Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What the ****?

That's just ****ed up. They took her picture from the yearbook because she wore a tux? WTF?!

Absurd, and ridiculous. Hardly cause to do something as petty as that, just because she wore a tux. And really, unless they had an enforcable dress code to begin with they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

A tuxedo? Wow that's some edgy stuff..

some ppl out there are simply well crazy!

i hope there is a hell so they'll burn in helll for eternity!
I mean have u got any idea how this mustve made the girl feel?? it's simply sick

Oh god, come on.. its a ****ing tuxedo.. not like she was wearing a unitard with "IM A LESBIAN" spraypainted over it... god.. people are way to uptight nowadays

lol.. I think she prolly woulda looked nicer in a more femanine apparel.. but if she wanted to wear a tux that shouldnt have been a problem

I predict a lawsuit.

LOL im so bad i wish she wouldve wore that!

I guess probably the school doesn't want to have bad influence on the younger kids...

so homosecuality is defined by u as a bad influence?

so I was pathetic?

It's her choice to wear it. The school is blatently lying about sexual preference.

The world gone mad.

Now they're forcing women to undress as opposed to cover up. Tsk tsk.

-AC

LMAO!!

"You're not getting in that yearbook till you loosen up that shirt missy".

-AC

rotflmao!!
that's hilarious AC

How, in any way, does a girl that wears a tux, have a bad influence on anyone at anytime?

That's the point. She doesn't.

Although I don't THINK I've ever seen a woman in a tuxedo it doesn't mean kids are gonna know that. Stupidness really.

-AC

idiotic, and I think you could sue the school for this (atleast in belgium you could)

go belgium lol but in the US there r still loads and loads of homophobics, I doubt they could sue them for a significant amount

Doesn't this fall under freedom of speech (it aint really speech but it comes close) since that principle appears to be HOLY in the US

Holy in theory.

Trouble with that freedom of speech stuff is that people can actually speak out against you. Therefore it only works if you say who good it is without using it.

-AC

there is a difference between speaking out against the girl wearing a tux and banning the picture (that's censorship)

I was being sarcastic.

I agree with you.

-AC

I am againt gays the girl should not been ban from the year book ever the less.I mean what is wrong with just a picture of her in the book?Nothering!jm

Don't understand being AGAINST homosexuality.

Not approving of it is one thing but being against it is another.

-AC

I would have been so annoyed if I was cut from my year book for wearing a dress (not that I was of course. Wearing a dress that is)

Anything can be a bad influence, when there are kids around...

Parents of other family would think that their kids would mimic, and get influenced, and eventually turn gay, somehow??
or whatever...

It is just like protecting a young kid from watching porn... they are still young, and curious!!!

It was partially the girls fault for doing that anyway... why did she wear a tux?

I really don't think a girl wearing a tux (which is far less revealing then most dresses these days) could be catorgarised as porn. And is it really that different. Look how many girls wear long pants and such, most of them really, clothes that were one considered "manly"

erm.. I don't really mean porn, but porn as an example... an influence is what I meant...

Ah, I see. But really, I don't think, if she is at the stage were she knows she is a lesbian, that the rest of her year would be so easily influenced. Logically they probably are also coming to terms with their sexuality, and I have never though it would be so easy to influence people by way of dress alone.

the prefrence of what clothes you want to wear should be up to the induvidual. Would have understood the reaction if she chose to not to wear any clothes for the picture

It's not those other who are just in her year, I mean younger kids... Year book are to showed to parents.. And some parents don't like their kids to be exposed to such things... it is understandable I hope...

what you are talking about is ignorant people who think if a girls wear pants she is a lesbian. The senior picture in the year book is that of graduate student dressing up, if she thinks she looks better in a tux than those fliffy ridicolus dresses they choose for the girls then good for her. If some parents thinks that is too harsh though on them, it just says more about the level of understanding and human development or in this case lack of it than about this girls choice to wear a tux

I guess, but still, I am glad I didn't have such shallow people at my school, especially as for a time cross dressing was the hight of comedy (well, for some), and I am pretty sure most people experience something like it, my year books had similar pictures of some of the drama student girls who all played males parts as a joke, wearing suits and fake moustaches. I think its her choice, individuality should be encouraged.

