Maybe if we didn't divide people by sex and assign gender norms from birth we would learn how to interact before puberty without sexual objectification. It would make navigating teenage years a lot easier if we started than with a gender/sex diverse social group opposed to the current default being through the lens of objectification.
we would learn how to interact before puberty without sexual objectification.
Most kids do if you leave them alone. It's the adults that have them problems with it. I had zero interest in sex until at least 15 at the earliest. Adults are the problem, as per usual.
That's interesting, I remember thinking teachers classmates moms were hot when I was in kindergarten and 1st grade. I didn't really know what to do with that feeling but it was definitely there.
As someone who hit puberty at 8 and had a shitty mustache at 11 I concur. But it is probably highly variable based off of biology, like I was jacking off like a spider monkey way too early by most peoples standards. Weirdly enough I am aromantic legit don't get the appeal, meanwhile I've got a libido that put a cat in heat to shame.
Not being comfortable socially with girls/women and being force-fed masculinity made my life and the life of women around me so much more difficult in my teens/early adulthood. Social skills are so much harder to develop, and cognitive biases so much harder to correct as an adult.
I'm 54. Still zero interest in sex. I can't fathom why people have to be so obsessed with it, because life is fine without it, but that's probably just me.
I can’t fathom why people have to be so obsessed with it
Literally just hormones. I can't explain horniness better than... idk, sleepiness? Hungriness?
Trying to explain to a horny person not to think about sex is a bit like trying to explain to an itchy person not to think about scratching.
And, a lot like with itching, once you've done it the urge only gets worse. Losing your virginity is like opening up an emotional floodgate. Once you've experienced it, you're a soppy emotional mess just pining for the next opportunity.
life is fine without it
Man Who Hasn't Just Downed a Full Pot of Coffee: "You keep squeezing your legs shut and looking for a toilet. Why don't you just calm down?"
I didn’t mean people shouldn’t be that way, only that I can’t personally fathom it.
I also can’t personally fathom why some people are obsessed with food. I don’t mean they’re wrong, just that I can’t understand their POV. Like I get they feel that way, and it’s not wrong, it’s just outside my reckoning. Like I eat enough to live, and I don’t obsess over it. That’s foreign to me, thinking about food 24/7 even when you’re not hungry.
E: just ruminating here, not judging. I’m sharing and want other people to share. I’m not great at sharing without offending people, sorry.
For me? no. I can’t imagine thinking about anything that much. Like, to the exclusion of other things, I mean. Or, focussed on one thing (other then nothing – I can turn everything off, but throttling is very hard).
I know we don’t all think this way, but being that passionate without control is kinda foreign to me.
That's just brain development. Psychological control is as muscle you build as a bicep or a glut. And it's muscle that can be exhausted or atrophied over time.
I would have killed to not have been obsessed with sex from 18-35. Now that I'm nearly 50 it's finally calmed down. What a pain that was - I wonder if I could have gotten medication for it. Is that a thing?
Probably hormonal, so yeah. I’ve always been too low on the spectrum, and there’s a healthy balance. If it was disruptive for you, you may have been off-balance the other way. I’m not a doctor though, so…
Oh yeah. They chemically castrated Turing with meds that just didn’t make him horny anymore, and he killed himself because of it. That wasn’t by choice, though.
It makes total sense to me! As someone who was extremely horny growing up and isn’t really anymore, losing that part of me at that time would have been DEVASTATING. That is maybe the worst thing that could have happened to me. I don’t care as much anymore, but when I did, I would have killed myself as well.
Maybe if we didn’t divide people by sex and assign gender norms from birth we would learn how to interact before puberty without sexual objectification.
Part of the problem with teenagers - particularly young teenagers - is that they're very self-obsessed and mood driven. Like, it's easy to say "just raise your kids better" when you're not deal with the bubbling caldron of hormones kettled inside a head that literally physically hasn't fully developed the faculties to process the emotions.
That's not to defend gender norms. But it's certainly easier to go with the "Lord of the Flies" flow than it is to bend the tidal force that is clichish, selfish, horny, and often violent teenage base tendencies.
It would make navigating teenage years a lot easier if we started than with a gender/sex diverse social group
It's helpful when teenagers have a group they can empathize with at an early age. But that doesn't work at a summer camp full of people who haven't met before.
Kids routinely can and do self-segregate along age and appearance and behavior. It takes a lot of human labor to undo the natural impulses of young kids.
And that means hiring more people, which costs more money, which cuts into the profit of the camp owners.
We definitely make it hard on parents. I'm making no conjecture on such a societal difference would impact parental workloads. That's another conversation worth having though.
That said, i think it should be pretty easy not to tease or shame children for being friends with the other sex. And gender neutral clothing costs the same as gendered clothing so 🤷
Parents biases/behaviors impact their children for sure!
Again, I'm talking about how the teenage years can benefit from a different approach in earlier childhood than traditional norms. Teens are learning to be adults, they need autonomy and space to explore themselves. I only commented that they have the capacity to understand consent.
E.g. a 6yo doesn't benefit from being dressed in pink or robin egg blue, and children pick up on this stuff even if unconsciously because the rest of society reacts to it.
While it would definitely help, the truth is kids brains are a hormonal mess. No matter what and how well we teach 'em, there comes a 'breaking point' where the chemical imbalance will override any 'training'
While double standards absolutely suck and should be eliminated wherever possible I think it's totally fair to have rules like this for kids (at least for now)
Just because my 13 year old brain knew 'girls are people too doesnt mean my 13 year old hormones cared about that when saying 'I like this'
This is not something that can be fixed overnight or in a single generation. And it will never be fixed 100%.
I can pretty much guarantee that even in the remote villages where toplessness is a normal part of everyday life there are still the 'oddballs' who love boobs and sexualize them.
Never said there was an overnight or one-stop fix.
I'm suggesting that with children developing socially together throughout childhood without being forced to conform to pink and blue norms we would be a lot better off navigating the social challenges we face during sexual development.
That opposed to the experience we had in my youth of peeking over the proverbial wall staring into the garden at what we had been told our whole lives were strange creatures that bore sex as their primary purpose rather than being people who had the same human experiences and emotions as us.
Also i disagree with your sentiment about training and breaking points. Children can easily understand consent. They do, however, need mentors facilitating an environment safe enough they can talk through feelings.
E: rewording some stuff to avoid binaries, assigning genders, etc
Besides what the other person said, it's much deeper than "boobs = sexy." It's a culture that blames young girls for boys and grown men finding them sexually attractive. Even in your "oddballs" example, we don't ban people from going barefoot because some people are into feet (probably the most common fetish in the world thanks to biology). If people have a problem with that, it's their problem, not the person that they're objectifying.
I agree that it's not a quick fix, but it starts with teaching boys to have some simple self control and basic empathy and not making the girls shoulder all the responsibility of boys being horny. But that also starts long before you ever get to a summer camp, and that's also an important part of the topic. Like I said, it's a deeply rooted cultural issue.
Boys also aren't allowed to wear bikinis, and their swimsuits are (usually) shorts already.
No white Tees is BS though.
However, without context, I would hazard a guess that the summer camp has a religious affiliation (most do). My YMCA affiliated summer camp required that all campers attend chapel on Sunday. I "learned" the "hard way" that not participating at chapel was "punished" by being sent to the cafeteria to play games and eat extra breakfast with the non-christian staffers.
I would bet that if tight speedos came back into fashion there would be a rule against boys wearing those.
There's definitely an element of society telling women and girls what to do with their bodies. But, there's also an element of women/girls wanting to wear very revealing clothing, and boys/men wanting to wear less revealing clothing. Male swimwear is mostly shorts these days, at least in North America, for women it's a lot more revealing. Male office wear is suits, or at least button down shirts that are buttoned to the top. For women it's often a top with cleavage or at least upper chest showing, even in businesswear. A woman who wears a male-style shirt that covers up everything below the neck is pretty unusual. Then there's the legs. A woman wearing a skirt is seen as completely normal in a "business wear" office, but a man wearing shorts is most definitely not.
This is a horse/cart situation and basing your logic and reasoning on cultural norms makes for an incredibly fragile foundation.
Women want to wear more revealing clothing because society tells them that that's what women are expected to wear and vice versa for men. The entirety of "business wear" is a paradigm created over a century ago when men were considered professionals and women were considered hired help at best and office decorations at worst. The word "scientist" was coined to describe a woman with a degree in science because the term up until then, man of science, didn't apply and they couldn't just call her a "doctor of x" because she held 3 doctorates in different fields. When the Romans first invaded Britain, they mocked the English for wearing pants, something that only women wore in Italy. Right up until the first chill breeze went up their skirts, then pants were suddenly incredibly manly.
