|
|
|
|
I understand if the hugging continues beyond like 2-3 minutes but what if the person is upset or sad or suicidal and needs a friend. If there are intimate and/or sexual misconduct issues with certain students then the school needs to address these issues via counseling and curricula that address these types of acting out issues that often result from single parenting, abuse, etc. I wonder what the rate of teen pregnancy, drugs and substance abuse, drop out rate, graduation rate, attendance rate, etc. at this school. I wonder what if any data the School is trying to hide. The school needs to address these “real” issues and not take away from something that is natural and healthy especially during adolescent development. As for hugging promote it. There is a National Hugging Day and it is natural. Promote it. Here is the National Hugging website. http://www.geocities.com/hugging_whining/Hugging.html
jmd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... about days for this, that or the other, but I'm incined to support this idea. Hugging is hugely therapeutic; it conveys love and affection in a tangible way that can't be bettered. Kids who are brought up hugged KNOW they are loved, and that - above all else - helps them to be well-balanced adults. I have a very close friend who posts here - Tor - and when we part, we hug. It isn't sexual; it just means that we care deeply about each other and, for my part, it means that we part happy, content and fulfilled by each other's friendship.
So, guys - why wait for hugging day? You can start right now!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The American society is unbelievably uptight as it is. What are the adults of the future going to be like if they are raised and educated to believe there is something wrong with a hug. Maybe they will teach them to bow to one another instead of shaking hands... can't have any of that vulgar bodily contact.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If the school system has a ban on hugging then there is a ban on hugging.......
It is just that simple......
As for all the figures regarding rate of teen pregnancy, drugs and substance abuse, drop out rate, graduation rate, attendance rate, etc. I think that would be a good research project for an inquiring mind....
But I don't gather the connection between a ban on hugging and drop out rates...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I think my schooling in a single sex school leads me not wholly to understand hugging of school colleagues. Deej, would your old school have had anyone hugging?
I like hugs, don't get me wrong. I just find them both inappropriate for a school environment unless they are very brief and transient, and wholly appropriate for showing friendship. I also find it inappropriate to legislate against them.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul,
Generations of British schoolchildren have been brought up to believe there's something wrong with a hug. It's not something specifically banned by schools -- it's simply that, certainly if you're male, it's 'just not done' to display excessive affection in public, particularly with other members of the sex. It's associated with the idea of the 'stiff upper lip', not showing emotion except in private.
The idea is a bit outdated now, but it persists in the national psyche, and yet (with the greatest of respect to those Americans who aren't), on the whole, Americans are rather more uptight than we are.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not remember anyone hugging anyone else at my all-boys school. Thus, like Timmy, I don't have much experience of this phenomenon.
There are a couple of schoolfriends who I'd be happy to hug now, briefly (and do sometimes), but I don't think I hugged them when I was at school. That would have attracted some strange looks. Generally, I still shake hands with with old friends. That's the traditional British thing to do and it is suitable for anyone from vague acquaintance to long-lost brother (not that I have tested the last one -- I haven't mislaid my brother so far!). Women are harder to judge, but generally a quick kiss on the cheek is appropriate with relatives and close friends.
If people want to hug, however, it also seems something quite absurd to legislate against. The decision to hug is a personal one and not any of the business of school authorities. If two or more people are causing inconvenience to others, then by all means approach those involved, and even discipline them if necessary. However, a blanket ban of something that is not, per se, wrong, is never a good idea.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Another ridiculous example of our school system, recess canceled because someones feeling may be hurt, Halloween and other Holidays banned because someone may be offended. I don't care for extremists on either side of the spectrum but what happened to plain old reason?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am confused: is there some middle-school hugging ban that prompted this thread? In the original posting, I see a link to the hugging website but no reference to the ban. I wonder how many middle schools have an explicit ban on hugging.
peter
"Tu non altro che il canto avrai del figlio, o materna mia terra..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
The article didn't say why the ban was imposed! I would guess that kissing or even holding hands with your girlfriend or your brave boyfriend would yielded the same punishment. G_d forbid should the Football team win a championship game and high-five it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public schools in California are a disgrace. They have to be so politically correct they don't get around to teaching. Most of my family and friends either home teach or send their children to private schools they can't really afford.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect this is an unfortunate combination of a poorly worded rule and a zero-tolerance policy, and it shows the stupidity of both.