"Ignorant" nice word..

Schools want to keep their reputation regardless from high level or low level of understanding and human development... Neither of those really bother their policy...

if that was the case this wouldnt have been an issue at that particular school, what we have here is a conservative bunch of old wankers

"Parents of other family would think that their kids would mimic, and get influenced, and eventually turn gay, somehow?? "

Yeah those are called idiots.

Your problem is that you view homosexuality as something that is caught or passed on. It's not a virus, it's not something you catch or wake up and decide.

Parents send kids to school to become who they want to be...oh unless you choose to be gay and stuff. That's when it stops being ok to be individual.

-AC

Look at it this way... Parents don't want their kids to expose to such things that early... it goes for all, straights or homosexuals...

Sorry, but I really don't understand the role of homosexuals in earth, as I see no purpose... Not that I don't see them as humans, but how I see them, is like how you people see borned handicapped person...

they have a girls and boys dress code...she didnt follow it, so she got taken out of the year book, i dont see the problem there

if she was straight and wore a tuxedo im sure theyd have taken her out of the yearbook aswell, ppl just making a big deal out of nothing

she didnt follow the rules, she got removed..simple as that, people just wanna get on their high horse cos she's gay

^ Df02 has make a brilliant point...

Well whats your purpose on earth then, and who gave you that purpose (oh I sure hope you say god this would be great)

Bardock42. are you in the wrong thread/forum?? I thought we had this discussion earlier on in the Philosophy forum??

Well no I am just curious because you said thesy don't have a purpose so I guess you do, eh?

Reproduction...

Don't you already know this Bardock??

This is the whole purpose of life? What the hell.

It is one of the purpose... other than reproduction, it is experience...

"Sorry, but I really don't understand the role of homosexuals in earth, as I see no purpose... Not that I don't see them as humans, but how I see them, is like how you people see borned handicapped person..."

Morons have less importance here than homosexuals. I can at least have a conversation with a gay man or a lesbian woman. See where I'm going?

As for the boy/girl dress code, they stated that there were no set rules. Besides, in senior prom pictures you don't dress in school uniform anyway, you dress formally. She dressed formally in a situation where there were no rules. They still removed her.

-AC

Who are you calling morons?

.......The people who are morons?

I thought that was decipherable from the sentence "Morons have less importance...".

Do I need to bring an etch a sketch to this board or something?

-AC

I wear girls' clothes.

You see there a things that put arguements forward, this ^ as well as the one I am righting now, do not.

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully before you post.

No, perhaps you should. The same quote says that the Principle has the authority to set standards.

Clearly the Principle set out a dress code for the event, and she broke it. Lesbian, straight, whatever... that makes no damn difference. She broke a pre-set dress code, and so there should be absolutely no issue with this punishment.

To try and make this into an equality issue is grossly disproportionate. You should respect a dress code. To say that she is allowed to break the rules BECAUSE she is a lesbian is blatant discrimination and wrong. The same rules must apply to all. Anyone who broke the dress code would have had the same fate.

If you don't like dress codes, don't go- but the Principle had a right to set one. Simple as that.

All this fuss because she's a lesbian. Pffft. My teacher told an ethnic joke about Polish people the other day. I could have said something to this loud, obnoxious "OMG AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" black teacher at my school (seriously, that is what she is like) and she wouldn't have cared. Now, if I was a black student and was offended by a black joke...well, there would be hell to pay.

You notice how everything today is racism/sexism/what-have-you-ism? There is a scholarship at the college I am going to attend for people that are "active members" in the "gay, lesbian, and transgender community" (or something like that; can't remember the exact word for 'transgender').

Pathetic.

ush and feceman are correct, she broke the dress code, end of story, her sexuality is not an issue...

Except for everyone who WANTS to make it an issue.

If that's the case, they are correct.

However, he the right to set standards. It IS possible that as a result of him knowing her sexuality, that there was discrimination.

It DOES happen, not saying it did but it does.

-AC

of course alpha, i completely agree, it does happen...

if they knew her sexuality AND were opposed to it (they could have nothing against her, it is possible) then its wrong, but in this case i don't believe her sexuality is a factor...

Where does it state in the article that the principal established a dress code for yearbook photos and distributed it to students? Nowhere. In fact, the attourney for the school district even stated that there was no established dress code for the year book photographs and that the decision not to include her photograph in the year book was the discretion of the principal.

I would think that the principal would not allow a male to wear a dress and be in the photographs. Thus, he would have to disallow a female to wear male clothing lest he be a hypocrite.

I am tired.

Why not allow a boy to wear a dress?

I think most would find it disturbing.

if she hadnt been an openly lesbian no one would have cared if she wore a tux, they reacted because of her sexual prefrence, they just dont got the balls to admit it.

indicates that the principal can set a dress code, it doesnt mentioned that he/she did, not before this event occured anyway

No, what it indicates is that the principal can enforce a standard at his discretion.

Let us not forget that the girl was allowed to be photographed in the tuxedo. The decision to disclude her photograph from the year book was made after the fact.

set, enforce goes out to be the same in this particular situation

well refer to my earlier post then

The principal was probably not present during the photography.

I have a great and unexpected appreciation for this new word... this unitard

They had no right to exclude her photo from the year book, it was a tux its not the same as a man wearing a dress or anything cos women are now accepted as wearing clothes that were originally for men

Stop with the gay threads!

Stop coming into them then.

-AC

so if i (a straight male) went into that place in a formal womens dress and matching tiara...ur saying you'd complain im removed from the yearbook?



but it is the same as a guy wearing a dress, and anything said otherwise is the sort of pointless discrimination thats become such a massive deal nowadays

Only in America bangin

For f*ck's sake, why do ppl make such a big deal out of nothing?
It's just a damn Yearbook
If anyone told me that my picture isn't accepted in an album, for any reason at all, id just tell him/her to shove it somewhere.

I am saying that if you want to wear a dress in your year book photo, it is none of my business. It is certain that a number of people will wear something I do not approve of but that does not mean they should not be allowed to wear what they want. If I disapprove, I can simply choose not to look at the offensive photograph, it is that simple.

^ agreed

That is absolutely rediculous and shameful!

People are such shits.

Homophobid *******

LB, the only thing RIDICULOUS is your spelling of that word. Tsk, tsk.

rolleyes1 Typo....im sorro.

I'd back the school....

Even if they did it for the wrong reasons?

-AC

what was their reason, from your POV?

I can't say what their reason was. They GAVE a reason, I already stated above that it's possible that they lied a bit.

-AC

hahahaha owned.

I don't understand this owned stuff.

Owned?

-AC

can garuantee if it was a straight girl wearing a tux or a straight guy wearing a dress there'd be no exposure for this story.

"Owned" is another cop-out response incredibly overused by many KMC members. It has about the same credibility and amount of thought behind it as any "slam" containing any derivative of the word "ignorance" (which, IMO, is the extreme cop-out).

Translations (and their juvenile equivalent):
"Owned" = "I'm better than you"
"You're ignorant" = "I'm smarter than you"

When there is no way to prove either of those statements on a message board, that is when it is a cop-out response that would be better served on a third grade playground.

This is not even homophobic, well it is, it's sexist too, why shouldn't a female be allowed to wear a tux?

Do these schools allow males to wear kilts if they have a heritage that would warrant this? If so this would be so hypocritical.

a kilt is traditional dress, part of a culture, a tux is not...

Yes, in Scotland and Ireland etc - what right do the Americans whose great-great grandfather may have been scottish got to wear a skirt and call it a kilt when they won't let the females wear trousers - how Draconian.

buit this isn't a kilt we're talking about, there is no tradition of tux's (to my knowledge)...

there is a difference between a tux and trousers, plenty of women wear trousers...

if the principal was biased against her then its wrong...

but i dont think any of us can make a judgement without knowing more...

