Well is it considered a hug to you if you put your arm on someones shoulder? Because that’s what she did…
I don’t know, if I was a teacher and there was a rule that said, “No hugging,” and someone put their arm around there friends shoulder for less than 3 seconds I don’t think i’d give them detention.
Mwahahahaha!
Apparently this “hugging” incident occurred at a school out here in CO the other day. A girl complained that a classmate hugged her “too long” and felt like she was being harassed. Uh, if you don’t want someone touching you, wouldn’t you just push him/her off you and say ‘Get the f’ off of me!'?
So, now the school board has come up with rules about hugging. Seriously.
Such a sad state of affairs. I think we’re going to grow up with a nation full of unibombers b/c everyone will be anti-social due to too many rules and regulations for socializing.
It is simple if you have reasonable standards of conduct enforced by reasonable people. Unfortunately unreasonable people tend to screw things up and the reasonable people finally give up.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is simple if you have reasonable standards of conduct enforced by reasonable people. Unfortunately unreasonable people tend to screw things up and the reasonable people finally give up.[/quote]
Exactly.
My school (and probably most) never had rules prohibiting dry-humping or BJs by the lockers, but we had teachers and administrators who knew when to ignore (i.e. hugging, etc) and when to tell kids they were being indecent. As long as the people in charge aren’t idiots or CYA types, trusting their judgement should work.
I live about 20 miles away and have friends with kids in the district.
Apparently the football team made enough of an issue of it that now the only approved place to hug another student is on the football field during or immediately after a game.
According to our friends who have a daughter playing varsity volleyball that team is planning to protest the fact that they’re not allowed to celebrate a victory. As I understand it, the girls are planning a group hug at the end of every win. Based on the current policy, the entire team will get detention and have to sit out the next game.
Would it really have been so hard to use a little common sense???
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CCFan wrote:
I live about 20 miles away and have friends with kids in the district.
Apparently the football team made enough of an issue of it that now the only approved place to hug another student is on the football field during or immediately after a game.
According to our friends who have a daughter playing varsity volleyball that team is planning to protest the fact that they’re not allowed to celebrate a victory. As I understand it, the girls are planning a group hug at the end of every win. Based on the current policy, the entire team will get detention and have to sit out the next game.
Would it really have been so hard to use a little common sense???
It’s easy for you and some of the others to say “use a little comnon sense” but again, it’s not as easy as you may think. It takes common sense, but far more than that as well, believe it or not.
Please, I’d like to see you, or some of the others actually write the no hugging rule right now, use any variation that you feel is needed.
Hey…maybe you can do it…
I’d love to read it. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even write a no hugging rule in the first place. Just the fact that the rule exists is fucking stupid in my book, and just shows how dysfunctional our society has become.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Can you imagine the things that the school staff, security and administration had been witness to in order to institute such a rule?
[/quote]
In all likelihood, there was nothing seen and the policies were written out of a “best practise” guideline set down by a governing body, most of the members of which, probably have no kids or are so anal and PC they couldn’t find their dicks with both hands.
Either that or the things that were seen that prompted the rule would have been a couple of kids kissing or hugging and some idiot thought “Oh my god, we’ve got to stop this, they’ll be having orgies at lunch time and fucking each others asses with dildos at break”.
My school (alright it was many years ago) had no such policies and strangely enough we always kept the orgies and ass fucking for after school.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CCFan wrote:
I live about 20 miles away and have friends with kids in the district.
Apparently the football team made enough of an issue of it that now the only approved place to hug another student is on the football field during or immediately after a game.
According to our friends who have a daughter playing varsity volleyball that team is planning to protest the fact that they’re not allowed to celebrate a victory. As I understand it, the girls are planning a group hug at the end of every win. Based on the current policy, the entire team will get detention and have to sit out the next game.
Would it really have been so hard to use a little common sense???
It’s easy for you and some of the others to say “use a little comnon sense” but again, it’s not as easy as you may think. It takes common sense, but far more than that as well, believe it or not.
