Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Having worked in the public schools for 42 years, I would expect a young man expressing concerns to a school counselor would be considered confidential, unless he revealed sexual or physical abuse, at which time the counselor would be required by law to report it to the administration and the necessary authorities. I also know that if a student or parent makes a complaint the counselor and administration are in a tough spot because ignoring it can lead to severe consequences for them. In this case, I think the young man's rights and safe place were violated, but there is not enough information to know for sure. In any case, someone messed up and he and his family are paying dearly.

I agree with this.  It seems to me because of an error where confidentiality was breached both this young man (who likely is in need of help to learn how to better deal in society as we all are, but some in ways that impact others more as this appears to be the case and especially with females) and the cheerleaders (who were placed in a position of embarrassment) were harmed and while it could have been something that was a blip in their life, where they could have learned better coping skills, more confidence, now that it has been turned into a circus whatever personal good could have come out of it is going to be trampled by all the gung-ho criticism on both sides.  And I think the greatest victim likely will be the young man though hopefully his parents and he are wise enough to get him a good therapist to deal not only with the original issues, but the fallout from all the attention he is getting.  I only hope he does not direct resentment to the cheerleaders themselves as could so easily happen and which would just magnify his issues, whatever they are.  Thankfully the young women were given the correct information quickly.  Hopefully none of them are harmed because they are embarrassed by the attention (in my experience, cheerleaders tend to be extroverts, but some are perfectionists or highly insecure and this type of attention can cause problems with that type of perspective) or ashamed because of the extreme criticism it has created (as opposed to thoughtful discussions that may result in positive changes...hopefully one of those is about appropriate confidentiality).

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Having worked in the public schools for 42 years, I would expect a young man expressing concerns to a school counselor would be considered confidential, unless he revealed sexual or physical abuse, at which time the counselor would be required by law to report it to the administration and the necessary authorities. I also know that if a student or parent makes a complaint the counselor and administration are in a tough spot because ignoring it can lead to severe consequences for them. In this case, I think the young man's rights and safe place were violated, but there is not enough information to know for sure. In any case, someone messed up and he and his family are paying dearly.

I understand and actually agree in a way.   I don't like her inserted into every conversation as she can no longer speak for LDS women..nor can i..  As I mentioned in an above post..I would not know what you women do as to the changes that may or may not have occured since the ordain women movement..my lack of knowledge to that is obvious..but had at least hoped there had been good changes in communication so as the church doesn't lose women like you.  I am not a Kate Kelly fan but what a waste for her to not have accomplished something.  I hear you.

Ugh...this is a reply to Calm's post ...sorry...

Bernard...I sure don't envy the positions teachers and parents are faced with. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I agree with this.  It seems to me because of an error where confidentiality was breached both this young man (who likely is in need of help to learn how to better deal in society as we all are, but some in ways that impact others more as this appears to be the case and especially with females) and the cheerleaders (who were placed in a position of embarrassment) were harmed and while it could have been something that was a blip in their life, where they could have learned better coping skills, more confidence, now that it has been turned into a circus whatever personal good could have come out of it is going to be trampled by all the gung-ho criticism on both sides.  And I think the greatest victim likely will be the young man though hopefully his parents and he are wise enough to get him a good therapist to deal not only with the original issues, but the fallout from all the attention he is getting.  I only hope he does not direct resentment to the cheerleaders themselves as could so easily happen and which would just magnify his issues, whatever they are.  Thankfully the young women were given the correct information quickly.  Hopefully none of them are harmed because they are embarrassed by the attention (in my experience, cheerleaders tend to be extroverts, but some are perfectionists or highly insecure and this type of attention can cause problems with that type of perspective) or ashamed because of the extreme criticism it has created (as opposed to thoughtful discussions that may result in positive changes...hopefully one of those is about appropriate confidentiality).

Calm...I replied to you under the wrong quote..but it is above on Bernard's quote..sorry...I am having one of those days!!!

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I do understand everyone's thoughts on Kate Kelly.  I see where you stand and understand.  My only hope that you might realize just one thing..and it may be the only thing and that is she did give YOU more voice.  In my opinion, she did open up some doors that may have closed.  Finally...there is a group of people higher up who are willing to listen to your voices..if only to better communicate your good thoughts and ideas.  At least I hope this is the case.   I am sure that those priesthood holders that care about you...don't want to lose you.  Take the good and work with it.  Hugs..Jeanne

I think KK particularly at the beginning led to more conversations about women's role in the general public. But she certainly didn't create the conversation. Feminist dialogue was happening in some of my classes at BYU already. I talked to my cousin about role of women all the time. From what I'd heard from others who had more forward thinking views, they had been in conversation with church leaders prior about women. I saw indications of questions thoughts and dialogue about women we'll before her. KK didn't happen in a vacuum. 