Speaking of pants, have you ever looked at women's pants? Pockets are a rarity because they mess up the clean lines and form of the hips. That's not something women choose. Ask any woman and I bet she'll have plenty to say about the lack of pockets in women's clothing, and none of it will be good. A pair of good pants with pockets is a jealously guarded treasure to be well cared for lest they wear out. Clothes designers care more about the form of women('s clothes) than the function.
I bet you if speedos made a comeback, the fuss would be from older men saying that they looked gay or feminine.
Women do talk a lot about the lack of pants in pockets, but they don't actually seem to buy pants with pockets.
This is a perfect example of revealed preferences. Pants with pockets are out there for sale. They're not even rare. Especially in the modern world where you can order clothing online, it's easy to find and buy just about anything you want. Women could exclusively buy pants with pockets, but they don't. Why not? Probably because pockets are important, but when it comes right down to it, pockets aren't as important as other things like fit, style and price.
I'll definitely agree that the major fashion houses might refuse to make pants with pockets. For them fashion is the only thing that matters. In fact, they'd probably only add a pocket if they could justify as a part of the style. And, there are going to be other designers who just copy the major fashion houses, maybe with minor modifications. But, they might not put in pockets because they're trying to copy the major designer.
But, do a web search for "women's pants with pockets" and tell me if you don't find all kinds of results.
As for societal norms, I completely agree that the current world is one where women are expected to be pretty and men aren't. That wasn't the case in the 1700s where men wore makeup, tights and high heels. But, in the current world, it is women who society expects to make themselves look pretty, where that's not expected of men.
I work with a lot of women and I also have a sister. All of them will complain about pockets being too small, but all of them also wear form fitting clothes that were clearly built to appeal to a fashion sense, rather than a practical one. Even the more practical oriented women amongst them opt for something that looks nice, but isn’t the most practical it could be
But here’s the thing. I’m not telling them what to wear. In fact, every woman is free to shop in the men’s section or to choose pants with actual pocket from the women’s section. You can buy CARGO PANTS. You are legally allowed to do so as a woman. The patriarchy is not stopping you.
Whenever the pockets thing comes up, I love to show them what I’m carrying. XL size phone, large wallet, Airpods, knife, keys… I can literally stick a Nintendo Switch in my pants pocket. And those are just casual jeans. If I had cargo pants, I could carry a backpack’s worth of gear.
So why don’t women do that? They literally have a term for ‘boyfriend jeans’ but refuse to wear something actually practical because it’s not as feminine. I imagine they don’t want comments from other women, because I as a guy am utterly delighted to see a woman wear something practical.
There's a woman in my family who's in her 70s now, and she exclusively wears pants or shorts with pockets. She doesn't care at all about style anymore, she's all about the cargo pants / cargo shorts. Her husband also wears cargo pants / shorts, and is probably the one who converted her. He's just happy she can carry her own stuff now and doesn't need to bug him.
But, it was a big deal for her. She was never a very style-conscious person. However, she was raised in a different time, and she wore clothes to fit in, which mostly meant typical women's pants without useful pockets. Now, she's happy to tell people how great it is to have big pockets and how liberating it is not to care what other people think of her fashion choices.
I get it. Even though I also don't much care what fashion says, I still feel a bit constrained. There are hot summer days where I think a skirt would probably feel great. But, skirts on guys aren't even vaguely acceptable, and even variations on a skirt like a kilt are highly suspect. I'm not so bothered by it that I feel up to challenging the norms and wearing a skirt. If some other guy were to push the boundaries and wear a skirt, I'd fully support him because I want that freedom too, but I'm not willing to put up with the intense pressure it would cause me. Similarly, when a woman does wear clothes that emphasize utility over fashion, I'm hugely supportive. I also think pocketless pants are dumb.
I honestly think that it's probably mostly women who are holding women back when it comes to pockets. Most guys probably mostly don't notice or don't care.
Heck, at work we’re officially not allowed to wear shorts according to the dusty old company manual that passed my desk many moons ago. I’ve never tested that rule myself, and never really see others wearing them either. Because you just KNOW that it’s going to get you comments from other colleagues. And that’s just shorts.
A kilt certainly seems like a very comfortable option during summer, but only if you don’t really need to carry a bunch of stuff. Cargo shorts always were my preference during summer as a kid and teen.
Society would certainly be better off if we stopped giving a shit about what’s masculine and feminine in terms of clothing and just let everyone wear everything they want without judgement. If a woman can wear a skirt, so should you and I if se want to.
Of course, you can always just start with a kilt to honor your ‘Scottish heritage’. If you look at a family tree long enough, there’s bound to be someone Scottish… ish somewhere :D And the Scots certainly don’t mind - anyone’s allowed to wear a kilt if they want to.
You can thank our psychotic Evangelical Christians. Bunch of pseudo-puritan nutjobs. They have no issues sinning, but want to make sure that no one else can.
A lot of the anti-abortion folks have had abortions.
A lot of the anti-gay folks, have a gay sidepiece or have engaged in sexual acts with someone of the same sex.
A lot of the folks that are anti-drug are some of the biggest drug offenders.
Like, at what point do Christians wake up and go, wow, these people are absolutely scum...why am I associating with them?
To be fair, boys swimsuits are already basically just shorts, there's not much to make rules about. If a boy turned up in a speedo, there'd probably be a new rule.
Yeah, more often than not the lack of rules for men's clothing is because culturally, what's thought of as "men's clothing" is so boring that there's no way it could be sexualized.
Seriously here are the bathing suit options for men: Shorts, Smaller Shorts with no pockets (speedo), Cargo Shorts, Shorts with a T-Shirt and (theoretically, I don't even know where you'd buy one) a one-piece. Everything else, mankini or g-string or whatever, is lingerie and is covered under "decency laws" so you don't have to explicitly address it in your summercamp rules (the reason pants arent included in "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service")
Meanwhile every bathing suit option women have has been sexualized to the moon and back, and half the options are just lingerie that's acceptable to wear in public bcz all our laws were written by horny hypocrites. A men's speedo covers more than your most basic bikini, are way harder to find and aren't usually sold in boy's sizes. A women's one-piece suit is a camel toe nightmare that should qualify as a fucking miracle if it doesn't leave both cheeks hanging out, and now most of them are including a fucking boob window.
We've internalized the masculine aspects of sexism to the point where we don't need to explicitly state it, and instead spend all our time correcting for the obvious cultural deficiencies that result from it and shifting the responsibility for dealing with it to women. "Why would I change my behavior, I'm fine, nobody's ogling me at the pool." It's great. Really winning as a society.
A men’s speedo covers more than your most basic bikini, are way harder to find and aren’t usually sold in boy’s sizes
When i was in a swimming club as a kid, we almost all wore "speedos". Someone wearing the versions with a little bit of leg on them was the rare exception. I used to be made fun of at lakes in the summer sometimes by people wearing the "bermuda shorts". Turns out it is a bad idea to make fun of someone who is good at swimming while being in the water and wearing the faster swimwear.
I won't argue very hard here, I'll just say that I didn't have bikini briefs in mind when I wrote this - but the coverage is roughly the same if you use those as the baseline bikini, which is fair enough.
Other way round for us. In school I remember being pulled to the side with like 3 other kids after a swimming lesson and told we should be wearing speedos instead of shorts because it reduces drag in the water.
I continued wearing shorts because I genuinely don't give a shit if it takes a second longer to cross the pool, I just want to swim. Now as an adult I don't need to worry about pedo-nazis telling me what to wear.
I actually think a man in swim shorts is pretty hot, so maybe some kids think so too? For me a man's exposed torso is much more sexual than a woman's. Maybe all the kids should be wearing burkinis regardless of sex or gender.
The funny things about the boys rules is that they mostly boil down to "don't let us catch you looking too much like a girl" but also "don't let us catch you looking too much like an adult man, either"
No long hair. But also no facial hair.
No piercings. No visible tattoos. Nothing that might look like a weapon (including combs, heavy shoes, and tshirts with pictures of guns on them).
No eyeliner or hairspray or jewelry. Nothing too punk but also nothing too fruity. Absolutely nothing that might be scary looking. Or drug affiliated. Or queer.
Heaven fucking help you if you look queer. Summer camps hate that.
it's a conservative christian thing to ban much of that stuff but I imagine the person you are commenting on probably thought it matched the tone of the original post
When I was young, the boys' public school dress code did exclude sleeveless shirts, the girls' did not. Boys' dress code excluded skirts, girls' did not. Nobody could have short shorts.
