an uproar” over having to reduce their trendy wardrobe by a legging or two. But teenage gripes over tossing out some ultra trendy skinny jeans don’t even compare to the deeply problematic notion this sends young female students about their bodies and the gaze of boys:

“We didn’t think it was fair how we have all these restrictions on our clothing while boys didn’t have to sit through it at all,” said Brittany Kruljack, another student.

Some parents were bothered by this because they said it sends the wrong messages to girls. “It is not our girls’ fault that these boys have quote ‘raging hormones’ they can’t control,” said Lisa Simond, a parent of a student.

No joke, Lisa. Translation: you’re a slutty McSlutterson with those tight pants who is distracting all these upstanding dudes with your sluttiness. It’s your fault, your problem, and should be your concern that your male peers can’t concentrate just because of what you decided to wear this morning. Like that’s something you want your impressionable 13-year-old being pulled out of her last class to be told by a bunch of adults.

Assistant principal Kathy Olmstead has reportedly apologized to parents with the following voice message:

“The guiding principle in all dress codes is that the manner in which students dress does not become a distraction in the learning environment, and we get that guidance from the California Education Code. I sincerely apologize that my remarks went farther than the intended message we wanted to deliver.”

But one mom sees the bigger picture:

That’s not the point, says Jerelyn Kruljac, who wore skinny jeans Friday in solidarity with her daughter and her friends. “Boys need to be taught to respect women no matter what they’re wearing, and that’s a big deal.”

Frankly, the whole wandering eyes impacting academic performance is an issue for parents of said young men to concern themselves with. Boys should learn young that the answer to their inability to prioritize school work shouldn’t be “cover up the ladies!”

But if we’re looking to lock down dress codes as a way to secure the concentration of all students, how about including a list of garments male students can no longer wear too?

Yeah, like a school would ever pull out all the male students to lecture them on how wearing tank tops is “distracting” to young ladies.

(photo: Africa Studio / Shutterstock)

Share This Post:
  • Justme

    My school banned the wearing of leggings without long shirts, sweaters or dresses.

    I understand that school dress codes aren’t popular with a lot of people, but our job as educators is to create an environment where the students can learn free from ANY sort of distraction whether it is clothing, hairstyle, disruptive students, etc. Is it exactly like real life? In a sense – at some point in time, these students will go out into the real world and will have dress limitations or expectations placed upon them. Are they always going to be protected from any sort of distraction – obviously not.

    But having said all that, I don’t think the message that the school sent along with the banning of leggings was entirely appropriate.

    And as far as it being “equal” for the genders – boys also can’t sag their jeans, expose their undergarments or wear tank tops at my school.

    • EmmaFromÉire

      I can understand the leggings, because about 99% of the time you can see knickers through them.
      I went to a school with uniforms, and i’m both glad I did, and wish I hadn;t. It saved me from ever worrying about what i’d wear in the morning, and I really liked the uniform. It sounds cliché but there was an awful lot of school pride seeing everyone in their uniform. On the other hand, as soon as I finished school and started college, I realised I literally hadn’t enough clothes to last me. I also had absolutely no skills at putting outfits together!

    • Justme

      Knickers…..love that word.

    • http://www.xojane.com/author/eve Eve Vawter

      We need to use knickers more often, all the time. Let’s do this.

    • Justme

      Much better than panties.

    • EmmaFromÉire

      Dunno if it’s a cultural thing or the word itself, but the word ‘panties’ makes me cringe!

    • Justme

      It’s the word. Just gross. I also hate the word “moist.” Imagine them together – moist panties. Ugh.

    • EmmaFromÉire

      Definitely the preferable term!

    • faifai

      All in favor, say Aye!

  • Tea

    They should have banned skinny jeans on emo boys too, because those were also really distracting.

    Actually, our school did have a policy on “sexually distracting” clothing, which included painted-on pants, but also included showing off your boxers because you haven’t learned what a belt is. Tank tops were also banned, as were tiny shorts for all individuals. Moderation all around.

    That being said, boys will not stop looking. Boys will look if you’re wearing a jean jumper. I remember being one of those boys (Yes, the legally blind guy was still watching swishy butts). However, my strategy was to only briefly and discretely visually appreciate the butt, and move on. I’ve been on the case of several young men in the family that women are not meat, an a nice bottom does not mean that she wants to have sex with you, that she’s into you, that she wants it, that it’s okay to say anything lewd, that it’s okay to disrespect her, and it is seriously NOT okay to photograph that butt and show all your friends. It just means she has a nice bottom. Do not stare at it. A quick glance, appreciate, and move on because this person is not suddenly “yours” because you like her rear.