Please, I’d like to see you, or some of the others actually write the no hugging rule right now, use any variation that you feel is needed.
Hey…maybe you can do it…
I’d love to read it.
I wouldn’t even write a no hugging rule in the first place. Just the fact that the rule exists is fucking stupid in my book, and just shows how dysfunctional our society has become.
Well, I agree that our society has become dysfunctional, but it’s because our society is dysfunctional that we need such rules.
Can you imagine the things that the school staff, security and administration had been witness to in order to institute such a rule?
I bet that they didn’t want it anymore than the kids wanted it. But as one of my brothers who is a teacher has said, it gets worse in almost every way every year.
So…what do you do…let the animals run the zoo?
[/quote]
It’s the kind of thinking like yours that makes things worse.
Hasn’t it been learned that the longer you suppress something, the stronger it becomes until it manifests itself in other ways?
Instituting such rules does NOT stop the kids from having sex. If they’re going to have sex at school they WILL find some way or place to do it. If they’re going to have sex on school grounds they won’t do it in public anyway.
The only thing such a rule would do, in regards to sex at school, is INCREASE the sexual tension. Making touching each other in any affectionate way in public forbidden fruit will only make their desires stronger. Eventually these desires will manifest in even more deviant ways than what was going on in the first place.
This lesson has been learned over and over again, yet stupid people still keep making the same mistakes. Catholic priests suppress their sexuality for a lifetime, and what happens? They become pedophiles of young boys. Why? Because they are trying to recapture the sexuality of their own youth that they have been suppressing all their lives. By having sex with young boys they are trying to get back in touch with the sexual young boy within them that they never allowed full expression. There are plenty more examples of what I am saying, but that is one of the strongest and more common ones.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
It’s the kind of thinking like yours that makes things worse.
Hasn’t it been learned that the longer you suppress something, the stronger it becomes until it manifests itself in other ways?
Instituting such rules does NOT stop the kids from having sex. If they’re going to have sex at school they WILL find some way or place to do it. If they’re going to have sex on school grounds they won’t do it in public anyway.
The only thing such a rule would do, in regards to sex at school, is INCREASE the sexual tension. Making touching each other in any affectionate way in public forbidden fruit will only make their desires stronger. Eventually these desires will manifest in even more deviant ways than what was going on in the first place.
This lesson has been learned over and over again, yet stupid people still keep making the same mistakes. Catholic priests suppress their sexuality for a lifetime, and what happens? They become pedophiles of young boys. Why? Because they are trying to recapture the sexuality of their own youth that they have been suppressing all their lives. By having sex with young boys they are trying to get back in touch with the sexual young boy within them that they never allowed full expression. There are plenty more examples of what I am saying, but that is one of the strongest and more common ones.[/quote]
fucking word jb. You have been the voice of reason on many threads but bro you just outdid yourself here.
Eh, you’re acting like a wanker Mick. Your arguments are so full of straw men that they don’t hold any water at all.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
What thinking is that? Rules? Following them? Um…no groping in the hallway?[/quote]
The kind of thinking I was talking about was the narrow-minded, regulated, “more rules and punishment are the solution to any problem” type of mentality. Obviously they have done a good job with you when you were a youth, so now you’re spitting out the same kind of bullshit that you were conditioned to believe in.
Rules? Following them? Of course there has to be some sense of morals within us, but it doesn’t mean just blindly following or enforcing rules just because some dickhead in a suit wrote them on paper.
[quote]JB:Hasn’t it been learned that the longer you suppress something, the stronger it becomes until it manifests itself in other ways?
Mick28:
Wow…would you care to elaborate on that?
You think all this bottled up suppression of sex is going to make these kids start humping mop buckets in the janitors closet?
Oh man that would suck…especially for the janitors. They have to use that equipment.
[/quote]
Straw man - using a ridiculous example to try and nullify my argument.
I elaborated on it with the priest example, but obviously you were too dumb to comprehend it. Suppression produces a pervasive boredom, a void, and what fills that void can be pretty much anything - in many cases, violence or other deviance. Or it can produce lifetime dysfunction in relationships and lack of respect or knowledge about the other sex.
