Teenage Disco bans inappropriate outfits

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you get that message across? Presumably you need to role model the behaviour you want rather than telling them what to do.

Role modelling doesn't always work. As a disco goer from the 70s and 80s where jeans were the norm at discos I used to try and encourage my daughter and her friends to wear jeans rather than lycra, not because I disapproved of the lycra but because I couldn't imagine anyone enjoying the shopping for figure hugging dresses, 8" heels and applying enough make-up to sink the Titantic but they did. I never had the body confidence to do so and I was never overweight or slack bellied (in those days) and neither did most of my friends.

Most teens will always want to wear what the herd is wearing. It's the nature of the beast. I really wanted to conform in my day and wear a twin set (!!!) and trousers with at least a four button closure on the wide waistband but my parents couldn't afford for me to conform that much. I did get a knee length skirt when they came in though.

JupiterKid wrote: »

Teenagers didnt have much self esteem back then but at least the girls covered up a bit more. Maybe my memory is getting hazy in my old age, but that's how I remember it. Teenage years are hard enough to negotiate without the peer pressure piled on to be sexually active. I think a dress code for these teenage events is a good thing.

I think you are mixing up self-esteem with confidence.

Covering up has nothing to do with self-respect. Have the denizens of After Hours both male and female suddenly morphed into 1950s Stepford wives? :eek: In the next thread people will be defending a woman's right to wear what she wants and not get raped because some guy can't contain his 'lust'.

Far more worrying is the grabbing and groping that goes on and people sneer at it when they see it on tv programmes about Travellers. Going back to 2012/13 when my daughter left school there seemed to an acceptance of being groped between the legs from behind (for instance) by some random guy just passing. This would happen in pubs, clubs and discos. Herself and a younger friend went to Hardwell in the Point in '14 and were very glad to team up with a chap they met in the queue who was both tall and broad because it meant they wouldn't come in for as much groping as they would if they were on their own.

I was aghast when she mentioned it in passing one night and when I polled various girls of her age about it they all experienced it but didn't really think anything of it beyond disliking it. They just accepted it as the norm and were gobsmacked that I'd consider it sexual assault. She wasn't entirely silly and in all her going out dresses, most of which if she took a deep breath exposed some of her knickers, she would wear tankini bottoms over her knickers and tights because they offered some element of protection from grabby hands. I think it was a staple item in their dress code.

Because of this I've taught my boys that like it says in the primary school diary school rules - you keep your hands to yourself - rather than telling her she should cover up to avoid that unacceptable behaviour.

As for the fact that it's called a Ball rather than a disco - that's just semantics so the organisers can charge more for the same. It sounds a lot better advertising the Junior Cert Ball rather than the Junior Cert Disco and they charge twice as much. Even the balls held in hotels have neither a sit down meal or even a chicken, chips and peas supper in a plastic basket.

eviltwin wrote: »

They can impose any dress code they like but I can't see any 15 yr old paying any heed to that. They just won't go.

Imagine requiring a teenage boy to wear a shirt and tie......it's a disco, not a bloody job interview.

Interesting to see how many will attend the next one.. Probably will be packed due to all the media attention.

Lux23 wrote: »

If their parents are willing to let them dress like that than I don't like the idea of a random business telling these teenagers what to wear. Its a disco, not a church. What places even have a dress-code these days?

It's not a disco though. It's a ball. It's clearly a particular type of event. I'm not saying that should mean they can't wear skimpy dresses but there is an expected dress code, and the people going expect a ball, not a disco. The lads have to wear suits, for example.

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I saw a 'child' in Kilkenny one night stumbling across a green in nothing more then an apron! In my opinion she shouldn't have been let out in it and she shouldn't have been making her way home alone!

Usually there's a log jam of cars waiting to collect both the boys and girls from these affairs. It's very rare to see any of them walking or stumbling home, especially the girls because parents are very protective and even if a girl lived at the end of the road from the disco her shoes would render her registered disabled after a night of dancing in them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on a fuppin' second here! So this guy would be allowed in to the disco because he's wearing a tie, but this guy gets turned away because he's wearing sandals?