Church camp, well it's Florida, everyone wore swimsuits to swim, there was no mention of modesty about that, because swimwear is appropriate attire for swimming.
I remember my time as a boy... Back then the rules for us were "whatever dumb shit you're thinking of doing, fucking don't!".
Ever get chased through the fields with the nice, big, beautiful stick you brought back earlier that day?
Ever had heavy stuff thrown at you for doing some really dumb shit?
Ever left the home with a deep, resentful glare burning through the back of your skull?
It's difficult to lay down rules for boys because in general, we're dumb as shit doing dumb shit all the time.
So there's almost always one, unspoken rule for boys: "Just fucking don't!"
The problem though is that girls are held upon to a higher standard. There are expectations of a higher level of civility and understanding, though undue in my opinion. Some of y'all were as dumb as the rest of us and were treated unfairly due to those higher standards.
But let's face it, as parents or adults, we all probably tend to have a similar kind of bias towards our own kids. Some of them are dumb as shit and while we worry about them, every time they plan to do something stupid, the inner voice we won't admit to is saying "please, oh please, just fucking don't!". Meanwhile, the kids we worry about less as they know their shit, they have clear, but few specific rules because we believe that's what they need.
So, in my humble opinion as a formerly dumb boy/kid, the lack of written rules more likely means there are too many, unpredictable rules that have to be managed proactively.
Btw, unrelated question, has anyone managed to get squirrels drunk in those camps of yours? I know it was on a to-do list at one point...
It's very easy to lay down rules for boys. Don't ogle, grope, or otherwise assault someone just because they're wearing a two - piece swimsuit. Let people wear what they want, even if it's a white shirt. Don't let the outer appearance of anyone be the guide to make up a fantasy in your head and decide what kind of person they are.
See? That wasn't very hard.
I think not all hope is lost, but you're missing the point here, with a bit of the ol' "boys will be boys" attitude mixed in. First of all, it doesn't help to treat boys (or any teenager for that matter) as some form of intermittent lifeform on its way to achieve full sentience. They're not animals, and most of them haven't been dropped off in the jungle and were raised by wolves. They can, and have to, learn what is acceptable behavior, as well as empathy for those that surround them.
Dismissing any form of accountability and consistently shifting the blame to a 14 year old girl wearing a white shirt at a lake function enforces stereotypes and societal preconceptions that I can only call disgusting.
What are you talking about, boys will absolutely ogle girls, and sometimes other boys. They're teenagers! The thing is, it doesn't matter how prudish you try to be, they'll still do it. If they can see some ankle they'll fap to it later. The best outcome is if they're ogling someone too much and making that person uncomfortable, take them aside and privately tell them to knock that shit off. You don't need a bloody no looking rule that makes them feel sinful just for having a peek at someone clothed. You also wouldn't need a no touching rule if you just fluffing taught them consent at 10yo, around when you should be starting sex ed as well anyway.
I feel like we can teach consent in preschool; it applies to way more than sexual interaction, and would hopefully help kids identify when they're being abused.
Yeah honestly, you're right, we should be teaching bodily autonomy once kids are old enough to dress themselves (physically, idc if they want to wear the hero or princess outfit every day, let them! let 'boys' wear princess outfits too!!).
I dunno. I think a little ogling is fine, just don’t make people uncomfortable.
But yeah. Maybe don’t touch even if they’re naked without consent?
Edit: curious what the downvotes are for. Do people want to touch without consent? Because I sure as hell don’t to be touched, whether or not I have clothes on. And I wouldn’t want that on other people either
None of that is "rules for boys" though. They apply to all kids. If a girl is acting rambunctious, she'll get told to stop too. Often for behavior the boys don't even get called out for because, as you said yourself, girls are held to a higher standard of civility.
Although I have to say it doesn't make sense there either. Either short hair is necessary, than everybody should have it. Or it isn't. Gendered hair styles are stupid.
Okay but when in uniform women must have their hair slicked back and pulled up as though they have no hair at all. Same as men not being allowed to have big hair.
Americans when they learn that cross-dressing isn't considered adult only in other places. Sure you have RuPaul's drag race which is very sexualised, but that isn't the only type of cross-dressing that exists.
Also the rules listed are actually sexualising girls. I would rather mock the rules instead. The femboys are not the problem here.
Honestly, I blame the history of the word and its relation to slurs for trans women. Femboy, trap, and multiple others started as words to describe trans women as actually just being a gay man trying to trick straight men into having sex with them by pretending to be a woman.
I'm glad to see that they've evolved beyond that into a very fun way for men to play and express themselves outside of the arbitrary gender binary, but I totally understand the gut reaction of basically "femboy = twink with extra steps."
Like similar to a girls' two piece? A speedo and crop top? I bet there'd be a new rule next year.
Just normal trunks and a swim shirt? Probably nothing said at all. Though to be fair I bet if a girl showed up in swim trunks and a swim shirt not a word would be said either, but I could be wrong on that.
As someone who was abused, it's always the girl's fault. Just existing is enough. This is especially reinforced in Christian and camp circles, because one of the first stories you learn is all sin started with Eve, and women are why we're all damned.
Men are tempted, women are tempters – that's how it's always been.
This just reminded me of the "self-defense training for girls" we had in 8th or 9th grade. It boiled down to "Every man potentially wants to hurt you." Someone walking behind you? Turn around and yell at them to stop it. A man standing too close to you? Yell "Back off".
Of course the situations were all mundane and it was pretty clear you couldn't just yell at or confront any man that comes within ~3 meters of you. So all that "training" did was give me the uneasy feeling that if something happened, it would be my fault. I didn't preemptively yell at the man within the first few seconds of seeing him.
Weird. Where I grew up it was more that boys/men were dirty uncontrollable sex monsters, and that girls didnt actually like sex. They only did it for men they loved. I had very weird ideas of what girls/women were pumped into my brain when I was a kid. I was genuinely surprised when I was talking to a girl I knew in school, and she was going on and on about how much she wanted to fuck this other guy in our class.
EDIT: I still can't find the typo, in the article 😭
EDIT2: I see your screenshot, but I still don't see the typo in the text of that screenshot - maybe you could cirlce it in red or otherwise communicate which part is the typo, maybe I'm like the dumbest person in the world 😅
Shorts over bathing suits is such a weird one to me. Like... Bathing suit is fine in the water, going in to the water, getting out of the water. But you best cover that shit up for lake activities or whatever. Like what a weird line to draw.
Edit: You know what? These are all really weird. Like... No white t shirts? Are you afraid of them getting wet and maybe revealing the bathing suit they are probably wearing underneath? No two peice bathing suit? Because heaven forbid you show off the most sexual part of the body - the stomach? Like... That's the difference between a one peice and a two piece, right? The stomach? The back? Maybe it's to reduce the chance of a "wardrobe malfunction"?
A surfer / rash guard shirt is pretty cool. I have no issues with showing my body, but it just reduces sunburn risk by a lot and lets you stay in cold-ish water longer. Really, no reason not to wear one.
Easy. Society has taught me that boys are the exact opposite of girls, so white T-shirts only, with two-piece swimming suit, no shorts and just bathing suits.
I get the feeling that the intention is to use clothing to make both sexes plain and put them on the same level. Like, not lean in to societys expectation that women should wear sexy stuff. But I guess your takeaway is just as valid.
Perhaps they should have included some clothing guidelines for boys too.
right, but saying that exposes your thinking that girls are inherently sexual and require clothing modifications to make them "plain" and "equal" to boys - this is the same mindset of modesty and sexualization of girls that the OOP is calling out, the whole point is that it doesn't have to be this way, it's a social norm but you're treating it like it's natural
We don't need clothing guidelines and modesty for boys, we need to not sexualize girls and then impose modesty guidelines to moderate that sexualization.
We might have fundamentally different views on how we see people around us.
I think as humans, we are sexual beings. Men are conventionally drawn to women and vice versa. 12 year old boys and girls may or may not be awaken to that. I'd say chances are that they are. And they like to copy people older than them.
I'd say sexuality is about as natural as it gets. Unless you are cloning yourself, it is a deeply ingrained characteristic and behavior of any species. And it is not a perfectly symmetric affair.
I think clothing choice can help enhance a persons sexual characteristics.
Society is perpetuating the norm that women and girls should wear a specific set of clothing. Biased toward the sexual characteristic enhancing options. Why this is, can be discussed in perpetuity by intellectuals.
The organizers have a choice to let people dress ass they wish, which includes anything society perpetuates as normal. Or they could, as in this case, try to change the norm, if only temporarily.