[quote]JB:
Instituting such rules does NOT stop the kids from having sex. If they’re going to have sex at school they WILL find some way or place to do it. If they’re going to have sex on school grounds they won’t do it in public anyway.
Mick28:
Oh then it’s okay if the hide and do it in the Gym when no one is using it- Hey they could put up an “Do Not Disturb” sign like the kind hotels hand out.
Okay back to reality…
[/quote]
Another straw man with ridiculous example. I didn’t say it was okay to hide and do it in the gym or anywhere else.
I said that banning public displays of affection will not stop them from having sex at school. If they were doing it before the ban, they will still be doing it after. Don’t you know the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE?
How would banning public affection stop them from hiding somewhere to do it? The fact that the students DO hide somewhere to do it shows that this kind of thing happens behind the scenes and not in public. Sure, administration may ban public affection, but what goes on behind closed doors or even in the bushes can still go on unless they install surveillance systems everywhere.
Another straw man. Do those rules STOP smoking, fighting or harassment on school grounds? No. But those are destructive activities and there are clear cut reasons for them being banned. You are thoroughly incorrect to equate destructive activities to harmless, vital social bonding activities.
The only thing a rule discourages and make less possible is the activity itself that is not allowed. How does mild public affection such as hand holding, hugging or a peck on the cheek lead to full-blown torrid sex? Sex on school grounds is already a no-no, so banning PDAs only bans PDAs themselves.
Do you think it’s a gateway activity or something that will lead to a slippery slope?
Straw man yet again. I wasn’t talking about your feelings about the matter, yet you choose to use an ironic, smart-ass comment that has nothing to do with what I was actually saying. But it does show that you have no regard for the needs of youth - you even referred to them as “animals” that could “run the zoo”.
You can’t grasp it because you obviously don’t have the intellectual capacity to do so.
Here’s my theory - you think in terms of straw men, so since my comparison was NOT a straw man argument, you were unable to understand it.
[quote]
As for schools they need rules. And if the kids don’t obey the rules they get suspended or expelled, or whatever the school administration thinks appropriate.
As to the no hugging rule as I said it does sound nutty to me. But I wonder what happened in that school BEFORE this rule was instituted. You and I don’t have the answer to that question. We can rant and rave about how dumb the rule is, but none of us have even read it.[/quote]
Uh, duhhh…I posted the rule exactly as it was written, on the very first page of this thread.
It doesn’t take a far stretch of the imagination to come up with an idea of “what happened” - if anything happened at all. There is no clear grounds for you to say that something happened without a doubt. If you’d read the policy correctly before posting your drivel, you would see that the reason they banned it was because they see it as bad taste - i.e. some kind of visual pollution that brings discredit to the school. Which is a ridiculous reason.
I’m not arguing with that - perhaps there has been a decline in parenting skills.
School rules still don’t replace good parenting.
Yes I do. It was banned because it is considered in bad taste and of discredit to the school. Go back to the OP and read the article, or look at where I posted it.
Fuckin’ ell Mick, I remember you from the hiphop thread…you sure do like to get into lengthy flame wars. It’s just paragraph after paragraph of your silly incoherent shite. Look at how long you made me post…that was a waste of 10 minutes of my life, lol.
Try to be more concise, will you? You ramble on too much.
[quote]Thomas Gabriel wrote:
My elementary school had a room called the “big kids room” for grade 6 students. I used to fool around with girls in there all the time. I don’t think it turned me into a bad person. [/quote]
not unless you were a teacher…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Fuckin’ ell Mick, I remember you from the hiphop thread…you sure do like to get into lengthy flame wars.
I remember you too.
How you been doing?
Good to fight with you again.
Post back…I have a light work week. 
[/quote]
Damn, Mick, I just got off of the Bonds thread, sick of the flame war there, and I come here and…here you are again, lengthy flame war. I thought you were just trying to be the conservative voice in a liberal forum, and I respected that, but you really just ENJOY these flame wars you get yourself into, don’t you? Doc