    And yes, I do say that a quick glance is fine. Women look at men. Women look at other women (persuasion dependent) same with men for men. I know that as soon as I come off as having no interest, I’ve lost them for good as far as having any weight. I really don’t think the “You can’t look” strategy works at all, because I know that it doesn’t work for women either. I remember being that age, but having your testosterone dialed up to 11 doesn’t make you special or suddenly entitled to anything. Glance, appreciate, move on.

    … Why do I always write small novels on this site.

    • EmmaFromÉire

      Totally agree with you about quickly checking people out. I always have and always will be a serious butt fan. I also check out other women, because like any normal human being I can appreciate a well-looked after body. Glance, appreciate, move on.

      I also completely agree with you about the whole ”don’t look thing”. If you can rest your chin in your cleavage, of course i’m going to have a look. If you have an ass that you could bounce coins off, people will check it out. No such thing as the glancing police!

  • chickadee

    I agree with justme–dress codes have reasons and logic behind them. Where this schoil fell on its ass was deciding and saying that girls are responsible for the way boys behave. Totally out of line, and seriously misguided and antiquated thinking.

    • whiteroses

      Yes. In the words of the great Blair Waldorf: “Tights are not pants”. So, you know, minimize the distraction.
      But that doesn’t change the fact that boys and men can sometimes be skeevy no matter what a girl or woman wears- and that just needs to stop.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eryn.stilp Eryn Stilp

    Tweens have no reason to be wearing jeans that look painted on- hell, even teens in high school. “Slutty McSlutterson”? really??
    It’s disturbing how many people think it is okay for YOUNG girls to wear such sexy clothing. for f*ck’s sake.

    • AP

      Skinny jeans are the style nowadays. It’s the “default” style of jeans, and I honestly think it’s weird when I see someone wearing relaxed boot cuts. Some girls tend to go too far in their quest for the perfectly tailored outfit and downsize a size or two, but skinnies are “in” for now.

      As someone whose mom made me wear straight-leg jeans when everyone else was wearing billowing bell-bottoms and JNCOS, I’d never do that to my own kid. Kids need to not stand out too much, unless they are doing so by choice.

    • http://twitter.com/marisasaystweet MarisaSays

      Whereas I think it’s way more disturbing when someone looks at an 11 year-old girl in skinny jeans and immediately puts that image into a sexual context. I think it’s far more troubling how many people think it’s okay for young girls to be held responsible for controlling the “raging hormones” of young men (and adults).

    • http://www.facebook.com/valerisexton.jones Valeri Jones

      I respectfully disagree with your statement.

      Kids want to fit in. They want to feel good about themselves when going to school, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Especially when going to junior high/middle school, where ALL kids can be little jerkfaces and make fun of other kids for the silliest things. Skinny jeans are the thing nowadays. An 11- or 12-year-old girl is far beyond the age where Mommy is picking out all of her clothes, and far be it for me, or you, or anyone else to tell these kids they can’t feel good about themselves by dressing how they want within certain limitations. Skinny jeans and leggings are perfectly acceptable.

      Also? I agree with the other commenters. Boys are gonna look no matter what they wear, and guess what? The girls are gonna check the guys out, too. It goes with the territory for people of all ages, but especially for kids who are going through puberty and have raging hormones. Skinny jeans, shorts, bibbed overalls, school uniform or burlap sack – a nice ass is a nice ass.

  • goldie6

    Newsflash – Boys are distracted by girls and vice/versa whether they’re wearing burlap sacks or skinny jeans. How about an assembly on respecting each other instead?

  • http://twitter.com/marisasaystweet MarisaSays

    “Boys need to be taught to respect women no matter what they’re wearing, and that’s a big deal.” A big resounding YES to the mother who said that.

    I’m not opposed to the idea of a reasonable school dress code. The problem for me in this specific situation is that the girls were pulled out of class and given a female-specific dress code and the boys weren’t given any dress code.

    We will never raise boys who understand that they’re responsible for their own feelings, hormones and actions if we do stuff like this.

  • Gangle

    *sigh* This is why school uniforms are a good idea. I hate that this school told little girls that they were distracting boys because of ‘provocative’ dress. But I get the need for dress standards. I live in a country where every school has a compulsory uniform. It is a great equaliser, is cost-effective and taught school pride and dress standards. Skin tight leggings, low cut or midriff tops, and tank tops were not even allowed on ‘free dress’ day, likewise no offensive slogans on shirts or anything scruffy… sure, I bet some of those rules were to avoid girls and boys showing off their ‘rude’ bits to each other. But mostly it was about pride in yourself, and respect for the school. You know, in the same way I don’t rock up to my job now wearing low rider jeggings and a sleeveless camisole. Not because I think it is slutty and too provocative, but because it is unprofessional.
    Most jobs when you leave school have dress standards that one must comply to if they expect to continue to work there. School isn’t a bad place to start learning that.