I don't know if the organizers approach helps in any way. As I said earlier, I think personal agency weighs heavier. It's possible they are just trying to address some specific problems that happened in the past. And are not taking any stance on gender norm issues.
Solutions:
If we agree that clothing is a variable in sexualizing the wearer and we want to stop the sexualization of girls; one option is to change the mind of our entire society and somehow make people unified in what they want to wear, just to influence younger people in the same direction. Sounds hard to me.
I agree, that we should avoid sexualizing girls and boys. And I agree that we should moderate bad behavior. I believe this should be done through quality education. I think the asymmetry of how one sex is more sexualized than the other, is a very hard problem to solve.
to be honest, I think we probably share fundamental views on how we see people around us - the difference is in how I relate to and understand my views
You have naturalized sexism, you think because humans are naturally sexual beings that the situation of girls being sexualized is natural too.
I don't disagree that humans are generally sexual creatures (though obviously asexual people exist as well), and I agree also that children have sexualities - but we are talking about why girls have a bunch of extra rules like not being able to wear white shirts, not being able to wear two-piece bathing suits, and requirements of wearing shorts ... this isn't just because humans are naturally sexual, this is because in our society we see boys as wanting sex, and as girls as having the sex that the boys seek.
The rules are seen as protecting the girls from the boys, which positions girls as sexual prey and boys as sexual predators. It views girls as having a virginity that must be protected.
Even within this view, the idea that the solution is to police the girls puts the responsibility on the girls for the boy's perceived predatory behavior.
Why is sexuality "bad behavior"? And if we agree it's bad, why do the rules focus on regulating the girls, why not have rules that regulate the inappropriate behavior of the boys instead?
And of course you're right that the asymmetry of how girls are sexualized and viewed as prey from whom boys "take" sex is a very hard problem to solve, not a problem we will solve individually or in our life times, but big cultural problems have shifted before - we used to not think of women as human at all, Aristotle posited that women were malformed, defective men who were unable to wield their will and require a man as a master to control them for their own good. Hegel opined that women are essentially like plants, whereas men properly belong as animals. Women were excluded as belonging to "humanity" in the ways Enlightenment thinkers articulated it, and were structurally treated as subhuman - unable to vote, own property, etc.
It's only very recently that in the West women were permitted to get an education or have a job, these were huge cultural shifts that occurred due to feminist activism, including violent campaigns of bombings and arsons by suffragettes.
Despite the progress made, there is much more work to do - and the feminist movement is far from reaching the gender egalitarianism it aims for. One of the problems that stand in the way is the continued belief that our socially arbitrary and sexist norms are actually entirely natural (something Aristotle said about his views of women, too - mind you, his views on women were explained through biology, as were the dismissals of women experiencing PTSD from sexual trauma as "hysteria").
If you wanted more to read on this topic, I recommend Julia Serano's Sexed Up for the way it analyzes both the gender binary and the predator / prey mindset.
Yes, there are some bullshit societal rules for us that are pretty ridiculous but a) they aren’t written down and policed heavily by community members and b) lots of people go against it pretty easily these days.
Also that rule is…you sure about that one? You good there bud?
I mean I get it but also would you want to wear a wet white T shirt and two piece while there’s a bunch of horny teens staring?
And trust me the guys got rules too, I remember getting direct talks to the boys about behaving and not being weirdo creeps. I think girls just need a paper on the wall with rules, boys sometimes need a full lecture when they’re feeding off each other and there’s teen girls around
Edit:
You people’s solution is so castrate young boys to kill their libido?
If teenage boys are ogling girls enough that we need to restrict normal beachwear, I’d suggest those “unwritten rules for guys” aren’t actually being enforced.
When I was a teenager girls could have been wearing a garbage bag and I'd still have looked. I also had enough consciousness to know that being weird about it made them uncomfortable so I restrained myself. Teach the boys how to act right. Girls dressing how they want isn't hurting anyone.
I mean I get it but also would you want to wear a wet white T shirt and two piece while there’s a bunch of horny teens staring?
It also said this. Which is blaming the girls for the problem. They bear 0 responsibility and should not be expected to conform to standards designed to keep men from objectifying them.
The point is, girls are held responsible for the boy's behaviour. They are told that it's all their fault if they get assaulted or leered at because they aren't "modest" enough.
oh no don't wear spaghetti straps and show your bra. Girls emulate older women at a much younger age. If boys were wearing speedo's and skin tight pants then they'd also have rules but its not something boys do. There are more rules for girls when it comes to clothing because girls tend to develop a sense of fashion earlier. Boys pick up 4 day old clothing off the ground and wear it.
But young boys also have rules like no profanity or offensive clothes and you can't wear certain gym clothes as regular everyday wear like gym shorts. They also get a ton more focus on their behavior since the trouble they get into is how they act day to day. Can anyone source any camp rules where there are no rules for boys?
Girls only dress up because they are forced to stay clean, their ripped clothes are taken away and everything they are given is less rugged, so curation is important.
You bet if girls break any of the boys rules they get punished.
From my experience girls dress up because they like to get dressed up. It's part of finding their identity. Boys do it by trying to behave like what they think strong men are and girls do it through clothing. Both instance they pick adults that shouldn't be marketed at kids but unfortunately are like Andrew Taint or whatever adult women pop singer is in that week.
If boys wore strap tank tops they would also be disciplined. Nothing really tragic is going on here
Ok. I'm just suggesting that maybe these lines of dialogues have other explanations and are not just "girls are treated like shit and boys never are" because I don't think that's actually true and reinforcing that does more damage to people then anything.
Girls are treated like shit, bringing boys into the conversation about how girls are treated like shit is nonsensical. Like what about fast food workers? They get shit money and exploited!
Here we go again, women and girls being responsible for how men and boys behave.
that's a good way to put it, it's victim blaming in a way
It's quite literally victim blaming. Blaming girls for boys and even adult men from being unable to stop themselves from sexually assaulting them.
Maybe if we didn't divide people by sex and assign gender norms from birth we would learn how to interact before puberty without sexual objectification. It would make navigating teenage years a lot easier if we started than with a gender/sex diverse social group opposed to the current default being through the lens of objectification.
Most kids do if you leave them alone. It's the adults that have them problems with it. I had zero interest in sex until at least 15 at the earliest. Adults are the problem, as per usual.
That's interesting, I remember thinking teachers classmates moms were hot when I was in kindergarten and 1st grade. I didn't really know what to do with that feeling but it was definitely there.
As someone who hit puberty at 8 and had a shitty mustache at 11 I concur. But it is probably highly variable based off of biology, like I was jacking off like a spider monkey way too early by most peoples standards. Weirdly enough I am aromantic legit don't get the appeal, meanwhile I've got a libido that put a cat in heat to shame.
Wow same.
Stop shaming cats in heat! They can't help it!
Agreed and yeah that's the point.
Not being comfortable socially with girls/women and being force-fed masculinity made my life and the life of women around me so much more difficult in my teens/early adulthood. Social skills are so much harder to develop, and cognitive biases so much harder to correct as an adult.
I'm 54. Still zero interest in sex. I can't fathom why people have to be so obsessed with it, because life is fine without it, but that's probably just me.
Literally just hormones. I can't explain horniness better than... idk, sleepiness? Hungriness?
Trying to explain to a horny person not to think about sex is a bit like trying to explain to an itchy person not to think about scratching.
And, a lot like with itching, once you've done it the urge only gets worse. Losing your virginity is like opening up an emotional floodgate. Once you've experienced it, you're a soppy emotional mess just pining for the next opportunity.
Man Who Hasn't Just Downed a Full Pot of Coffee: "You keep squeezing your legs shut and looking for a toilet. Why don't you just calm down?"
I didn’t mean people shouldn’t be that way, only that I can’t personally fathom it.
I also can’t personally fathom why some people are obsessed with food. I don’t mean they’re wrong, just that I can’t understand their POV. Like I get they feel that way, and it’s not wrong, it’s just outside my reckoning. Like I eat enough to live, and I don’t obsess over it. That’s foreign to me, thinking about food 24/7 even when you’re not hungry.
E: just ruminating here, not judging. I’m sharing and want other people to share. I’m not great at sharing without offending people, sorry.
That seems fairly straightforward.
For me? no. I can’t imagine thinking about anything that much. Like, to the exclusion of other things, I mean. Or, focussed on one thing (other then nothing – I can turn everything off, but throttling is very hard).
I know we don’t all think this way, but being that passionate without control is kinda foreign to me.
That's just brain development. Psychological control is as muscle you build as a bicep or a glut. And it's muscle that can be exhausted or atrophied over time.