But she most certainly did not give me a voice. In some ways she works to impede people who shared my perspective. She then continues to state things that are insulting to Mormon women, leave them in a victim-oriented monolithic oppressed view. This makes it more difficult to really be seen as I am outside of Mormon circles, exposed to this dialogue.

Most changes that I saw during this time happened more parallel than actually in reaction to KK. And after KK they've continued, but not necessarily in a direction she is hoping for. Her model that focuses on gender parity with the same priesthood function never really fit. Gender essentialism with an equitable contribution and equal access to priesthood power through different roles is what I see happening more and more. 

I don't hold much I'll will toward her, but I don't respect her views and approach. I do not feel like I've somehow been championed by her.

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree with this.  It seems to me because of an error where confidentiality was breached both this young man (who likely is in need of help to learn how to better deal in society as we all are, but some in ways that impact others more as this appears to be the case and especially with females) and the cheerleaders (who were placed in a position of embarrassment) were harmed and while it could have been something that was a blip in their life, where they could have learned better coping skills, more confidence, now that it has been turned into a circus whatever personal good could have come out of it is going to be trampled by all the gung-ho criticism on both sides.  And I think the greatest victim likely will be the young man though hopefully his parents and he are wise enough to get him a good therapist to deal not only with the original issues, but the fallout from all the attention he is getting.  I only hope he does not direct resentment to the cheerleaders themselves as could so easily happen and which would just magnify his issues, whatever they are.  Thankfully the young women were given the correct information quickly.  Hopefully none of them are harmed because they are embarrassed by the attention (in my experience, cheerleaders tend to be extroverts, but some are perfectionists or highly insecure and this type of attention can cause problems with that type of perspective) or ashamed because of the extreme criticism it has created (as opposed to thoughtful discussions that may result in positive changes...hopefully one of those is about appropriate confidentiality).

As usual, you say it more reasonably, concisely and effectively than I. Thanks for the very thoughtful input. Given the limited information (as opposed to the unlimited hyperventilation), I would expect the school to review their confidentiality policies and procedures. Whatever his issues, and they may or not be severe, he does not deserve to be treated this way. And the Church does not deserve to be accused of cultivating a "rape culture" as the media and some members have done. The girls shouldn't have been exposed to this kind of sensationalistic frenzy...they are being used by media and individuals such as Kate Kelly who have agendas.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

55 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Ugh...this is a reply to Calm's post ...sorry...

Bernard...I sure don't envy the positions teachers and parents are faced with. 

No worries. As usual, the kids are the ones who end up getting hurt.

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think KK particularly at the beginning led to more conversations about women's role in the general public. But she certainly didn't create the conversation. Feminist dialogue was happening in some of my classes at BYU already. I talked to my cousin about role of women all the time. From what I'd heard from others who had more forward thinking views, they had been in conversation with church leaders prior about women. I saw indications of questions thoughts and dialogue about women we'll before her. KK didn't happen in a vacuum. 

But she most certainly did not give me a voice. In some ways she works to impede people who shared my perspective. She then continues to state things that are insulting to Mormon women, leave them in a victim-oriented monolithic oppressed view. This makes it more difficult to really be seen as I am outside of Mormon circles, exposed to this dialogue.

Most changes that I saw during this time happened more parallel than actually in reaction to KK. And after KK they've continued, but not necessarily in a direction she is hoping for. Her model that focuses on gender parity with the same priesthood function never really fit. Gender essentialism with an equitable contribution and equal access to priesthood power through different roles is what I see happening more and more. 

I don't hold much I'll will toward her, but I don't respect her views and approach. I do not feel like I've somehow been championed by her.

With luv,

BD

Evidenced by the media turning to her as the go-to person for all things Mormon-women-sexuality. The quotes from the articles inflame rather than inform.

[Bernard Gui]

No comments on the scriptures quoted earlier...

Jesus' comments on purity of thought?
D&C section on purity of thought and worthiness?
Paul admonition not to put stumbling blocks in other believers' ways?

These seem to me to be far more important than the length of cheerleaders' uniforms.

 

Quote

Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery; But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

Quote

And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out..... And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I agree somewhat with her.

Just for fun, how would the cheering be different if cheerleaders wore a different less revealing uniform? Would the teams be less motivated to score or the fans less prone to yell their support?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Odd? I was responding (somewhat in jest) to your statement about Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes. Apparently I misunderstood your point. Mr Clinton has been accused of rape. Tolerance for him but no tolerance for them?