With zero-tolerance policies, violations of certain rules carry mandatory penalties: the teachers and administrators have no discretion. I imagine the rule was designed to prevent sexual harassment and "making out."
I have several friends who are intelligent and capable teachers in California public schools. I cannot imagine any of them mindlessly following the letter of the law, as the decision makers in this case seem to have done.
peter
"Tu non altro che il canto avrai del figlio, o materna mia terra..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daffey44
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2004
Messages: 23
|
|
|
First of all, the ban was in Illinois and not in California.
Are you complaining about ALL the public schools in California or just your local school district? Did you vote in the most recent school board election in your school district?
What is more important to you: Cutting taxes or providing adequate funding for public education? No, this is not about "throwing money" at a problem. This is about providing resources to a labor-intensive activity that will have significant impacts on the future of all of us.
I'm in California. I claim the public school district where I live is as good as any private school system in the state and compares very well with any other school system -- public or private -- in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
This is the post I intended to make last night – or at least as much of it as I can remember!
According to the link, the specific rule is as below:
"Displays of affection should not occur on the school campus at any time. It is in poor taste, reflects poor judgment, and brings discredit to the school and to the persons involved."
A 13-year-old girl puts her arm around the shoulder of another and gives a friendly squeeze before they go their separate ways for the weekend. THAT’S in poor taste? THAT reflects poor judgement? THAT brings discredit to the persons involved? OK, I accept that discredit has been brought on the school, but that’s because it has adopted a ridiculous rule and has displayed crass insensitivity in applying it.
The situation would be ludicrous but for the fact that it draws attention to serious failures on the part of the school in two distinct areas. I’ll come back to the rule itself in due course, but before that I want to consider the dangers of using it to prohibit non-sexual physical contact.
There is an apparent consensus among psychologists, at least at national and international level, that hugging and similar forms of physical contact between parents and children, and between children and their peers, has a significant therapeutic benefit in developing self esteem and the ability to form relationships easily. That does not of course mean that those who grow up without such contact will lack self-esteem or will find relationships difficult, but the risk of such problems is materially increased. Recently, concern has been expressed that active discouragement of such contact may prove to be positively damaging to children.
As I understand the situation, there has as not as yet been a formal study to confirm that concern (though one may be under way); the presumption is an academic inference from studies which have looked at the effect of recent trends in handling sexual issues associated with child development.
A kind of self-accelerating paranoia has developed over the last few decades. No doubt this is fuelled by worries about the rapid increase in the number of sex crimes, and certainly the number of recorded crimes has risen alarmingly. However, the truth of the matter is that, comparing like-with-like, the number of serious sex crimes against children has not increased materially over the past half century; the increase in the total number of crimes is almost wholly attributable to the criminalisation of behaviour which was previously regarded as possibly being reprehensible, though not actually culpable. But of course serious crimes are committed, and so far as is reasonably possible children should be protected against them. Fifty years ago, the responsibility was considered to lie with the parents: “Never take sweets from a stranger”; “Don’t go in the park after dark”; “Never get into a car with someone you don’t know”. But the paranoia has resulted in overkill; parents, schools, and even the legislature has over-reacted to such an extent that a significant number of children are overprotected, denied reasonable freedom and independence, and encouraged to view all unfamiliar adults as potential predators. It has been found that this can have an adverse and potentially serious effect upon normal psychological development in childhood. Over-emphasis of sexual dangers creates, especially in less secure children, the impression that sex is, by definition, a bad thing, and the psychological consequences of fear of a normal sexual relationship can be severe.
The overall conclusion is that the vast majority of children do not suffer serious sexual abuse. If teaching of sensible advice is provided in something resembling the traditional parental way, as an integral part of growing up, they will not be harmed by that instruction. Even young children have a degree of common sense; they do not need graphic details, just a sense that certain behaviour is dangerous, in much the same way that crossing the road without looking both ways is dangerous. If however sex is demonised, there is a real risk of psychological damage.
Thus it is inferred that whilst hugging is demonstratively beneficial, it can hardly be made compulsory and some children will simply not experience the benefit. However, if hugging is prohibited and implied to be undesirable, there is a real possibility that some children affected by the prohibition will develop an unnatural aversion to physical contact and other associated problems when, in later life, they need to work with strangers.
