High school girl sent to office and told to put band aids on her nipples

[cabanafrau]

Because you took it has they have to have it made to be revealing but not show too much. That isn’t what I meant. I meant that it can’t show as much as you think it does. It has to have enough coverage to not risk showing more than desired.

Please don't attempt to tell me how I took it. It is rude -- as well as incorrect. I have explained precisely my thoughts on the matter and don't feel it is yours, or anyone's, place to explain my thoughts but mine.

You made the original, unsolicited, statement. No one was discussing wrestling uniforms at all. You phrased your statement as you chose to convey information. The plain language of your statement is clear. I bear no responsibility for information you chose to contribute to the conversation. I asked very plainly and directly about your words several times. Since there was concern about your words being twisted I was very careful not to do so. I said nothing negative about you personally or your daughter, nothing at all. I was told I misunderstand, I was making up conspiracies and I was working to serve an "agenda". I was discussing thoughts and ideas.

I very plainly stated what I believe about the idea that the uniforms of the females being designed to make you think you see more than you actually do. Feel free to disagree with me. Bottom line, you very specifically introduced that information into this conversation. I can't help with your discomfort at me taking you at your word. I will ask that you do not attempt to tell me how I think or what I said. I spelled it out myself quite clearly in post #577 above.

 

[luvsJack]

I was asked a direct question and I answered it. You inserted yourself into that conversation.

I know what I meant and it had nothing to do with anyone being required to look more revealing. It has to do with being required to be covered and still be able to move in the ring. I answered you and you kept digging. So I wasn’t sure if you meant they should be able to not be covered or what.

You or maybe it was the other poster, stated that I don’t even recognize bias in my dd’s “sport”. And it’s not a bias. No one is making anyone dress a certain way and you don’t seem to be willing to accept that answer.

I explained why it looks more revealing than it is and that still doesn’t satisfy you. So now it’s that I changed my statement. No I didn’t. It LOOKS more revealing than it is.

You seem to have a dancer. Many dance costumes look very revealing but I know from my great niece that it’s just an appearance so why is that?

 

[cabanafrau]

I was asked a direct question and I answered it. You inserted yourself into that conversation.

I know what I meant and it had nothing to do with anyone being required to look more revealing. It has to do with being required to be covered and still be able to move in the ring. I answered you and you kept digging. So I wasn’t sure if you meant they should be able to not be covered or what.

You or maybe it was the other poster, stated that I don’t even recognize bias in my dd’s “sport”. And it’s not a bias. No one is making anyone dress a certain way and you don’t seem to be willing to accept that answer.

I explained why it looks more revealing than it is and that still doesn’t satisfy you. So now it’s that I changed my statement. No I didn’t. It LOOKS more revealing than it is.

You seem to have a dancer. Many dance costumes look very revealing but I know from my great niece that it’s just an appearance so why is that?

I inserted myself into that conversation? On a discussion board?

Both of my daughters danced for many years, yes, I slogged through a lot of years as a dance mom. Now I'm to explain what your great niece has told you? Surely that would be inserting myself into a conversation, no?

If you're asking about my daughters' dance costumes, none of the costumes where I participated in any of the concept and planning discussions for included any attempt to make the audience think they were seeing more than they thought they were. Instead the focus was on character and mood of the dance being presented, whether or not any of the embellishment would cause issues with movement or become in disarray because of the choreography -- and how we could most affordably achieve the look desired without breaking the bank or make production of the costumes take more than the time we had available. Covering backsides and accounting for any dancers who needed to wear supportive foundational garments beyond the standard was something considered whether a costume was being custom designed, ordered of the shelf from a manufacturer, or modified from an off the shelf costume. Never once was there any discussion about how it might be possible to make the audience think they were seeing more than they actually were. If that had ever been put forth as a consideration I certainly wouldn't have been shy about inquiring why the audience needed to think they were seeing more than they were, nor making my thoughts about exactly why that idea has nothing to do with what the dance is meant to express. One of my daughters danced in routines where the look was meant to evoke a Busby Berkley-style showgirl, another time the French Quarter of New Orleans and yet another time the Cell Block Tango from Chicago. None of those included ideas of how to make the audience see more than they actually were. All were designed with the idea to inform the audience at first glance the character they were bringing to the stage. For each of those the primary thought ended up being -- how can we reinforce all of these feathers so they don't fly off and make dancers slip and fall?

I'm at a disadvantage to explain the thought behind your great niece's dance costumes. Perhaps she might be able to answer your questions better?

 

[luvsJack]

I inserted myself into that conversation? On a discussion board?

Both of my daughters danced for many years, yes, I slogged through a lot of years as a dance mom. Now I'm to explain what your great niece has told you? Surely that would be inserting myself into a conversation, no?

If you're asking about my daughters' dance costumes, none of the costumes where I participated in any of the concept and planning discussions for included any attempt to make the audience think they were seeing more than they thought they were. Instead the focus was on character and mood of the dance being presented, whether or not any of the embellishment would cause issues with movement or become in disarray because of the choreography -- and how we could most affordably achieve the look desired without breaking the bank or make production of the costumes take more than the time we had available. Covering backsides and accounting for any dancers who needed to wear supportive foundational garments beyond the standard was something considered whether a costume was being custom designed, ordered of the shelf from a manufacturer, or modified from an off the shelf costume. Never once was there any discussion about how it might be possible to make the audience think they were seeing more than they actually were. If that had ever been put forth as a consideration I certainly wouldn't have been shy about inquiring why the audience needed to think they were seeing more than they were, nor making my thoughts about exactly why that idea has nothing to do with what the dance is meant to express. One of my daughters danced in routines where the look was meant to evoke a Busby Berkley-style showgirl, another time the French Quarter of New Orleans and yet another time the Cell Block Tango from Chicago. None of those included ideas of how to make the audience see more than they actually were. All were designed with the idea to inform the audience at first glance the character they were bringing to the stage. For each of those the primary thought ended up being -- how can we reinforce all of these feathers so they don't fly off and make dancers slip and fall?

I'm at a disadvantage to explain the thought behind your great niece's dance costumes. Perhaps she might be able to answer your questions better?

Good Heaven's no I do not expect you to explain anything she told me. I know from SEEING her costumes on stage and up close. I meant I know that the dancer's costumes may look revealing but honestly are not. There are panels put in the top, for instance. Or feathers attached at strategic spots.

Heck wedding and prom dresses can be the same way. Dd fell in love with a dress that looks like it has no back and very little front. It looks like it is all see through lace, in reality its mostly skin toned material with lace on top. (fell in love with it online, in person, if your skin isn't an exact match for the panels its rather ugly)

And all that description would be the same with what dd wears . No one discusses it. It just is. Its not like her and the seamstress sit down and say "well lets figure out how to make them think they are seeing your backside when they really aren't". Not even close. DD says she wants short tights, for instance. The seamstress makes them and makes the bottom of the leg fit well so that it doesn't ride up. If the top dd picks is low cut, she will ask dd "do you want a panel or no". DD would probably have it put in, if not, then it has to fit precisely so that it doesn't move up or down at dd's movement. Same with the other women.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Just pulling this up out of curiousity, since it is, yes, still on the front page.

 

[kimmar067]

If being sent to the office wasn't bad enough, she was supposed to put on a second shirt and then "jiggle" for the dean to see if she was covered enough and wouldn't "distract the boys."

....ewwwwww....wrong on SOOOOOO many levels.