Thoie wrote: »

Yup. Though Jesus could probably magic himself up a tie if necessary.

Probably because Jesus will turn water into Wine! Can't have him getting the kids locked now can we!!

Quick, someone call Glen Hansard. These girls need emergency accommodation for their ball, stat.

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I am all for this. I hate seeing teenage girls half naked, staggering around like storks on a pair of heels they can't walk in.

We should be teaching girls them they don't need to be half naked (and vulnerable) to be attractive.

Girls are not stupid though...

Parents can tell them as much as they like that boys will still like them even if they don't dress that way but they see the Internet halting level of attention the likes of the Kardashians get whenever they go out exposing themselves, the power that that in turn then gives them, and so are bound to try and emulate them.

In my view the only way this will ever change (not saying it should per se) would be not by targeting young girls at all, but in fact by targeting adult women, because as long as it's socially acceptable for adults to dress in this manner to garner some attention at premieres and the like (and society not to scorn at such attention seeking behaviour - but in fact to reward it instead) then young girls are bound to follow suit.

Were a famous guy to just hang his penis out his trousers at the launch of his latest film he would most likely get arrested, but yet the following equivalent is the kind of thing which certain women will do for attention...





There should never be shame in nudity of course, and all beaches should be nudist welcoming for example, but there should be shame in adults exposing their bodies in certain social settings to garner attention for themselves. I don't feel it should be illegal or anything but I do feel it's it's highly contemptible and western should react to it as such.

This could be a never ending discussion about plenty of subjects, starting from calling teenagers "children" - I don't know about today, but 22 years ago I was 15, I remember it well and for sure neither I nor any of my friends (guys and girls alike) were "children"; Not adults, for sure, but Lego, toy cars and dolls where further away from our minds than sex was. Even in 1995, teenage girls wore short "barely there" skirts to go out, oddly applied makeup and whatnot, and even in 1995 the bickering was the same - "what are they gonna do with themselves, if they dress like that?". Well, the vast majority of them are perfectly functional individuals today, so they clearly did something well...maybe it turns out, the location of a hemline or neckline has very little to do with life choices?

Anyhow, they're free to enforce whatever dress code they want - it's a private event. If they want do deny entry to anybody who doesn't wear what Mike Pence wears at his pal's parties, that's their choice.

The really troubling part is the use of the term "deplorable" in relation to outfits, especially the ones pictured that are certainly nothing special, intrinsically suggesting that there's something wrong and/or immoral with anybody who likes and/or wears them.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Parents can tell them as much as they like that boys will still like them even if they don't dress that way but they see the Internet halting level of attention the likes of the Kardashians get whenever they go out exposing themselves, the power that that in turn then gives them, and so are bound to try and emulate them.

I wonder about women's culture though. We're essentially coming off millennia of female oppression. Women haven't been had difficulties expressing themselves for pretty much as long as civilization has been around.

Maybe this is just what women are like, they like to express their sexuality and we men just have to get used to it. We don't give out when a man wears a tight shirt showing off his masculine features but demonise women when they show skin. Is it wrong to tell a woman she can't express herself because I might find it distracting?

Men like Trump can use traditional masculine intimidation to get what he wants but if a women uses seduction it's wrong? The bottom line is we should be able to look past all these animal instincts. If a woman wears a skimpy dress, it's generally other people that have the problem assuming men won't be able to control themselves, which is nonsense.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

14 year olds having sex with random people is of course wrong, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, but people like you seem to suggest that if one is to be critical of this practice, it means they're a staunch Catholic who brings a bible to bed.

It's got nothing to do with catholicism FFS.

Yeah Catholics are fine with teenagers having sex. Sure Mary was probably a child when she had Jesus, and the priests, well, we all know what they like.