I would have killed to not have been obsessed with sex from 18-35. Now that I'm nearly 50 it's finally calmed down. What a pain that was - I wonder if I could have gotten medication for it. Is that a thing?
Probably hormonal, so yeah. I’ve always been too low on the spectrum, and there’s a healthy balance. If it was disruptive for you, you may have been off-balance the other way. I’m not a doctor though, so…
Oh yeah. They chemically castrated Turing with meds that just didn’t make him horny anymore, and he killed himself because of it. That wasn’t by choice, though.
It must have done something more than turn the horny off... Why would not being horny make you suicidal? Doesn't make sense
It makes total sense to me! As someone who was extremely horny growing up and isn’t really anymore, losing that part of me at that time would have been DEVASTATING. That is maybe the worst thing that could have happened to me. I don’t care as much anymore, but when I did, I would have killed myself as well.
But if you're made to not miss it why would you be depressed. That's like not being hungry anymore and being sad you don't want to eat.
But that's logical! /j
Part of the problem with teenagers - particularly young teenagers - is that they're very self-obsessed and mood driven. Like, it's easy to say "just raise your kids better" when you're not deal with the bubbling caldron of hormones kettled inside a head that literally physically hasn't fully developed the faculties to process the emotions.
That's not to defend gender norms. But it's certainly easier to go with the "Lord of the Flies" flow than it is to bend the tidal force that is clichish, selfish, horny, and often violent teenage base tendencies.
It's helpful when teenagers have a group they can empathize with at an early age. But that doesn't work at a summer camp full of people who haven't met before.
Kids routinely can and do self-segregate along age and appearance and behavior. It takes a lot of human labor to undo the natural impulses of young kids.
And that means hiring more people, which costs more money, which cuts into the profit of the camp owners.
We definitely make it hard on parents. I'm making no conjecture on such a societal difference would impact parental workloads. That's another conversation worth having though.
That said, i think it should be pretty easy not to tease or shame children for being friends with the other sex. And gender neutral clothing costs the same as gendered clothing so 🤷
I think a lot of parents of young girls are terrified that their kids will be attacked by young boys. So they cloister them deliberately.
A lot of parents of young boys are terrified that they'll turn out gay. So they pressure them to be toxically masculine.
They're significantly cheaper, by and large. But by the time you're dealing with teenagers, they're largely dressing themselves.
Try to explain to a 15 year old that he shouldn't be emulating hyper-masculine/feminine media personalities.
Parents biases/behaviors impact their children for sure!
Again, I'm talking about how the teenage years can benefit from a different approach in earlier childhood than traditional norms. Teens are learning to be adults, they need autonomy and space to explore themselves. I only commented that they have the capacity to understand consent.
E.g. a 6yo doesn't benefit from being dressed in pink or robin egg blue, and children pick up on this stuff even if unconsciously because the rest of society reacts to it.
While it would definitely help, the truth is kids brains are a hormonal mess. No matter what and how well we teach 'em, there comes a 'breaking point' where the chemical imbalance will override any 'training'
While double standards absolutely suck and should be eliminated wherever possible I think it's totally fair to have rules like this for kids (at least for now)
Just because my 13 year old brain knew 'girls are people too doesnt mean my 13 year old hormones cared about that when saying 'I like this'
This is not something that can be fixed overnight or in a single generation. And it will never be fixed 100%.
I can pretty much guarantee that even in the remote villages where toplessness is a normal part of everyday life there are still the 'oddballs' who love boobs and sexualize them.
Never said there was an overnight or one-stop fix.
I'm suggesting that with children developing socially together throughout childhood without being forced to conform to pink and blue norms we would be a lot better off navigating the social challenges we face during sexual development.
That opposed to the experience we had in my youth of peeking over the proverbial wall staring into the garden at what we had been told our whole lives were strange creatures that bore sex as their primary purpose rather than being people who had the same human experiences and emotions as us.
Also i disagree with your sentiment about training and breaking points. Children can easily understand consent. They do, however, need mentors facilitating an environment safe enough they can talk through feelings.
E: rewording some stuff to avoid binaries, assigning genders, etc
Besides what the other person said, it's much deeper than "boobs = sexy." It's a culture that blames young girls for boys and grown men finding them sexually attractive. Even in your "oddballs" example, we don't ban people from going barefoot because some people are into feet (probably the most common fetish in the world thanks to biology). If people have a problem with that, it's their problem, not the person that they're objectifying.
I agree that it's not a quick fix, but it starts with teaching boys to have some simple self control and basic empathy and not making the girls shoulder all the responsibility of boys being horny. But that also starts long before you ever get to a summer camp, and that's also an important part of the topic. Like I said, it's a deeply rooted cultural issue.
Boys also aren't allowed to wear bikinis, and their swimsuits are (usually) shorts already.
No white Tees is BS though.
However, without context, I would hazard a guess that the summer camp has a religious affiliation (most do). My YMCA affiliated summer camp required that all campers attend chapel on Sunday. I "learned" the "hard way" that not participating at chapel was "punished" by being sent to the cafeteria to play games and eat extra breakfast with the non-christian staffers.
Makes perfect sense! I want to know what their logic is behind this. I imagine it's a mixture of prejudice and plain stupid.
Their logic was "it's easier to put this kid somewhere else, than it is to answer the questions he asks"
It is the "Young Man's Christian Association" after all
Aka the OG Grindr
I would bet that if tight speedos came back into fashion there would be a rule against boys wearing those.
There's definitely an element of society telling women and girls what to do with their bodies. But, there's also an element of women/girls wanting to wear very revealing clothing, and boys/men wanting to wear less revealing clothing. Male swimwear is mostly shorts these days, at least in North America, for women it's a lot more revealing. Male office wear is suits, or at least button down shirts that are buttoned to the top. For women it's often a top with cleavage or at least upper chest showing, even in businesswear. A woman who wears a male-style shirt that covers up everything below the neck is pretty unusual. Then there's the legs. A woman wearing a skirt is seen as completely normal in a "business wear" office, but a man wearing shorts is most definitely not.
The boys are literally going topless.
When swimming, sure. In the office, not so much. Boys/men cover up much more than women do in the office.
Right. I was bringing it back to the topic being discussed.
This is a horse/cart situation and basing your logic and reasoning on cultural norms makes for an incredibly fragile foundation.
Women want to wear more revealing clothing because society tells them that that's what women are expected to wear and vice versa for men. The entirety of "business wear" is a paradigm created over a century ago when men were considered professionals and women were considered hired help at best and office decorations at worst. The word "scientist" was coined to describe a woman with a degree in science because the term up until then, man of science, didn't apply and they couldn't just call her a "doctor of x" because she held 3 doctorates in different fields. When the Romans first invaded Britain, they mocked the English for wearing pants, something that only women wore in Italy. Right up until the first chill breeze went up their skirts, then pants were suddenly incredibly manly.
Speaking of pants, have you ever looked at women's pants? Pockets are a rarity because they mess up the clean lines and form of the hips. That's not something women choose. Ask any woman and I bet she'll have plenty to say about the lack of pockets in women's clothing, and none of it will be good. A pair of good pants with pockets is a jealously guarded treasure to be well cared for lest they wear out. Clothes designers care more about the form of women('s clothes) than the function.
I bet you if speedos made a comeback, the fuss would be from older men saying that they looked gay or feminine.
Women do talk a lot about the lack of pants in pockets, but they don't actually seem to buy pants with pockets.
This is a perfect example of revealed preferences. Pants with pockets are out there for sale. They're not even rare. Especially in the modern world where you can order clothing online, it's easy to find and buy just about anything you want. Women could exclusively buy pants with pockets, but they don't. Why not? Probably because pockets are important, but when it comes right down to it, pockets aren't as important as other things like fit, style and price.
I'll definitely agree that the major fashion houses might refuse to make pants with pockets. For them fashion is the only thing that matters. In fact, they'd probably only add a pocket if they could justify as a part of the style. And, there are going to be other designers who just copy the major fashion houses, maybe with minor modifications. But, they might not put in pockets because they're trying to copy the major designer.
But, do a web search for "women's pants with pockets" and tell me if you don't find all kinds of results.
As for societal norms, I completely agree that the current world is one where women are expected to be pretty and men aren't. That wasn't the case in the 1700s where men wore makeup, tights and high heels. But, in the current world, it is women who society expects to make themselves look pretty, where that's not expected of men.
The whole pocket fiasco is wild to me as a guy.
