Short skirts, knee-high socks, white blouses: Girls' school uniform items are widely used as costumes in pornographic videos. As students experience harassment, a group wants to change that.
It’s a uniform, they call it a uniform, their school enforces it as such, yet you’re here saying it isn’t because it lacks a school logo. You’re the one trying to force a novel definition of the term uniform on us, so it’s on you to actually provide a coherent definition of the term and convince us it beats the one everyone else is using, which you fail to do.
Also, school uniforms often consist of much more than just a skirt. Typically, it will be a skirt, stockings, blouse, a blazer in the winter, and possibly even shoes. Do you know these girls? If not, how do you magically know they would be fine with the rest of their uniform if they didn’t have to wear a skirt? You’re making a lot of baseless assumptions, from what I can see.
Also, for what it’s worth, nothing in the article even says they are asking to not have to wear skirts or do away with uniforms. They are requesting that porn producers be banned from buying and using schoolgirl uniform costumes in pornography. Straight from their petition linked in the article:
Ban School Uniform in Pornographic Content
We, the Little Feminist Bookclub (LFB) of the Cooper School, believe that it is crucial that school uniform being depicted in pornography is banned. The possession and publication of this repulsive content clearly aims to simulate a child. We are calling on the Prime Minister to ban this use of the uniform designed to make us feel safe.
They actually are making a very good point though. How do you legally define a uniform.
What exactly is it that they are proposing to ban here, because as far as I’m aware porn doesn’t actually depict a particular school’s uniform they just depict a general suggestion. White button shirt, skirt, tie.
What exactly would the law say? How would it be worded?
That’s a perfectly valid point about law that they have bumbled adjacent to, but never actually broached themselves. I’m not saying that the law would even necessarily be a good idea, just pushing back on their original, nonsensical claim that if something doesn’t have a logo, it doesn’t count as a uniform. They just claim this isn’t a uniform on an absurd basis, and provide no support to justify why anyone should accept that idea when it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of a uniform.
It’s a uniform, they call it a uniform, their school enforces it as such, yet you’re here saying it isn’t because it lacks a school logo. You’re the one trying to force a novel definition of the term uniform on us, so it’s on you to actually provide a coherent definition of the term and convince us it beats the one everyone else is using, which you fail to do.
Also, school uniforms often consist of much more than just a skirt. Typically, it will be a skirt, stockings, blouse, a blazer in the winter, and possibly even shoes. Do you know these girls? If not, how do you magically know they would be fine with the rest of their uniform if they didn’t have to wear a skirt? You’re making a lot of baseless assumptions, from what I can see.
Also, for what it’s worth, nothing in the article even says they are asking to not have to wear skirts or do away with uniforms. They are requesting that porn producers be banned from buying and using schoolgirl uniform costumes in pornography. Straight from their petition linked in the article:
They actually are making a very good point though. How do you legally define a uniform.
What exactly is it that they are proposing to ban here, because as far as I’m aware porn doesn’t actually depict a particular school’s uniform they just depict a general suggestion. White button shirt, skirt, tie.
What exactly would the law say? How would it be worded?
That’s a perfectly valid point about law that they have bumbled adjacent to, but never actually broached themselves. I’m not saying that the law would even necessarily be a good idea, just pushing back on their original, nonsensical claim that if something doesn’t have a logo, it doesn’t count as a uniform. They just claim this isn’t a uniform on an absurd basis, and provide no support to justify why anyone should accept that idea when it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of a uniform.