View Full Version : PE kit: shirtless and shorts only?
Hi!
I've read some forums which say that there are still some schools requiring boys being shirtless for P.E.
Some people wrote on forums that they would like to know the name of these schools.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was now frowned upon for obvious reasons - we used to have a vest for PE but when you were picking teams for stuff it was either vests vs skins or vests vs bibs. As we got further up the school it was more the latter - whether that was general being further up the school or that they were moving away from skins...
If nothing else it's protection against getting a ball or something against your back or something, if you have the clothing there.
rogerdraig
14-05-2009, 20:44
why ?
( that is why whats the problem with this )
There is no problem with this I think.
The reason for it it is simply more healthy doing PE shirtless I think.
Boys care more of their bodies and T-shirts can be quite dangerous especially on apparatus...etc for gymnastics.
So there are practical reasons for it.That's why I don't know why it is a rare thing nowadays.
Although I'm sure there are no ulterior motives for this thread, I'm just a little uncomfortable with a thread discussing what schoolboys wear for PE.
Imma with you Russ, well not like that lol, err, suss as this is..
:welcome: TO THE FORUM.
Strange first post :erm:
Raistlin
14-05-2009, 21:13
Indeed, and I would strongly council anybody that's aware of a school that has adopted the sports uniform policy in question not to post the name of that school here. To do so would be foolhardy at best.
Indeed, and I would strongly council anybody that's aware of a school that has adopted the sports uniform policy in question not to post the name of that school here. To do so would be foolhardy at best.
We used to do nude swimming lessons :)
Shorts + Tshirt. Like any other school i've ever seen...
Sorry I did't want to offend anyone by that topic.
Thera are more and more topics on education forums about that and it suprised me. That's why I asked here whether it is real or not.
Silly topic,sorry....
---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------
Yes, don't post the school's names!It was a bad idea to ask.Sorry for it one more time!Policies are their own business.
AntiSilence
14-05-2009, 21:30
When I was at school it was shorts and t-shirt, except on the odd occasion like at basketball when it would be shirts v skins.
Yes, don't post the school's names!It was a bad idea to ask.Sorry for it one more time!Policies are their own business.
I don't know why you want to know the names of the schools that used to do PE topless. I'd say a vast majority used to do it years ago.
rogerdraig
14-05-2009, 22:31
Although I'm sure there are no ulterior motives for this thread, I'm just a little uncomfortable with a thread discussing what schoolboys wear for PE.
with you that , though i see nothing wrong in doing pe that way ,my kids did it their under ware when they were younger , but if people were going topost were this was going on certain people may find that information interesting for the wrong sort of reason
but hey most people think i am paraniod though me myself and i are split on that ;)
Jumpers for goalposts... who would have thunk it....
Required Shirtless PE lessions? Seriously?
Even if that is the case, you are talking about a profession than is now CRB checked to within an inch of it's existance
Next the Daily Mail will be running articles about how everyone's kids should wear T-Shirts whilst swimming 'because you never know who is watching' etc etc
Ah, but a CRB just proves the perv hasn't been caught yet :p:
Ah, but a CRB just proves the perv hasn't been caught yet :p:
Indeed.
Required Shirtless PE lessions? Seriously?
Even if that is the case, you are talking about a profession than is now CRB checked to within an inch of it's existance
Relies on being caught and actually doing something illegal - kids doing PE shirtless is not.
Next the Daily Mail will be running articles about how everyone's kids should wear T-Shirts whilst swimming 'because you never know who is watching' etc etc
Idk, we had to do swimming in our boxers if we didnt bring kit, which was ugh the rest of the day, and tight trunks is ew as well.
Relies on being caught and actually doing something illegal - kids doing PE shirtless is not.
These days something not being illegal doesn't seem to matter
Just look at this from 14 years ago! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/tv-news-presenter-in-clear-over-nude-pictures-1524262.html
These days something not being illegal doesn't seem to matter
Just look at this from 14 years ago! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/tv-news-presenter-in-clear-over-nude-pictures-1524262.html
tbf, a pic of a seven year old naked is child porn - regardless of if it's your kid and whether you circulate it.
AntiSilence
15-05-2009, 05:18
tbf, a pic of a seven year old naked is child porn - regardless of if it's your kid and whether you circulate it.
No it's not. There's a difference between nudity and sexual activity, and simple nudity (kid or adult) is not porn.
When I was a kid, there were always kids (of similar ages) running around on beaches nude and nobody thought anything of it and nearly every mother has a photo of their kid(s) in the buff. It's only become wrong because of todays paranoid world.
It's only become wrong because of todays paranoid world.
I agree. we have become a paranoid society of late.
tbf, a pic of a seven year old naked is child porn - regardless of if it's your kid and whether you circulate it.
It's not really. Porn is generally associated with sexual gratification. Pictures (naked or otherwise) are not necessarily sexual unless we interpret them as such.
For instance, take a picture of a naked woman? Is it Porn? Depends on how you interpret it. If you take the view that all pictures of naked women are porn, you'd be saying a lot of classic art is porn. Is the Venus De Milo porn? No. If you did consider it porn, it would be amputee porn, which is a whole different ball game.