Sorry, Bernard.  I had forgotten about the rape allegation against Clinton, and appreciate your calling it to my attention.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick .

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Had he and those you refer to been taught as Wendy Shalit proposes, they might have fewer problems. Wendy makes many interesting arguments for modesty from a religious (Jewish) perspective. Mrs Gui and I strongly recommend her book.

I like the version of the monks story that makes them LDS missionaries.

Would you agree that the standard of modesty defined by the temple garment crosses cultural and societal lines? Whatever the cultural and societal norms, there actually is a model of modesty that has divine approval, a higher standard that people embrace when they choose to be endowed. For some it requires drastic changes in dress and thinking habits. Of course we cannot and must not impose this on others or shame them into accepting it. I am not asking for that. We can decide how closely we will keep the covenant. And we should also be allowed to advocate for it without fear of being labeled hateful sexist misogynistic promoters of "rape culture." It's a difficult issue for sure.

I don't mind at all if Amish women, ultra-orthodox Jewish women, and many fundamentalist polygamist Mormon women insist on wearing extra long dresses.  In the case of the Jewish women, that even includes wearing wigs.  No one should mock them or look down on them, or even Muslim women who wear varying degrees of coverings -- though ample robes are sometimes used to conceal suicide-belt bombs.

The same applies to various items of religious clothing worn by Jewish and Muslim men, as it does to Mormon religious apparel.  We need to be careful not to make a public issue of it, and not to be discriminatory toward those who do not adopt our practices.  God, after all, was never shocked by the nakedness of Adam & Eve.  It was only after they became of aware of their own nakedness that God had clothing made for them.

I am never shocked at traditional dress, whether it be a lavalava or a kilt on a man, and by all means let women wear pants when and where they like.  I love the image of the great Mohandas Gandhi going to England in a loincloth.  He carried more regal splendor in his little finger than the King of England sitting crowned on the throne in Buckingham Palace.  Back in 1963, when I was first a student at BYU, we used to joke that, if Jesus showed up on campus wearing long hair, a beard, robe, and sandals, he would immediately have been thrown off campus as a vagrant.  I just hope that all of us would offer to put him up at our apartments off campus -- and show him how to use soap and modern showers.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I just got back to Utah after a long vacation in Boston and I can't tell you how different the girls were dressed in Boston during hot weather. It was a nice change to see the modesty of girls in Utah. Modesty is a good thing, but men should take more responsibility for their own thoughts and actions and not blame women all the time based on how they dress. Personal responsibility is key.

Edited September 16, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just for fun, how would the cheering be different if cheerleaders wore a different less revealing uniform? Would the teams be less motivated to score or the fans less prone to yell their support?

That young man and all men need to blame themselves if they get dirty thoughts. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That young man and all men need to blame themselves if they get dirty thoughts. 

I agree with you as stated in my post right above yours.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

As usual, you say it more reasonably, concisely and effectively than I. Thanks for the very thoughtful input. Given the limited information (as opposed to the unlimited hyperventilation), I would expect the school to review their confidentiality policies and procedures. Whatever his issues, and they may or not be severe, he does not deserve to be treated this way. And the Church does not deserve to be accused of cultivating a "rape culture" as the media and some members have done. The girls shouldn't have been exposed to this kind of sensationalistic frenzy...they are being used by media and individuals such as Kate Kelly who have agendas.

Concise writing is usually an oxymoron when it comes to me, lol.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

  Quote

Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery; But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

  Quote

And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out..... And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

These two scriptures are entirely referencing the sin of the man looking.  There will never be enough clothing to stop men lusting after women. I addressed your Paul scripture earlier.  

 

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I just got back to Utah after a long vacation in Boston and I can't tell you how different the girls were dressed in Boston during hot weather. It was a nice change to see the modesty of girls in Utah. Modesty is a good thing, but men should take more responsibility for their own thoughts and actions and not blame women all the time based on how they dress. Personal responsibility is key.

I agree with you.  Our young men do not just live in Utah nor all stay in Utah.  It is imperative they learn to control their thoughts regardless of what young ladies wear.  Like I've said, I teach my daughters to dress modestly and have absolutely no problem with the standards in The Strength of Youth pamphlet.  I do have problems if young women are taught to dress modestly in order not to arouse the young men.  My husband always told me he was most attracted to girls in jeans and t-shirts.  It really is up to the individual to control their thoughts.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

That young man and all men need to blame themselves if they get dirty thoughts. 