I work with a lot of women and I also have a sister. All of them will complain about pockets being too small, but all of them also wear form fitting clothes that were clearly built to appeal to a fashion sense, rather than a practical one. Even the more practical oriented women amongst them opt for something that looks nice, but isn’t the most practical it could be
But here’s the thing. I’m not telling them what to wear. In fact, every woman is free to shop in the men’s section or to choose pants with actual pocket from the women’s section. You can buy CARGO PANTS. You are legally allowed to do so as a woman. The patriarchy is not stopping you.
Whenever the pockets thing comes up, I love to show them what I’m carrying. XL size phone, large wallet, Airpods, knife, keys… I can literally stick a Nintendo Switch in my pants pocket. And those are just casual jeans. If I had cargo pants, I could carry a backpack’s worth of gear.
So why don’t women do that? They literally have a term for ‘boyfriend jeans’ but refuse to wear something actually practical because it’s not as feminine. I imagine they don’t want comments from other women, because I as a guy am utterly delighted to see a woman wear something practical.
There's a woman in my family who's in her 70s now, and she exclusively wears pants or shorts with pockets. She doesn't care at all about style anymore, she's all about the cargo pants / cargo shorts. Her husband also wears cargo pants / shorts, and is probably the one who converted her. He's just happy she can carry her own stuff now and doesn't need to bug him.
But, it was a big deal for her. She was never a very style-conscious person. However, she was raised in a different time, and she wore clothes to fit in, which mostly meant typical women's pants without useful pockets. Now, she's happy to tell people how great it is to have big pockets and how liberating it is not to care what other people think of her fashion choices.
I get it. Even though I also don't much care what fashion says, I still feel a bit constrained. There are hot summer days where I think a skirt would probably feel great. But, skirts on guys aren't even vaguely acceptable, and even variations on a skirt like a kilt are highly suspect. I'm not so bothered by it that I feel up to challenging the norms and wearing a skirt. If some other guy were to push the boundaries and wear a skirt, I'd fully support him because I want that freedom too, but I'm not willing to put up with the intense pressure it would cause me. Similarly, when a woman does wear clothes that emphasize utility over fashion, I'm hugely supportive. I also think pocketless pants are dumb.
I honestly think that it's probably mostly women who are holding women back when it comes to pockets. Most guys probably mostly don't notice or don't care.
I hear ya on the skirt/kilt thing.
Heck, at work we’re officially not allowed to wear shorts according to the dusty old company manual that passed my desk many moons ago. I’ve never tested that rule myself, and never really see others wearing them either. Because you just KNOW that it’s going to get you comments from other colleagues. And that’s just shorts.
A kilt certainly seems like a very comfortable option during summer, but only if you don’t really need to carry a bunch of stuff. Cargo shorts always were my preference during summer as a kid and teen.
Society would certainly be better off if we stopped giving a shit about what’s masculine and feminine in terms of clothing and just let everyone wear everything they want without judgement. If a woman can wear a skirt, so should you and I if se want to.
Of course, you can always just start with a kilt to honor your ‘Scottish heritage’. If you look at a family tree long enough, there’s bound to be someone Scottish… ish somewhere :D And the Scots certainly don’t mind - anyone’s allowed to wear a kilt if they want to.
Are they useful pockets? One of the problems I hear is the pockets are so small.
If you want useful pockets, you can find pants with useful pockets.
American prudishness is weird as fuck.
You can thank our psychotic Evangelical Christians. Bunch of pseudo-puritan nutjobs. They have no issues sinning, but want to make sure that no one else can.
A lot of the anti-abortion folks have had abortions. A lot of the anti-gay folks, have a gay sidepiece or have engaged in sexual acts with someone of the same sex. A lot of the folks that are anti-drug are some of the biggest drug offenders.
Like, at what point do Christians wake up and go, wow, these people are absolutely scum...why am I associating with them?
I despise all forms of religion, by there's evidence the evangelicals are just claiming something that isn't theirs.
Hmm, sounds like yet another similarity to Nazis.
Europe did ship off their most extreme Christian sects to here
But also all their radicals and revolutionaries and criminals.
these are the boys' rules.
To be fair, boys swimsuits are already basically just shorts, there's not much to make rules about. If a boy turned up in a speedo, there'd probably be a new rule.
Yeah, more often than not the lack of rules for men's clothing is because culturally, what's thought of as "men's clothing" is so boring that there's no way it could be sexualized.
Seriously here are the bathing suit options for men: Shorts, Smaller Shorts with no pockets (speedo), Cargo Shorts, Shorts with a T-Shirt and (theoretically, I don't even know where you'd buy one) a one-piece. Everything else, mankini or g-string or whatever, is lingerie and is covered under "decency laws" so you don't have to explicitly address it in your summercamp rules (the reason pants arent included in "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service")
Meanwhile every bathing suit option women have has been sexualized to the moon and back, and half the options are just lingerie that's acceptable to wear in public bcz all our laws were written by horny hypocrites. A men's speedo covers more than your most basic bikini, are way harder to find and aren't usually sold in boy's sizes. A women's one-piece suit is a camel toe nightmare that should qualify as a fucking miracle if it doesn't leave both cheeks hanging out, and now most of them are including a fucking boob window.
We've internalized the masculine aspects of sexism to the point where we don't need to explicitly state it, and instead spend all our time correcting for the obvious cultural deficiencies that result from it and shifting the responsibility for dealing with it to women. "Why would I change my behavior, I'm fine, nobody's ogling me at the pool." It's great. Really winning as a society.
I'll do my part by sending my kid to summer camp in a mankini.
I am a bit confused by
When i was in a swimming club as a kid, we almost all wore "speedos". Someone wearing the versions with a little bit of leg on them was the rare exception. I used to be made fun of at lakes in the summer sometimes by people wearing the "bermuda shorts". Turns out it is a bad idea to make fun of someone who is good at swimming while being in the water and wearing the faster swimwear.
You wowed them with your speed and they all clapped?
Yeah sure. I totally didn't pull them under water for a few seconds or anything like that. No good kid would do that in a lake.
I won't argue very hard here, I'll just say that I didn't have bikini briefs in mind when I wrote this - but the coverage is roughly the same if you use those as the baseline bikini, which is fair enough.
Men’s speedos are definitely at least as revealing as women’s bikinis.
The French would like to have a word with
Speedo is the law
Other way round for us. In school I remember being pulled to the side with like 3 other kids after a swimming lesson and told we should be wearing speedos instead of shorts because it reduces drag in the water.
I continued wearing shorts because I genuinely don't give a shit if it takes a second longer to cross the pool, I just want to swim. Now as an adult I don't need to worry about pedo-nazis telling me what to wear.
I actually think a man in swim shorts is pretty hot, so maybe some kids think so too? For me a man's exposed torso is much more sexual than a woman's. Maybe all the kids should be wearing burkinis regardless of sex or gender.
I mean, i think if one of the boys tried to wear a bikini theyd tell him to wear something different too.
The funny things about the boys rules is that they mostly boil down to "don't let us catch you looking too much like a girl" but also "don't let us catch you looking too much like an adult man, either"
No long hair. But also no facial hair.
No piercings. No visible tattoos. Nothing that might look like a weapon (including combs, heavy shoes, and tshirts with pictures of guns on them).
No eyeliner or hairspray or jewelry. Nothing too punk but also nothing too fruity. Absolutely nothing that might be scary looking. Or drug affiliated. Or queer.
Heaven fucking help you if you look queer. Summer camps hate that.
The only thing worse than looking LGB is looking T+ heaven forbid your gender identity doesn't fit the binary you were assigned at birth
Mens fashion is all about compliance with the uniform
Am I too european to understand that?
Also, why would you stop boys from wearing colorful sarongs, surfer mustache and stylish earrings? Isn‘t that what a summer camp should be about?
It's about on par with the UK obsession over Knife Crime.
Summer camp is about putting the kids somewhere cheap so you can keep doing your day job uninterrupted.
it's a conservative christian thing to ban much of that stuff but I imagine the person you are commenting on probably thought it matched the tone of the original post
When I was young, the boys' public school dress code did exclude sleeveless shirts, the girls' did not. Boys' dress code excluded skirts, girls' did not. Nobody could have short shorts.
Church camp, well it's Florida, everyone wore swimsuits to swim, there was no mention of modesty about that, because swimwear is appropriate attire for swimming.
I remember my time as a boy... Back then the rules for us were "whatever dumb shit you're thinking of doing, fucking don't!".
Ever get chased through the fields with the nice, big, beautiful stick you brought back earlier that day? Ever had heavy stuff thrown at you for doing some really dumb shit?
Ever left the home with a deep, resentful glare burning through the back of your skull?