    • Andrea

      I think uniforms are the way to go. Where I come from, public schools have a uniform. Know what it is? Looks like a white lab coat. They are cheap and the kids wear them on top of their regular clothes. That way, there is no “extra” expense in buying school clothes, they can be removed when they get home, but at school everyone looks the SAME.

    • Gangles

      That sounds like a really good idea! I grew up in a house that didn’t have lots of extra money floating around, and our family found uniforms cheaper than having to have a set of regular clothes everyday… because there was no stress (for the kid) over not being seen wearing the same shirt all the time, or wearing something cool enough. Having a few changes of uniform was way cheaper than a whole wardrobe of clothes trying to keep up with the latest fad just to fit in.

    • LiteBrite

      Many private schools in America, particularly religious ones, require uniforms. I sometimes wish American public schools would consider the same. It certainly removes the problem of dress codes for both sexes.

    • Justme

      Many public schools (mostly urban and low-income with a high rate of gang involvement) do have uniforms. But I teach in the middle to upper class suburbs and to give them uniforms will squash their snowflake’s specialness. :)

  • Amanda

    This is nothing new. I graduated 2 years ago & we were not allowed to wear tight jeans, yoga pants or leggings. No low cut shirts, either.

  • Makabit

    Boys need to understand that their eyes are going to be drawn, but whether they show it, or let it distract them, is up to them. Banning tight jeans is fine. Telling everyone it’s because the girls will distract the boys isn’t.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.limb Jeffrey Limb

    “Boys need to be taught to respect women no matter what they’re wearing, and that’s a big deal.”

    I am not going to respect a woman when they dress like a slut

    • Duma

      You do realize this article is about kids – teenagers, young women who are wearing “trendy” clothes. I go to the typical department stores, and you know what’s interesting? 90% of the jeans are skinny jeans (which would make it difficult to purchase anything considering the lack of variety). Now, considering they cover one’s ENTIRE body from waist to ankles, explain to me how that would suggest a woman is dressing “like a slut.” Also, your respect? It should not be based on clothes and the superficiality of appearance. Perhaps you should simply respect someone because they are a fellow human being. Slutty clothes don’t make a person less human. But basing who you give your respect to on something like that seems pretty gross and inhuman to me. If a person hasn’t disrespected you, then you should not withhold respect from that person.

      But anyway, thanks for sharing such a gross opinion.

  • ShayL

    This is the problem, and this has always been the problem. First it was women having to cover nearly everything, and now we don’t even have equality when it comes to pants. Apparently, men are complete animals that can’t control themselves, but we’re the ones who have to change? Maybe if boys had an ounce of respect for their fellow female classmates, this wouldn’t be a problem. And even if a female is covering herself in a nice shirt and pants that aren’t tight, she still isn’t respected. What’s the difference? There is none, and this new ruling will change absolutely nothing. Well, except maybe the attitudes in girls because of the lack of gender equality.

  • cierrra dubs

    I think that if there gonna bann tight jeans for girls, they should bann them for boys to, because girls are going to get distracted too. Girls like to look at guys too, tight pants should be banned for everyone if there banned at all. its not fair if girls cant wear tight pants if guys can wear them.

  • Pingback: New Jersey Middle School Employs Absurd Strapless Dress Ban

  • Andrew

    Good for the schools. Kids aren’t in charge and theyve been ego fed and coddled to a rediculous degree. You cant dress in a sexually provacative way, regardless of gender, period end of discussion. Grow a pair and be a parent, maybe then our kids will grow up to replace their spineless parents. Or we can just continue to fade behind most developing nations in the world.

  • linda d.

    i am glad to see that the schools are stepping up and doing something about this!Not only is it the schools,but churches as well.We are catholic and at our parish the girls up to 18 wear the traditional,white,poofy,dress and matching bonnet with either tights or lace socks and white shoes for their sacrement of baptism.the dresses are supposed to be to the top of the knees,but most of the teen girls push the limit and their dresses are midthigh length or even shorter! the majority of the teen girls who were baptized on easter sunday this year looked ridiculas in their short dresses and even a couple of 16 year olds dresses were so short,the bottom of the cloth diaper and plastic pants they wear under the dresses could be seen! the girls who wore the midthigh length dresses when they bent over to get the water on their heads,the back of their dresses went up and their diaper and plastic pants showed! i just couldnt believe teen girls would wear baptism dresses that short.for first communion a month later,all the baptized girls communnion dresses were all just below the knees! last month our parish issued a new policy for girls baptism stating that their baptism dresses must be no shorter than top of the knees or they will not be baptized! it had to come down to this.