Take responsibility, yes; turn it into blaming themselves rather than others?  Don't see that as healthy.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That young man and all men need to blame themselves if they get dirty thoughts. 

That doesn't answer the question. And it raised the question why male cheerleaders wear either baggy shorts

or full length sweats, but female cheerleaders go with the minimum. Who is being exploited? Who is being sexualized

and marginalized? What would change if female cheerleaders wore baggy shorts or full length sweats?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

 

These two scriptures are entirely referencing the sin of the man looking.  There will never be enough clothing to stop men lusting after women. I addressed your Paul scripture earlier.  

 

I agree with you.  Our young men do not just live in Utah nor all stay in Utah.  It is imperative they learn to control their thoughts regardless of what young ladies wear.  Like I've said, I teach my daughters to dress modestly and have absolutely no problem with the standards in The Strength of Youth pamphlet.  I do have problems if young women are taught to dress modestly in order not to arouse the young men.  My husband always told me he was most attracted to girls in jeans and t-shirts.  It really is up to the individual to control their thoughts.

Which, of course, no one is arguing against. Yet here was a young man who sought help to "control his thoughts" and he gets maximum hate and aggression.  

Are you backing away from your statement that "The Strength of Youth is highly subjective?" And these sarcastic and humiliating comments in the article you recommended?

Quote

 

1. First, I am now a father of four boys and I’m really going to need your help again. I need you to raise your daughters to help my boys be worthy priesthood holders so one day they can serve missions and marry in the temple. Please teach your daughters to cover their shoulders, wear long shorts, and please tell them to avoid tight-fitting clothing (as instructed in the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet). Thank you so much! I know by doing this you will help my boys stay pure, clean and on the right path.
2. Apparently BYU did not get the modesty memo about helping young men like my sons keep their thoughts clean and pure. I thought BYU was the Church’s school! What happened to the honor code? Didn’t our Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve write the honor code? My second favor is actually not exclusive to the virtuous and modest women, but is a call to action for everyone. I would like to start a letter-writing campaign to BYU to stop immodesty! What will my boys think when they see the young women at BYU dressed immodestly? One should “never lower your standards of dress… or use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest” (For the Strength of Youth) – like a sporting event for example! Don’t they know “that the principle of modesty is a protection” (Elaine Dalton, “Love Her Mother,” Ensign, October 2011)? “Your personal purity is one of your greatest sources of power” (Elaine Dalton, “Be Not Moved!”, General Conference, April 2013).  This is an excerpt from the BYU honor code: “Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer” (BYU Honor Code). You tell me if the examples below are in violation:

 

1. No comments on the several videos of boys doing extreme acrobatic and gymnastic actions in baggy shorts and t-shirts? Boys can do that, but girls wouldn't be safe? I really want to understand.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[bsjkki]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which, of course, no one is arguing against. Yet here was a young man who sought help to "control his thoughts" and he gets maximum hate and aggression.  

Are you backing away from your statement that "The Strength of Youth is highly subjective?" And these sarcastic and humiliating comments in the article you recommended?

1. No comments on the several videos of boys doing extreme acrobatic and gymnastic actions in baggy shorts and t-shirts? Boys can do that, but girls wouldn't be safe? 

The strength of youth is subjective so I follow it as I interpret it and allow others the same priveledge.  I do not try to be the 'modesty' police for others in my ward, stake or school. The article was used to show BYU follows appropriated attire for appropriate activities and I found it funny. I'm sorry you found it offensive. Humor is also subjective.

 I found numerous articles on the history and safety of gymnastics and how the clothing changed as it turned into sport.  I really just wanted to let this part of the discussion go.  Your mind is made up.  If you watch carefully, in the men's video, the flyers and flippers are wearing shorter and tighter pants.  Are they being exploited? 

I find beauty and admire the human form when watching gymnastics, cheerleaders and dancers.  Their skill is impressive and non-sexual to me.

I have pity for the boy in this firestorm.  I feel the school mishandled this situation and if his name is out there, they have violated his privacy.  He should be safe in expressing his feelings to a counselor.  The girls feelings are how the situation made them feel.  They felt objectified.  They also have a right to be upset.

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by bsjkki
I'm really bad at grammar

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I just got back to Utah after a long vacation in Boston and I can't tell you how different the girls were dressed in Boston during hot weather. It was a nice change to see the modesty of girls in Utah. Modesty is a good thing, but men should take more responsibility for their own thoughts and actions and not blame women all the time based on how they dress. Personal responsibility is key.

