Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Do you think the school went too far in this case?

Posted by on Feb. 18, 2015 at 9:27 AM
  • 15 Replies

7th Grader Forced to Cover Up Because Male Chaperon Thought She Was Too Sexy

Ugh. What is with schools unnecessarily cracking down on perceived dress code violations, and making young girls feel like they've done something wrong by wearing what most people consider to be very modest outfits? It happened again in Mt. Orab, Ohio, when seventh grader Ari Waters wore a "sexy" dress to her middle school's Valentine's Day dance.

Ari borrowed a yellow dress from her sister for the big dance, but was shocked to be asked by a male teacher at Mt. Orab Middle School to cover her arms.

"The yellow dress was just right for me. It fit me perfectly. It wasn't inappropriate," she said later. The teacher claimed that it violated the school's dress code policy of no tank-tops, but the dress was just sleeveless. Shoulders covered up! Plus the length was totally appropriate, and Ari all-around looked like a lovely young lady.

Not according to the school's vice principal though. Ari was so embarrassed by being asked to cover up and put a coat on, she asked her mom to come get her from the dance. When Gina Waters arrived, she asked the vice principal what was wrong with her daughter's dress.

"I said what's wrong with her bare arms? And she said 'they are sexual objects' and I said whoa, wait a minute," she recalled.

Sex objects? Bare arms are sex objects? What the ...? Gina is afraid that her daughter is not only being torn down for being "too sexy," but also being taught that boys can't control themselves when faced with bare-armed girls.

More from The Stir: Super Strict School Dress Code Seems to Have It Out for Girls

Ari said the comments didn't make her feel good at all. "I don't know how to describe it. I felt dirty and just really down and upset that she said that because through the whole night my friends were telling me, oh, your dress looks beautiful, you look so gorgeous today," she said.

Principal Sabrina Armstrong has denied that the vice principal called Ari's arms "sex objects," and maintains that she broke the dress code. "The district has looked into the situation and deemed them to be unfounded," she wrote in a statement.

"I understand why they're backing her. She's administrative staff and I understand that. But it did happen," Gina said. "These middle schoolers are 10 years of age up to 13. They're kids. They're not sexual objects. They're not sexual beings. That word should never have been used and it should never have been associated with an arm, with a limb."

Are these administrators really slut-shaming middle school girls for wearing sleeveless dresses? A 12-year-old has enough to feel awkward about already, does she really need to be embarrassed by her arms now too?

I say the school went way too far on this one, and now a young girl is left feeling shameful about her body and for showing too much skin. She's in seventh grade. Her arms are not sex objects, and she shouldn't have to cover them up in public.

Do you think the school went too far in this case?

by on Feb. 18, 2015 at 9:27 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by Silver Member on Feb. 18, 2015 at 10:36 AM
2 moms liked this

Yes, yes I do.  Schools are beginning to go way overboard and over the top ridiculous.  There was no need for it to go this far. 

by AllieCat on Feb. 18, 2015 at 10:52 AM
1 mom liked this

Falling under the rule of no tank tops, which is what the article said, they are wrong, in my opinion.  Bare shoulders are not sexual unless the perverted person looking at her thinks so.

So not one other student has ever worn something sleeveless to this school?  I find that hard to believe.

Dress codes are necessary, in my opinion, but when they take it too far or when they label the girl as being too sexy or otherwise, the district needs to take a good, long look in the mirror.

by anxiouss on Feb. 18, 2015 at 10:57 AM

Too far. I'm all for a dress code, but it's a sleeveless dress, not a tank top. Shoulders are covered.

In all of these situations, I'd love to see what the dress code for boys was. 

by on Feb. 18, 2015 at 11:00 AM
What if a kid says to his teacher that a girls face is too sexy??

How do we remedy that??
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM
1 mom liked this

Well- I do think the mom is wrong to think that middle school girls aren't "sexual beings" guess she's blind to what is happening out there. 

That said, I think the dress looks fine- BUT, it's a chaperone's call, and they represent administration. Perhaps for future dances the administration is more clear amongst themselves as to what is acceptable or not. I could see the argument that shoulders aren't covered though if that is the argument- perhaps it requires a cap sleeve or something. We have a local seamstress who posts each schools dress code and adjusts dresses accordingly. One school requires cap sleeves so as to not show shoulders, others, no cleavage, others- nothing see-though-

It's unfortunate they used her to make a point, but I'd rather have this sort of thing happen then allow what I do see some high school and middle school girls wear- I see it all the time, I have 4 high schoolers- some of the girls really just look like they are advertising themselves.

by Satan on Feb. 18, 2015 at 12:16 PM

Lol, yeah. But on a brighter note, at least she is not from a family or living in a culture where a top-to-toe table cloth is not enough, if it lets a passing dude see a glimpse of her ankles.

by Member on Feb. 18, 2015 at 7:55 PM
1 mom liked this

I think the girl's dress was nice and she shouldn't have had to cover it at all. Soon knees will be sex objects and girls won't be able to show them either. I read where a 5 year old in kindergarten had her mother called and the mother was told to either bring the child different clothes to wear or take her home. This little girl was wearing an outfit that was a shirt with matching leggings but the school informed the mother that the little girl's outfit was distracting to the classroom. The mother showed a picture of the little girl in the outfit that she wore to school and it was cute. What is so distracting about a little girl wearing an outfit that a million other little girls are wearing? Not one of the children in her class was distracted. Apparently the only one distracted by her outfit was the teacher. 

The schools are making so much of a deal out of how kids dress that it is just making them want to dress even more radically. I have seen how the kids at my dd school dress and act and I can tell you that the girls don't get a second look when they come to school in leggings, tank tops, or skirts. The schools are trying to say that kids can't wear the styles that are "IN" right now. 

I am waiting to see the dress code that will come soon. It will be where all girls dress like Amish girls and if they don't they won't be allowed to attend school. Boys will have to dress like Amish boys. That way there won't be any distracting the teachers with their sexiness.

Victorian Era here we come!

by on Feb. 18, 2015 at 9:40 PM

I think the school is full of nut cases.

by Kellie on Feb. 18, 2015 at 9:47 PM

Quoting Linagma03:

Victorian Era here we come!

I might be an odd one, but I find most victorian era dresses pretty freaking sexy. Anything with a corset really. 

by Kellie on Feb. 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM

Yes, the school is in the wrong here. Very ridiculous. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)