It depends, it doesn't matter if he was prejudiced orr not, since it was wrong what he did.

Adam, Stop with you stupid little gay threads you are the only person that cares.

No he isn' t.

Come on if a guy wore a dress to the school nobody would let him in the yearbook it's the same thing

I think Owned means that either Kid Rock or Jule own you know, you practically just became a slave, well at least that is the only reasonable explaination.......or it is just some stupid word that people that can't come up with original post themselves throw around to show that they wish they wrote a particular post.

Well why not Napalm?

Ignore Napalm.

He's just a rampant homophobe with nothing intelligent to say it seems.

-AC

And yet better than you In every way.

if a guy wanna wear a dress let him, it is he who have to stand for that choice not the rest of the bunch

so in what culture do women wear tux's lol?
its a girl wearing mens clothes for a formal yearbook photo (regardless of whether dress codes were laid down, im damn sure people are led to assume its a formal occassion) and as such, it was removed...sexual orientation is besides the point. and it should be dealt with exactly the same way as if a guy wore a dress. they should be removed, because altho the clothes may be formal, by cross-dressing, you remove the formality

If theres 1000 kids at the school, and they all wear suitable clothing except 1 lesbian...why is it the schools fault when she's removed?

No, there should be a dress code. Or somebody might show up in nothing

well if they want to......let them

as long as you say tux or dress whatever you chose you dont get people with nothing

Bardock, thats just stupid... and if i turned up in a nazi uniform and matching tasche? i should be allowed? - granted not everything people would wear would be offensive (nudity would...and also to some, crossdressing would)

but the point is, it was a formal occassion...regardless of set regulations, im pretty sure (as was with my yearbook photo) they would be told it was formal.

like i said....1000 (guess) people showed up for the picture, ONE was removed...thats not sexism, thats not homophobia, thats inappropriate clothing for a photo!

Would you really want wierdos like that in your year book?

I don' t know what kind of tuxedo she wore but this:

http://images.overstock.com/f/102/3117/8h/www.overstock.com/images/products/L416739.jpg

is called a tuxedo and is perfectly appropriate for women to wear. I own a similar one.

why not

yes but there wouldnt be a story in the paper if it was that kind of tuxedo lol

I thought they were talking about a man's tux

True (and she looks good in it to) I still see this a serious violation of freedom to express yourself

Could be Napalm could also be a unisex or female tux, the article doesn't give enough clarification

If it was that kind of suit what was the problem?

but its not!
if i go to a funeral in a clown costume id expect to be removed...
thats not a breach of my rights, thats just common sense

if u crossdress at a formal school photo its the same sort've thing

Crossdress?

BANG! This thread just got blown way out of proportion.

It was a girl wearing a tux, not Lily Savage doing stand up.

-AC

if you go to a funeral in a clown costume then you would idd prolly be removed or atleast it would not appreciated by the relatives.

However there is IMO a big difference between something so emotionally charged as a funeral and something as common as a year book picture

(if you don't like to have it in your copy you can still put a sticker or something like that over it)

True but one never knows until one has facts

not really...a girl wearing guys clothing is crossdressing is it not? lol

and as for the clown-funeral thing...it was just another situation to think about. theres no RULES for showing up at a funeral in a black suit, but people do it because its a formal occassion, same sorta thing as this photoshoot.

it wasnt appropriate clothing for the phot obviously, may not have been rules about it but at the principles discression she was removed...just as at the family's disgression i would be removed from the funeral

what if an openly gay male wore heavy make up to the photo shoot what then, would they remove his picture as well

(you read what I said about the difference)
if people start taking these books as serious as funerals there is something wrong with that schools ideas on how to devote valuable resources and time

Actually I think no one should be offended by cloth, well as long as its not a shirt with somnething really offensive to a person or group written on it. And actually nudity is acceptable by any means, why shouldn't it, its a different thing though if they said before that women had to show up in dress and men in tux if they didn't or they just said formal its perfectly ok for the girl to wear what she did.

