General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUtah Girls Have No Right to Bare Arms
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/05/29/utah-high-school-photoshopped-clothes-girls-pictures-yearbookHeres a heartening message for Americas teen girls: If a high schools administrators dont think her bare arms or shirt neckline is modest enough, they might add fabric to her clothing and cover her up with the magic of Photoshop. At least, that is the way officials at Wasatch High School in Heber City, Utah, handle outfits they deemed inappropriate. The school, which is about 45 minutes southeast of Salt Lake City, has come under fire for digitally altering the photos of some of its female students so that less of their skin is exposed.
I just started flipping through and noticed that mine was edited, that my shirt was pulled up farther, sophomore Shelby Baum told the local Fox affiliate, KSTU. They didnt tell you before they edited it. They didnt give you an option to fix itso you look funny in your yearbook picture.
Along with raised necklines, shirts without sleeves and tank tops are off limits: Apparently a girls bare shoulder is now immodest. (Ahem, if youve purchased a sleeveless, floor-length maxi dress, shame on youyou dont meet Wasatchs dress code.) The school claims that the teens knew the dress code and were warned that if they didnt meet the clothing standard, their pictures would be altered.
What makes the alterations particularly bizarre, and leads students to see the Photoshopping as doubly unfair, is that the school is inconsistent in its changes. In one instance, two girls wear sleeveless tops that pretty much look the same, but only one of them receives Photoshopped sleeves.
More at link...
I thought the Second Amendment protected these rights. What do I know?
Igel
(35,282 posts)1. Bra strap is showing. No underwear to be visible. Male or female. Yes, that includes wearing a bra or boxes over other clothing. The key morpheme in "underwear" is "under." That may be the difference between the two pictures. (The writer is in no mood to engage in an exercise in good will--the person knows what's going on already, wants to be indignant or be seen displaying indignation, so what need is there for evidence that could falsify the claim and ruin a perfectly satisfying rant?)
2. Strap is too probably narrow, although that's a tougher call because it's close. There's a minimum strap width like there's a minimum skirt length and leg length for shorts. Sleeveless is fine for girls, bare midriff isn't. (Guys can't wear tank tops.)
A quote from the dress code--such things are typically in the student handbook--would have been nice. Instead we just get what somebody arguing against the school says the school's dress code is. Straw man? Perhaps, perhaps not. Not worth the time to do the writer's job.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Besides, according to this and other stories, the editors of the yearbook were selective with the photos they altered.
ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)That sag past their ass? I know it's not in the picture, but still
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Apparently, though, the school's yearbook editors were selective in whose pictures they Photoshopped.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)That was the official photo, mind you. There were also student snapshots published of boys with open shirts or shirts off.
http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/slidegallery.csp?cid=58002926
Remember, this is Utah.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)jmowreader
(50,533 posts)Next question: what the fuck is going on with those bra straps? If she's a senior she paid good money to have these photos made; someone at the studio should have checked her for wardrobe malfunctions before the session started. If she's an underclassman, shouldn't a woman teacher be assigned to check the girls for this before they go in front of the camera?