It's difficult to lay down rules for boys because in general, we're dumb as shit doing dumb shit all the time. So there's almost always one, unspoken rule for boys: "Just fucking don't!"
The problem though is that girls are held upon to a higher standard. There are expectations of a higher level of civility and understanding, though undue in my opinion. Some of y'all were as dumb as the rest of us and were treated unfairly due to those higher standards.
But let's face it, as parents or adults, we all probably tend to have a similar kind of bias towards our own kids. Some of them are dumb as shit and while we worry about them, every time they plan to do something stupid, the inner voice we won't admit to is saying "please, oh please, just fucking don't!". Meanwhile, the kids we worry about less as they know their shit, they have clear, but few specific rules because we believe that's what they need.
So, in my humble opinion as a formerly dumb boy/kid, the lack of written rules more likely means there are too many, unpredictable rules that have to be managed proactively.
Btw, unrelated question, has anyone managed to get squirrels drunk in those camps of yours? I know it was on a to-do list at one point...
It's very easy to lay down rules for boys. Don't ogle, grope, or otherwise assault someone just because they're wearing a two - piece swimsuit. Let people wear what they want, even if it's a white shirt. Don't let the outer appearance of anyone be the guide to make up a fantasy in your head and decide what kind of person they are.
See? That wasn't very hard.
I think not all hope is lost, but you're missing the point here, with a bit of the ol' "boys will be boys" attitude mixed in. First of all, it doesn't help to treat boys (or any teenager for that matter) as some form of intermittent lifeform on its way to achieve full sentience. They're not animals, and most of them haven't been dropped off in the jungle and were raised by wolves. They can, and have to, learn what is acceptable behavior, as well as empathy for those that surround them.
Dismissing any form of accountability and consistently shifting the blame to a 14 year old girl wearing a white shirt at a lake function enforces stereotypes and societal preconceptions that I can only call disgusting.
The rules aren’t because boys will “ogle” the girls, it’s because some religious fuckhead has inserted their views onto society.
Those in power want to enforce abrahamic religious norms. It about control, they don’t care about protecting children.
What are you talking about, boys will absolutely ogle girls, and sometimes other boys. They're teenagers! The thing is, it doesn't matter how prudish you try to be, they'll still do it. If they can see some ankle they'll fap to it later. The best outcome is if they're ogling someone too much and making that person uncomfortable, take them aside and privately tell them to knock that shit off. You don't need a bloody no looking rule that makes them feel sinful just for having a peek at someone clothed. You also wouldn't need a no touching rule if you just fluffing taught them consent at 10yo, around when you should be starting sex ed as well anyway.
I feel like we can teach consent in preschool; it applies to way more than sexual interaction, and would hopefully help kids identify when they're being abused.
Yeah honestly, you're right, we should be teaching bodily autonomy once kids are old enough to dress themselves (physically, idc if they want to wear the hero or princess outfit every day, let them! let 'boys' wear princess outfits too!!).
I dunno. I think a little ogling is fine, just don’t make people uncomfortable.
But yeah. Maybe don’t touch even if they’re naked without consent?
Edit: curious what the downvotes are for. Do people want to touch without consent? Because I sure as hell don’t to be touched, whether or not I have clothes on. And I wouldn’t want that on other people either
None of that is "rules for boys" though. They apply to all kids. If a girl is acting rambunctious, she'll get told to stop too. Often for behavior the boys don't even get called out for because, as you said yourself, girls are held to a higher standard of civility.
I remember being kids and an adult ruined our fun game of throwing spears at each other.
Yes, but that's on trauma, not on weird social rules on genders. (I'm a woman.)
I don't really understand how what you've written relates to boys being allowed to wear white shirts, but not girls.
I assume they're responding to the end of the meme that says "Where are the boys' rules?" - these are the boys rules - "just don't", basically
Just in case the President of the United States wanders into camp.
POTUS. Paedo Of The United States.
PEDUS
You just gave me the perfect title for my Dr. Seuss style kids history book about the Trump regime.
POTUS PEDUS DIABEETUS
Given his track record of he did the opposite rules would be mandatory
Although I have to say it doesn't make sense there either. Either short hair is necessary, than everybody should have it. Or it isn't. Gendered hair styles are stupid.
Okay but when in uniform women must have their hair slicked back and pulled up as though they have no hair at all. Same as men not being allowed to have big hair.
But then men should also be allowed to have long hair and pull it up.
True. Sounds like it's an old fashioned concept from the 1950s when civilized obedient well-mannered men were all expected to have short hair.
No rules about femboys though? I see a loophole here.
Maybe don't refer to femboys when talking about 12 year olds?
Being a femboy isn't inherently sexual.
Americans when they learn that cross-dressing isn't considered adult only in other places. Sure you have RuPaul's drag race which is very sexualised, but that isn't the only type of cross-dressing that exists.
Also the rules listed are actually sexualising girls. I would rather mock the rules instead. The femboys are not the problem here.
Honestly, I blame the history of the word and its relation to slurs for trans women. Femboy, trap, and multiple others started as words to describe trans women as actually just being a gay man trying to trick straight men into having sex with them by pretending to be a woman.
I'm glad to see that they've evolved beyond that into a very fun way for men to play and express themselves outside of the arbitrary gender binary, but I totally understand the gut reaction of basically "femboy = twink with extra steps."
Well fuck, when you're right you're right.
Just kind of a gut reaction, as that's how the world treats them, but that's not really fair.
<3
I don't think Linux devs go to summer camps...
Genuinely wonder how they'd react to a boy showing up in a two-piece like some kind of gacha femboy.
Like similar to a girls' two piece? A speedo and crop top? I bet there'd be a new rule next year.
Just normal trunks and a swim shirt? Probably nothing said at all. Though to be fair I bet if a girl showed up in swim trunks and a swim shirt not a word would be said either, but I could be wrong on that.
As someone who was abused, it's always the girl's fault. Just existing is enough. This is especially reinforced in Christian and camp circles, because one of the first stories you learn is all sin started with Eve, and women are why we're all damned.
Men are tempted, women are tempters – that's how it's always been.
I just love wearing a wool full-body suit in the water. That wet sock feeling all over my body, down to my calves, is just chef’s kiss.
This just reminded me of the "self-defense training for girls" we had in 8th or 9th grade. It boiled down to "Every man potentially wants to hurt you." Someone walking behind you? Turn around and yell at them to stop it. A man standing too close to you? Yell "Back off".
Of course the situations were all mundane and it was pretty clear you couldn't just yell at or confront any man that comes within ~3 meters of you. So all that "training" did was give me the uneasy feeling that if something happened, it would be my fault. I didn't preemptively yell at the man within the first few seconds of seeing him.
Weird. Where I grew up it was more that boys/men were dirty uncontrollable sex monsters, and that girls didnt actually like sex. They only did it for men they loved. I had very weird ideas of what girls/women were pumped into my brain when I was a kid. I was genuinely surprised when I was talking to a girl I knew in school, and she was going on and on about how much she wanted to fuck this other guy in our class.
This is for a kids summer camp? Who is the no white T-shirt rule for, the camp staff?
Can't be tempting the paedos that run the place, can we?
It's for the pubescent kids. Why wouldn't it be?
What are the enbies allowed or not allowed to wear?
::: spoiler NSFL joke in America enbies go to a different camp :::
Oof
yeah, I probably shouldn't have written that, but it's on the mind I guess
Nono, this was an oof of appreciation.
You're either laughing or you're crying. :D
definitely crying, and also planning my escape routes
damn rare w in a deportation case and for Canada. seems like Canada is mostly trying to still be america-lite and this is a good bit of not-that
Nah, it was fantastic.
That typo is hilarious.
EDIT: Not you, OP. In the article itself.
what typo?
EDIT: I still can't find the typo, in the article 😭
EDIT2: I see your screenshot, but I still don't see the typo in the text of that screenshot - maybe you could cirlce it in red or otherwise communicate which part is the typo, maybe I'm like the dumbest person in the world 😅
Oooh snap, I feel that.
Shorts over bathing suits is such a weird one to me. Like... Bathing suit is fine in the water, going in to the water, getting out of the water. But you best cover that shit up for lake activities or whatever. Like what a weird line to draw.
Edit: You know what? These are all really weird. Like... No white t shirts? Are you afraid of them getting wet and maybe revealing the bathing suit they are probably wearing underneath? No two peice bathing suit? Because heaven forbid you show off the most sexual part of the body - the stomach? Like... That's the difference between a one peice and a two piece, right? The stomach? The back? Maybe it's to reduce the chance of a "wardrobe malfunction"?