Sure

im not saying its as serious, im just saying it would be treated in the same way...if the clothing isnt deemed appropriate, the offending person would be removed in both cases - yea, a funeral is more serious...but doesnt stop them being treated in the same way...

and if a guy turned up in heavy makeup, he'd be removed aswell...sexual orientation has no part to play in the situation lol

Oh and for the clown thingy, well its not appropriaate and the person that does it most likely is an idiot, but if he wants tro well let them

which it shouldn't be because there is a huge difference. (as I have said before)

black is for mourning, thats why people wear black to funerals. That is an event where you show your respect to the deceased and his kins and friends, year book is a personal treat were you can cling on to the memories of your school years, how you wanna portray yourself there should be be up to the individual

thx finti

there is a huge difference i know, get over it lol.
my point was they are HANDLED the same way, anything deemed inappropriate is removed!

sexual orientation has nothing to do with it, every1 would be treated the same way.

the point is...the principle was given the ability to say what was appropriate and what wasnt...he used that ability, and because she was a lesbian, this a massive scandal. forgetting the fact that 999 (guess) other students turned up in perfectly acceptable clothing.

Buit not even the clown would be removed....except by the relatives who sure have the right too.

year book is how you wanna people to remember you, if you wanna be remembered as the odd one out so be it.


yeah climbed down from the trees yesterday did we?

then why is it a problem that a girl wore a tux

Well if they aren't the same then they shouldn't be HANDLED the same either.

Sexual orientation has idd nothing to do wiv it

acceptable clothing is a term that should not be determined by one man.

the 999 other students can turn up in what the hell they want. Which still doesn't change the fact that this was a violation of freedom of expression

A clown in a funeral! That would really be something to watch!

I agree with the principal's decision.

A guy wearing a spaghetti strap dress shouldn't/wouldn't be allowed to wear a dress in school picture, so why should a girl be allowed to wear something that suits the male dress code.

And YES, i know there was no enforced dress code, but guess what....school's have dress codes, and at dances and school sponsored events the school's dress code carries over....i don't see why it shouldn't now.

And as for defending the "male should be aloud to wear a kilt" arguement...give it a rest. School pictures are taken from the waist up...and kilt is like a skirt...not a full dress. I've seen Sean Connery wear a kilt with a Tux top.

This girl got shut down for trying to go out of her way to be "different" and she got taken down a peg so she would realize that she isn't different than anyone else...regardless of her sexual preferences.

are girls different for wearing what is considered to be male clothes, or is it that those who considere it different that are trapped in a time hole called 1900 century

Thereis a hint of truth to your statement. However, the fact remains that there is nothing inappropriate about a tuxedo. The issue here is a woman wearing a tuxedo. Now, I have a hard time understanding this because I myself am wearing a tuxedo in my year book pictures. But, we all did...the guys at least. The girls wore a simple black dress. Now, I can assure you that if one of the girls at my school showed up in a tuxedo, the powers that be would have stopped their picture from being in the year book. The only difference is that in my case, the powers that be were Catholic nuns, becuase I went to a Catholic school my whole life. If this was a public school, I seriously doubt that a girl in a tuxedo would have been a problem. In fact, I'll guarentee that she looked better that a whole hell of a lot of the other students. Torn jeans and trench coats with long stringy black hair down to your ass doesn't look good...any way you look at it. So, in a private denominational school, I can understand the need to remove her picture. Because she goes to a school where she is expected to adhere to certain things. However, if this was a public school a) she's allowed to wear a tuxedo and b)she likely looked better than most of the trash that don't care how they look.

Which actually raises another question in my mind. What if they decided that all the guys with long hair couldn't be allowed to appear in the year book for the same reasons?

How many other girls got excluded from the year book for wearing a tuxedo?

None. She's the exception....that's called being "different."