Most people would consider a picture of some glamour model wearing nothing, laying there on her back, legs spread to be porn, but woud they consider a picture of a naked woman in an african tribe just going about her business to be porn?
There could be many reasons a parent would have naked pictures of their own children, not all of which are child porn.
We, as a society, are (IMO) far too ready to dismiss innocent photos as child porn. I am not saying the problem doesn't exist (it does), but we are becoming paranoid.
Please note that this topic has been restored for now since it moved on from the original suspect question into a more general discussion of current thinking. The original post has been edited slightly.
It's not really. Porn is generally associated with sexual gratification. Pictures (naked or otherwise) are not necessarily sexual unless we interpret them as such.
For instance, take a picture of a naked woman? Is it Porn? Depends on how you interpret it. If you take the view that all pictures of naked women are porn, you'd be saying a lot of classic art is porn. Is the Venus De Milo porn? No. If you did consider it porn, it would be amputee porn, which is a whole different ball game.
Most people would consider a picture of some glamour model wearing nothing, laying there on her back, legs spread to be porn, but woud they consider a picture of a naked woman in an african tribe just going about her business to be porn?
There could be many reasons a parent would have naked pictures of their own children, not all of which are child porn.
We, as a society, are (IMO) far too ready to dismiss innocent photos as child porn. I am not saying the problem doesn't exist (it does), but we are becoming paranoid.
OK, I'll add a word - it's potentially child porn if someone looking at it wants to use it for sexual gratification.
A parent or close relative having pictures of their child say on the beach isn't really the same as just pictures of children.
Something similar in the new today is an article on SEXTING (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8043490.stm) (which also recently was on one of the american crime dramas (I think one of the law and order series)..
Sexting is picture texting a semi/totally nude picture of yourself to a new romantic partner...In the show the girl sexting her picture got done for illegal pornography distribution of under-age material even though it was herself..
Draconian measures??? Personal views NO... there's enough fuel on the fires for the peadophiles with-out the underage people providing more themselves...
rogerdraig
15-05-2009, 20:49
Something similar in the new today is an article on SEXTING (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8043490.stm) (which also recently was on one of the american crime dramas (I think one of the law and order series)..
Sexting is picture texting a semi/totally nude picture of yourself to a new romantic partner...In the show the girl sexting her picture got done for illegal pornography distribution of under-age material even though it was herself..
Draconian measures??? Personal views NO... there's enough fuel on the fires for the peadophiles with-out the underage people providing more themselves...
have to slightly disagree there though i agree its not a good idea and she should have that explained carefully to her criminalising what she did seems stupid in my eyes and give the wrong message that thier bodies are in some way ofensive
in this country nudes are not ilegal fortuneatly it is the way the photo is ment to be used that detirmins whether its illegal hence even a fully clothed pic can be used to convict a peadofile if that was the use it was being used or intended to be used for
so hopefully if that happened here it would not be taken that far
spelling maybe compromisd lol updted firefox and my spell checker has thrown a wobbolly or is caught my dyslexia ;)
We used to do nude swimming lessons :)
Why does that not surprise me!!!
.............................
When I was young, many years ago, we did it in grey knickers and a vest top, the boys were allowed to wear shorts and tops. This was up to the age of 15, would not be allowed now!
No wonder so many of us girls had "periods" twice a month!!!:)
rogerdraig
01-06-2009, 16:55
Why does that not surprise me!!!
.............................
When I was young, many years ago, we did it in grey knickers and a vest top, the boys were allowed to wear shorts and tops. This was up to the age of 15, would not be allowed now!
No wonder so many of us girls had "periods" twice a month!!!:)
lol
---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------
No it's not. There's a difference between nudity and sexual activity, and simple nudity (kid or adult) is not porn.
When I was a kid, there were always kids (of similar ages) running around on beaches nude and nobody thought anything of it and nearly every mother has a photo of their kid(s) in the buff. It's only become wrong because of todays paranoid world.
its not wrong today no parent would get convicted or even prosecuted for having those sort of photos nor should they feel it wrong to take them !
however i do find it strange that many post those and other photos on their myspace and facebooks in the open to everyone sections as there they could end up being used ( even the clothed ones ) by persons for very unsavoury reasons
Callumpy
01-06-2009, 17:13
Thank god my school doesnt do it shirtless, or nude, ew
Anyone who thinks nudity is pornographic or obscene really is perverted. We spend plenty of time in changing rooms/showers/medical situations without clothing, not to mention being born naked in the first place.
As for the original post, when I was at junior school, girls as well as boys would have p.e. with or without vests and in their underwear. We live in a strange society where something like this becomes the topic of debate.
Don't be silly. If God wanted us to be naked we'd be born that way.
No school should allow shirtless these days and not for any of the reasons given previously but just because of the suns rays and the corresponding risk of skin cancer.
rogerdraig
01-06-2009, 22:40
Don't be silly. If God wanted us to be naked we'd be born that way.
rofl
:angel: me
Don't be silly. If God wanted us to be naked we'd be born that way.
Assuming God has any say in how we are born.
Assuming God has any say in how we are born.
If the Universe intended us to be naked, we would have been born that way......
Assuming God has any say in how we are born.
You + irony = missed
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.