I dont know.
As once a boy & now a man. It's simple. Be embarrassed. This applies to any form of sexuality or gender.
I've been fit for my entire life and wished it wouldn't be weird for me to wear a T-shirt while swimming.
There's always more than two sides. That's why I don't flip coins, I roll dice.
Wear a sun shirt, and then when people ask just say "it's better for my skin" and then drop that mic.
A surfer / rash guard shirt is pretty cool. I have no issues with showing my body, but it just reduces sunburn risk by a lot and lets you stay in cold-ish water longer. Really, no reason not to wear one.
Deal.
Tommy Bahama and throw the mic down. I reach into my back pocket.
^surprise
It's a better microphone! ¡Free gratis
the scary thing is that those rules were probably put in place because of the grown up councillors 🤢
They should all be wearing sun protective clothing. Slip slap slop slide you little shits.
Easy. Society has taught me that boys are the exact opposite of girls, so white T-shirts only, with two-piece swimming suit, no shorts and just bathing suits.
The boys' rules are pretty simple.
Drive safe. Don't rape.
limit yourselves to 12 dick pics or less.
Sending or receiving?
Taking. You have 12 tries to find the right lighting and angle.
AI generated it is.
These rules sound like the intention is to not enforce stereotypical sex roles.
Not saying I agree this is the right approach. I think people should be able to wear anything they like.
aren't they modesty rules that perpetuate the idea that girls' bodies are sexual while boys' bodies are not?
I get the feeling that the intention is to use clothing to make both sexes plain and put them on the same level. Like, not lean in to societys expectation that women should wear sexy stuff. But I guess your takeaway is just as valid.
Perhaps they should have included some clothing guidelines for boys too.
right, but saying that exposes your thinking that girls are inherently sexual and require clothing modifications to make them "plain" and "equal" to boys - this is the same mindset of modesty and sexualization of girls that the OOP is calling out, the whole point is that it doesn't have to be this way, it's a social norm but you're treating it like it's natural
We don't need clothing guidelines and modesty for boys, we need to not sexualize girls and then impose modesty guidelines to moderate that sexualization.
We might have fundamentally different views on how we see people around us.
I think as humans, we are sexual beings. Men are conventionally drawn to women and vice versa. 12 year old boys and girls may or may not be awaken to that. I'd say chances are that they are. And they like to copy people older than them.
I'd say sexuality is about as natural as it gets. Unless you are cloning yourself, it is a deeply ingrained characteristic and behavior of any species. And it is not a perfectly symmetric affair.
I think clothing choice can help enhance a persons sexual characteristics. Society is perpetuating the norm that women and girls should wear a specific set of clothing. Biased toward the sexual characteristic enhancing options. Why this is, can be discussed in perpetuity by intellectuals.
The organizers have a choice to let people dress ass they wish, which includes anything society perpetuates as normal. Or they could, as in this case, try to change the norm, if only temporarily. I don't know if the organizers approach helps in any way. As I said earlier, I think personal agency weighs heavier. It's possible they are just trying to address some specific problems that happened in the past. And are not taking any stance on gender norm issues.
Solutions: If we agree that clothing is a variable in sexualizing the wearer and we want to stop the sexualization of girls; one option is to change the mind of our entire society and somehow make people unified in what they want to wear, just to influence younger people in the same direction. Sounds hard to me.
I agree, that we should avoid sexualizing girls and boys. And I agree that we should moderate bad behavior. I believe this should be done through quality education. I think the asymmetry of how one sex is more sexualized than the other, is a very hard problem to solve.
to be honest, I think we probably share fundamental views on how we see people around us - the difference is in how I relate to and understand my views
You have naturalized sexism, you think because humans are naturally sexual beings that the situation of girls being sexualized is natural too.
I don't disagree that humans are generally sexual creatures (though obviously asexual people exist as well), and I agree also that children have sexualities - but we are talking about why girls have a bunch of extra rules like not being able to wear white shirts, not being able to wear two-piece bathing suits, and requirements of wearing shorts ... this isn't just because humans are naturally sexual, this is because in our society we see boys as wanting sex, and as girls as having the sex that the boys seek.
The rules are seen as protecting the girls from the boys, which positions girls as sexual prey and boys as sexual predators. It views girls as having a virginity that must be protected.
Even within this view, the idea that the solution is to police the girls puts the responsibility on the girls for the boy's perceived predatory behavior.
Why is sexuality "bad behavior"? And if we agree it's bad, why do the rules focus on regulating the girls, why not have rules that regulate the inappropriate behavior of the boys instead?
And of course you're right that the asymmetry of how girls are sexualized and viewed as prey from whom boys "take" sex is a very hard problem to solve, not a problem we will solve individually or in our life times, but big cultural problems have shifted before - we used to not think of women as human at all, Aristotle posited that women were malformed, defective men who were unable to wield their will and require a man as a master to control them for their own good. Hegel opined that women are essentially like plants, whereas men properly belong as animals. Women were excluded as belonging to "humanity" in the ways Enlightenment thinkers articulated it, and were structurally treated as subhuman - unable to vote, own property, etc.
It's only very recently that in the West women were permitted to get an education or have a job, these were huge cultural shifts that occurred due to feminist activism, including violent campaigns of bombings and arsons by suffragettes.
Despite the progress made, there is much more work to do - and the feminist movement is far from reaching the gender egalitarianism it aims for. One of the problems that stand in the way is the continued belief that our socially arbitrary and sexist norms are actually entirely natural (something Aristotle said about his views of women, too - mind you, his views on women were explained through biology, as were the dismissals of women experiencing PTSD from sexual trauma as "hysteria").
If you wanted more to read on this topic, I recommend Julia Serano's Sexed Up for the way it analyzes both the gender binary and the predator / prey mindset.
Maybe?
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.
Yes, there are some bullshit societal rules for us that are pretty ridiculous but a) they aren’t written down and policed heavily by community members and b) lots of people go against it pretty easily these days.
Also that rule is…you sure about that one? You good there bud?
I mean I get it but also would you want to wear a wet white T shirt and two piece while there’s a bunch of horny teens staring? And trust me the guys got rules too, I remember getting direct talks to the boys about behaving and not being weirdo creeps. I think girls just need a paper on the wall with rules, boys sometimes need a full lecture when they’re feeding off each other and there’s teen girls around
Edit: You people’s solution is so castrate young boys to kill their libido?
If teenage boys are ogling girls enough that we need to restrict normal beachwear, I’d suggest those “unwritten rules for guys” aren’t actually being enforced.
When I was a teenager girls could have been wearing a garbage bag and I'd still have looked. I also had enough consciousness to know that being weird about it made them uncomfortable so I restrained myself. Teach the boys how to act right. Girls dressing how they want isn't hurting anyone.
My comment literally said boys were getting lectures on how to act right
It also said this. Which is blaming the girls for the problem. They bear 0 responsibility and should not be expected to conform to standards designed to keep men from objectifying them.
The point is, girls are held responsible for the boy's behaviour. They are told that it's all their fault if they get assaulted or leered at because they aren't "modest" enough.
oh no don't wear spaghetti straps and show your bra. Girls emulate older women at a much younger age. If boys were wearing speedo's and skin tight pants then they'd also have rules but its not something boys do. There are more rules for girls when it comes to clothing because girls tend to develop a sense of fashion earlier. Boys pick up 4 day old clothing off the ground and wear it.
But young boys also have rules like no profanity or offensive clothes and you can't wear certain gym clothes as regular everyday wear like gym shorts. They also get a ton more focus on their behavior since the trouble they get into is how they act day to day. Can anyone source any camp rules where there are no rules for boys?
Girls only dress up because they are forced to stay clean, their ripped clothes are taken away and everything they are given is less rugged, so curation is important.
You bet if girls break any of the boys rules they get punished.
From my experience girls dress up because they like to get dressed up. It's part of finding their identity. Boys do it by trying to behave like what they think strong men are and girls do it through clothing. Both instance they pick adults that shouldn't be marketed at kids but unfortunately are like Andrew Taint or whatever adult women pop singer is in that week.
If boys wore strap tank tops they would also be disciplined. Nothing really tragic is going on here
Well you just seem like you are part of the problem
Ok. I'm just suggesting that maybe these lines of dialogues have other explanations and are not just "girls are treated like shit and boys never are" because I don't think that's actually true and reinforcing that does more damage to people then anything.
Girls are treated like shit, bringing boys into the conversation about how girls are treated like shit is nonsensical. Like what about fast food workers? They get shit money and exploited!
No they're fucking not. Not any worse or better than anyone else. That's so stupid