Why did she want to wear a tuxedo of all things? Why not just wear a dress like the rest of her entire graduating class?

I understand the point you are trying to make, but what happens when a male wears a dress...better yet....a strapless dress to take those pictures? Same ruling...only no big fuss about it. The reason why the principal dis-allowed the tux was because he would be setting a double standard against the males.

It really boils down to....is it easier to exclude one...or to include everyone?

And by your same logic...girls with short hair wouldn't be allowed to be in the year book for the exact same reasons.

What a person's body (and it's parts) looks like and what a person wears should be 2 entirely different subjects.

"Iran...I Walked...I Jihad"...this is good, just to let you know.



My point is that there already is a double standard. Women can't wear tuxedos and men can have long hair. It's all about traditional values. And values aren't set in stone. They are allowed to evolve. If you choose to follow the strict values of the 1930's, 40's, or 50's that your choice. But not everyone can make that choice for everyone else.

And like I said before, if this was a denominational school, like the Catholic school I went to, then the principle has the right to make that descision. However, if this is a public school, then that rights goes away.

Some women don't like to wear dresses. So what? Women wear suits all the time, who cares if she wears a tux? If she was hetrosexual and wore a tux would it make a difference?

If this is the school's only way to react to this situation (if it can be considered a situation at all) I question the judgement and training of those in charge.

a male wearing a strapless dress should be allowed aswell IMO

I thought it was funny....though I feel your remark is ripe with sacasm.



and my point is...it's not a double standard. Girls are allowed to wear their hair short, and guys are allowed to wear their hair long. You're comparing apples to oranges here. If the guy can't wear a dress, a girl can't wear a tux. If a girl can have short hair, a guy can have long hair. There's no relationship between hair and clothing.



Why does that right go away? You didn't really explain why aside from pointing out the different school types.

What's the purpose of a Principle if he isn't given the power to exercise his authority just like in a Catholic School.

A guxy can wear a dress anyday, I don'T care.

The thing is that the Catholic Schools are private institutions that have certain rights they got from the Parents of the Kid that goes there, a public school dioesn't

But a publich school does have the authority to create and enforce a dress code.

And although I don't personally have any problem with allowing a female to wear a tux or business style suit....it was deemed a problem by the person responsible for enforcing that dress code.

Sure, a guy can wear a dress anyday...by your standards. But what about the standards of society?

If you're a guy and you go for a job interview and wear a dress....you aren't getting the job. Do I have a decent explanation? No...it's just the way the world is...

What's the term crossdresser mean? and why is it used as a negative remark?

No it wasn't it was decided afterwards to remove her picture....which is wrong, If it was stated before...well I could understand it but it doesn'T say that, much more it says there was no dress code I think.

Well is that the society that doesn'T accept gays nowadays and didn't accept blacks a few years back....well then screw society she doesn't hurt someone so freedom for her and everyone else.

LMAO!

Interviewer: "Sorry, sir, but we're not going to offer you the job of Marketing Executive."
Candidate: "Why?"
Interviewer: "Well, for starters, you're wearing a polka-dotted dress to a job interview."
Candidate: "So? You insensitive, ignorant, prick! I'm heading to the Newspaper right now to show them how terrible of a company your corporation is."
Interviewer: "That's nice. Now get the f*** out of my office."

I can't sit here and defend the principle's decision forever....what he did was wrong and that girl should atleast be given the opportunity to have a "make up" picture taken since they allowed her to have her picture taken in the first place.

And I don't want to defend the rights/wrongs of men wearing women's clothing and vice versa.

Men and women's clothing are sized differently for a reason....there's no legitament reason why one would wear the other's style of clothing except for that individual's need to be seen as "different."

Example Situation:
The word shit is not censored on KMC. If I used the word "shit" after every single sentence I typed what do you think would be the ideal course of action by the mods?

a.) tell me to stop using the word
b.) going in and recoding the site to censor the word "shit"

There's a quick fast way to get results and there's a long hard way. Which one is easiest?