It's called "advertising," and it can be a good thing.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

That doesn't answer the question. And it raised the question why male cheerleaders wear either baggy shorts

or full length sweats, but female cheerleaders go with the minimum. Who is being exploited? Who is being sexualized

and marginalized? What would change if female cheerleaders wore baggy shorts or full length sweats?

I know this is your thread, but how do these questions have anything to do with the topic?

[Calm]

Some interesting articles (to me anyway) about cheerleadering uniforms and perceptions of modesty:

http://www.omnicheer.com/blog/post/nfl-cheer-squad-criticized-for-too-modest-cheer-uniforms

"Why doesn't Green Bay want its own cheer squad? As explained by the President of the football team, college cheerleaders fit with the "wholesome" image the team wants to project. It's old fashioned and quaint and that's the way they like it. 

The Packers provide the selected college cheerleaders modest uniforms (ones many high school squads may use: a standard-length skirt, shell top, and long-sleeve bodyliner), which are, for the most part, well-received and liked by the people whose opinion matters most: the fans and the Green Bay community. 

The Packers originally had its own cheer squad but was disbanded in 1987. The organization re-introduced cheerleaders in the mid 1990s by forming a group of local college cheerleaders. 

Green Bay football players also piped into the conversation, explaining that the Packers don't need to entice fans with entertainment or scantily clad cheerleaders. Their fans come to see a good game."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8053169/Cheerleaders-complain-over-revealing-clothing.html

"

They marched straight to the city's school board complaining of humiliation, after being told that they had to wear skimpy outfits that left their midriffs exposed.

"It really hurts our self-esteem. I feel like if I go out, I feel trashy. I am embarrassed to stand up here dressed like this. Is this really how you want Bridgeport to be represented?" Ariana Mesaros, told the board.

The episode has become a national talking point in America, where cheerleaders have long been seen as a wholesome icon of teenage femininity. A poll conducted by researchers at the University of South Carolina in June and presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, suggested that wearing revealing uniforms put college cheerleaders at higher risk of developing eating disorders and made them more worried about maintaining their figures.

"Teams and coaches should consider the long-term effects of requiring cheerleaders to wear revealing uniforms simply for aesthetic reasons," said Toni Torre-McGehee, an assistant professor of athletic training at the University of South Carolina, who led the study.

"The point of collegiate cheerleading is to create camaraderie and team spirit and to keep girls active and healthy. Coaches should keep these ideals in mind and try to reinforce self-esteem among their team members.""

[VideoGameJunkie]

During the winter the New England Patriots cheerleaders wear long pants and sweaters or jackets and they still look beautiful.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

During the winter the New England Patriots cheerleaders wear long pants and sweaters or jackets and they still look beautiful.

I'll bet the Bills, Vikings, and Bears do the same. Not sure what the uniforms have to do with motivating the team and fans.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The strength of youth is subjective so I follow it as I interpret it and allow others the same priveledge.  I do not try to be the 'modesty' police for others in my ward, stake or school. The article was used to show BYU follows appropriated attire for appropriate activities and I found it funny. I'm sorry you found it offensive. Humor is also subjective.

 I found numerous articles on the history and safety of gymnastics and how the clothing changed as it turned into sport.  I really just wanted to let this part of the discussion go.  Your mind is made up.  If you watch carefully, in the men's video, the flyers and flippers are wearing shorter and tighter pants.  Are they being exploited? 

I find beauty and admire the human form when watching gymnastics, cheerleaders and dancers.  Their skill is impressive and non-sexual to me.

I have pity for the boy in this firestorm.  I feel the school mishandled this situation and if his name is out there, they have violated his privacy.  He should be safe in expressing his feelings to a counselor.  The girls feelings are how the situation made them feel.  They felt objectified.  They also have a right to be upset.

 

The article mocks and ridicules our beliefs and our leaders by name. We have promised not to do that. Some humor is not funny.

I'm watching the video full screen on an Apple 24" hi def monitor. All the guys are wearing the same baggy shorts, but what does it matter? The point remains.... they are dressed, according to LDS standards, quite modestly, they are performing extremely well, they look good, and they are having fun. Why do women not do the same?

Just my point.... the boys are wearing modest clothing and they do just fine with the flips and flies... and they are admirable and impressive and non-sexual. Yes, my mind is made up.... by the facts that safety is not the issue and that one does not have to be immodest to be a wonderful cheerleader, gymnast, track, or volleyball athlete and perform safely, efficiently, and entertainingly. But I'm fine to let it go there.

Even if his name wasn't revealed, it will be known around school and the community who he is. This should have been handled better for the sake of everyone involved, but now someone has to sweep up the mess. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui