“Your Arms are Sexual Objects”

from Right Wing News:

Student Told to Cover Her Arms at Valentine’s Dance Because They’re “Sexual Objects”

Ari n her dress

An Ohio seventh-grader was told by a teacher that she needed to cover her arms because they were deemed “sexual objects.” While the school maintains that the teacher did not say that, the mother of the young girl claims that the vice-principal explained that the girl was asked to put on a coat because her arms are “sexual objects.”

From The Daily Mail:

An Ohio schoolgirl was ordered to cover up her arms at a Valentine’s Day dance – because teachers deemed them to be ‘sexual objects’.

Seventh grader Ari Waters had picked out a pretty yellow dress for a Valentine’s Day dance at Mt. Orab Middle School, believing it to be elegant.

But she was left mortified when a male teacher approached her at the dance to ask her to cover up her arms.

When her horrified mother Gina demanded to know why exactly her young daughter had been asked to put a coat on, she was told by the vice principal it was because her arms were ‘sexual objects’.

Ms. Waters has since spoken out against the school – deeming teachers’ behavior towards her young daughter entirely inappropriate.

‘These middle schoolers are 10 years of age up to 13,’ she told Local12.

‘They’re kids. 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.’

It was later revealed Ari was one of three to six students at the school asked to cover their ‘sleeveless attire’.

The youngster witnessed at least one other girl being asked to cover up her arms because she was in a spaghetti-strap dress.

Ari, meanwhile, has said she has been left feeling ‘dirty’ – and was so embarrassed on the night she called her mother to pick her up.

The dress pictured is actually more modest than most of what younger girls wear now.


Apparently the vice-principal needs an education on what ‘sexual objects’ are and a lesson on geography. Bare arms, a thing we’ve been accustomed to for many years are not sexual objects, they’re limbs, especially on a kid in middle school. As to the geography lesson, last I looked, this is still America, not the Middle East, where bare arms are an every-day thing.

Such a small issue, but it made such an impact on this young girl as to make her feel dirty for simply showing her arms. Who would say this to a kid?

My guess is one of two people – either an extremely prudish old ‘school marm’ or a person with Middle Eastern influences. My next guess is the latter of the two, since prudes are rarer than hens’ teeth, and that speaks to a trend we’re seeing here where their beliefs are being forced onto Americans rather than their accepting our differences and moving on.

Honestly, as a parent and a grandparent, I have more of an issue with the length of the dress than I do with the bare arms. Then again, it is longer than some I’ve seen…and it’s not my kid.


Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to “Your Arms are Sexual Objects”

  1. tiretramp says:

    WE,Cheryl, Sarah and Skip thought this was a nice dress and girl looked fabulous. No Tats, Nose Rigs or nothing sticking in her checks. Looks like a young Girl Should.

  2. Terry says:

    Option #3 : Teacher is a fag.

  3. Hardnox says:

    I’m with Terry. The teacher must be a fag.

    Had the girl announced that she was a lesbian they would have made her “queen of the ball”.

    The absurdity of the people in charge of our kids is beyond words. They beat up on kids for bringing army men decorated cup cakes, nibbling poptarts in the shape of a gun, and for wearing decent and tasteful clothes. Everything is backwards.

    The supposed adults need to be fired.

    • Kathy says:

      At first I disagreed with you guys because I don’t see bare arms being a problem for the lesbos, but after a little research and finding a picture of the assistant principal, you could be right. Since they don’t come with labels, it’s hard to say.

      Whatever her persuasion, she’s got some wacky ideas on what sexual objects are. You can click on the link below to see her picture.

      They’re saying it’s about the school’s dress code and they’re denying that she used those words, but I believe the kids.


      • Terry says:

        Kathy, my comment was about the male teacher who 1st approached the girl :

        “…But she was left mortified when a male teacher approached her at the dance to ask her to cover up her arms….”

        • Kathy says:

          Ahh, gotcha! Missed that ’cause I was thinking of the AP and trying to figure out what kind of person says something like that.

          Wonder why the female AP made the statement and left it up to a male teacher to tell her to cover up…

  4. captbogus2 says:

    Wow! And I thought the Victorian Age was ….Victorian…

  5. Grouchy says:

    Is the vice principal also the local imam???

    • Grouchy says:

      I goofed,,, forgot notify.

    • Kathy says:

      No she’s not an imam, at least from the looks of her. See the link in my reply to Hardnox & Terry to look at a picture of her.

      • Grouchy says:

        Kathy, this is beyond bizarre, and beyond insane.
        She may as well be a proponent of the burka, or else be psychologically related to a $4.00 bill,,, ,,, ,,,
        I honestly have to agree with skip. This young lady,,, She’s a little Princess, in my book!~! No wonder the comments of the asst. principal embarrassed her~!
        As for ms. cook, the assistant principal, I’ll agree with Garnet — she should be fired.

  6. Garnet92 says:

    This would be unbelievable, if it wasn’t so believable.

    The girl is dressed appropriately for a middle school dance and she’s a cute girl. Someone had to cross over into sharia territory to deem her dress “slutty” since that’s, in effect, what they did. That principal should be fired.

  7. CW says:

    The bare arms as “sex objects” is bizarre, but I believe that’s what was said because it’s too strange for someone to make it up.

    I have a problem with the dress and here’s why. The school has a dress code, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. While it does not say anything about sleeveless clothing, it does prohibit spaghetti straps and tank tops and other attire that is inappropriately (IMO) casual for school. If you look at the photos from the other articles, this particular dress has a lacy, see-through top portion, and it even looked to me like she might be wearing a black or dark-colored bra underneath because in the rear view photos you could clearly see the bra straps. I personally don’t think girls should be wearing anything at school that lets their underwear be visible, so I think the dress – even though it’s pretty – violated the purpose of the policy.

    In sum, the reasoning was stupid even though I support school officials having the autonomy to make a decision about whether or not a garment fits the goal of the policy. It would have been odd and contradictory to make this girl’s friend with the spaghetti straps put on her coat but then allow this one to walk around in a dress that’s partly see-through. I don’t know why the school official didn’t simply say that the dress was inappropriate in light of the overall spirit of the dress code. That messaging was what they need to work on, IMO.

  8. tannngl says:

    My guess was the same as yours, Kathy. Middle Eastern.

    • tannngl says:

      Except for, perhaps, length of the dress, what she wore fully met the dress code. Very nice dress.
      I still lean toward Middle Eastern leaning. Wonder what the Muslim population is in that community…

  9. Kathy says:

    The girl’s sister responded to my comment in a FB post on the subject.

    “Alexandra Waters This article is about my sister.
    The VP who made the comments is a conservative Christian. She isn’t a Muslim. She’s just an… Odd.. Individual.

    Yeah.. Let’s go with odd.”

    I asked that she elaborate on ‘odd’ but so far, no response.

  10. Clyde says:

    Jesus H.Christ. Got to see if I can get a spare meteor…….