So, in a nutshell, the rule applied by the school may be actively harmful to some pupils. Shouldn’t those responsible be aware of these dangers before arbitrarily enacting such rules?
And so to the rule itself. Why is it there at all? It seems to me that it is yet another manifestation of my old enemy, political correctness. Clearly, we can’t have pupils making out in middle school hallways; no sensible person would suggest otherwise. But if a friendly hug is at one extreme, making out is certainly at the other. Of course, it doesn’t by any means follow that the pupils have been making out on campus; the politically correct brigade seems to feel compelled to address every possibility, however remote, and to ensure that rules are drawn up to prohibit it. But it would not be politically correct to define sexual behaviour in a student handbook, so instead we have this catch-all rule, which masquerades as a prohibition of expressions of friendship. And, of course, the politically-correct dictionary of buzz-words decrees that the rule shall be applied with zero tolerance (which, of course, in ordinary language means without regard to discretion or any other semblance of common sense).
So what’s wrong? Well, for a start, the wording of the rule is deplorable; it condemns displays of affection as being in poor taste, reflecting poor judgement and reflecting adversely upon the participants. That is simply pernicious rubbish. I would suggest that a friendly, non-sexual hug, or a peck-on-the cheek kiss, is not only in perfect taste, but is beneficial to the participants.
I accept that anything beyond that is probably out of place in a school environment, but – guess what? – good teachers in good schools already have the situation under control without the need for prescriptive regulations.
Which reminds me that, in the news report, the District Superintendent commented that “... administrators in the school ... were following policy in the student handbook. “ That about sums up the attitudes involved. I’ll bet you thought that the important people in schools were teachers, not administrators!
So – the School has decided that there is a need to prohibit overtly sexual behaviour on campus. Well, no-one would disagree with that. But instead of taking the bull by the horns –
~ the sexual element is dressed up as a global prohibition of expressions of affection,
~ which are described as being in poor taste and generally reprehensible,
~ a statement which may have adverse psychological effects upon the pupils,
~ and the rule is applied on a zero-tolerance basis.
Wouldn’t you have thought that schools should be doing everything in their power to encourage students to appreciate the value of a sense of proportion and a willingness to compromise?
Not in Mascoutah, apparently. Should these people be allowed anywhere near your children?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, this should be the editorial in the Daily Mascoutah Press. Then maybe the popping sounds heard around the country would be the school's administrators pulling their heads out of their asses.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You know, that is a highly suitable press article. You should submit it to that locale, and potentially to the Washington Post. Seriously.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie, I don't want to get involved in this thread as I'm not really interested, but you wrote:
>A 13-year-old girl puts her arm around the shoulder of another and gives a friendly squeeze before they go their separate ways for the weekend. THAT’S in poor taste? THAT reflects poor judgement?<
You are belittling the argument by reducing it ad absurbum. The rule probably means to refer to a full embrace, as is now fashionable. I know that as an adolescent with hormones abundant and when such things were unheard of anyway I could not have been involved in a full embrace (hug) without its being sexual, especially if had been another boy, as it would have been at my school. Therefore inappropriate.
Hugs (full embrace)
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I appreciate your supportive comments! I do write occasionally for the UK press (under a different pseudonym, of course), though health problems have made that a bit difficult of late. In such circumstances, I'm really not ready to expand into the US market!
However, if any of our US-based posters would like to use the post as the basis for an approach to the local press, I happily renounce copyright, provided that you insist upon editorial integrity - that is, you make it clear that whilst respecting the journal's right to edit, the editing must not change the meaning of the submission.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but did you follow the links?
The scenario I portrayed was exactly what happened, and that is the 'offence' for which the girl was given detention. I don't see why recitation of the actual facts should attract an accusation that I am reducing the matter to an absurd extent. I did address the issue of degree in my post.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, cossie, but one of the gifts which age brings with it is a limited attention span combined with forgetfulness. Also, as I said I wasn't terribly interested in the thread.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since no one else did, let me extend to JMD a very belated welcome to this forum. Make yourself at home.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
HUGGING BAN IN MIDDLE SCHOOL 
