Posted on 11/08/2001 6:27:45 AM PST by Fintan
Why do these threads get so much comment?
I am appalled that there is even a discussion of whether or not the coaches are to blame for what happened. But I'll play your game to prove my point.
FORT WORTH, Texas - Girl volleyball players at a Fort Worth middle school were asked by their coaches to play a game of "strip serve" volleyball, which school administrators criticized as inappropriate after some parents complained.During the drill, held Sept. 21 at the Gene Pike Middle School gym, two girls took their shirts off and one girl may have taken off her shorts, district officials said.
Three female coaches supervised the 22 eighth-graders while they played the game, which required that team members take off shoes, socks, kneepads or hair accessories if a player missed a serve. After a few girls took it upon themselves to undress further, the drill was immediately stopped, administrators said.
Clearly, "what was intended" in the drill of "strip serve" was for the girls to remove clothing as penalty for missing a serve in the same way that in strip poker those who lose a hand must remove an article of clothing.
All you have to do is ask yourself: "Would I even suggest playing strip poker with teenage girls without the consent of their parents?"
If the answer to that question is "Yes," here's another one: If one of the girls took it upon herself to take off her top and/or her bottoms, and the word got out that it was your idea to play strip poker in the first place, would you expect that to fly as a reasonable explanation?
Straw man. We weren't actually discussing removing what most people would call clothing. We were discussing removing accessories. The story did a sensationalist bait and switch. My wife can remove all of the hair-bands and socks she wants, maybe even hundreds of them, and she still isn't going to be nude - not unless she was functionally so before, or dressed in an exceptionally bizzare manner that likely would not have passed the dress code to get INTO the class.
BTW, there's another straw man. What if "I" told them to get into line and they decided that that meant to play strip-poker?
Relevance?
I've been a coach. Even in my late teens and early twenties, I understood that my behavior around kids needed to be above reproach. These three women showed judgement that was worse than poor. There is no good reason, from the perspective of coaching volleyball, for the game they initiated.
For you to say that the first articles removed weren't really clothing is disingenuous. They are the first articles that would have been removed on a game of strip poker, had that been what was suggested.
The very logical culmination of the volleyball game was that it would get to articles of clothing like shirts and shorts. The game was suggestive from the start. The suggestion was the coaches'.
You're protective enough of your kids that you won't even give their ages in a rather anonymous forum. Fair enough.
Why don't you think that other parents have a legitimate prerogative to protect their kids from coaches with such abominable judgement?
I'm saying that the girls shouldn't have gotten the initial encouragement from the teachers.
Oh, I agree the coaches are to blame, no question about that. My point is, the children seem more than willing and according to this article even volunteered on their own to take their clothes off. Maybe their parents should turn the TV off for awhile.
Nonsense!
We weren't actually discussing removing what most people would call clothing. We were discussing removing accessories.
I can forgive you for not reading the entire thread, so you must have missed this from sabertooth (bold mine):
Yeah, I thought I would show you that, because you obviously missed it the first ti...hey, that response is addressed to YOU!
The article stated that the strip-volleyball game "...required that team members take off shoes, socks, kneepads or hair accessories..."My daughter was on the 8th grade volleyball team at her school last year. The gear they wear is for their own protection, and every coach knows this. There is no good reason for removing any [of] it during practice.
That leaves only bad reasons.
The story did a sensationalist bait and switch. My wife can remove all of the hair-bands and socks she wants, maybe even hundreds of them, and she still isn't going to be nude...
Uh huh...apparently you are so naive, you would have us believe that the idea of strip poker is for hair-bands and socks to be removed by the participants.
Whether or not the girls ever were close to being "nude" isn't even the point! Strip poker was the basis if not the inspiration of this exercise, unless you have heard of something like this done for legitimate reasons before -- fat chance.
not unless she was functionally so before, or dressed in an exceptionally bizzare manner that likely would not have passed the dress code to get INTO the class.
Only for the purpose of illustration, think about what girls in gym class must wear on the gym floor -- shoes, socks, shorts, sweater. Everything else is optional -- kneepads, bra, panties, hair-bands, rings, watches, whatever.
Talk about a straw man -- or in your case, woman!
I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying that what is actually in the article merely constitutes a middling lack of judgement - one that should be looked into further. It could easily be more, but most of the statements are responding not to what is written, but to the "bait and switch" at the beginning.
As to the "first steps to strip poker", well given that it's not cardsbeing cited, I'll have to defer to you, as I've never played.
Coaches should be carefull. Coaches should be "beyond reproach". Adults should be mindfull of expected misunderstandings that children will display. ...but I know some guys that can take anything you say and turn it into sexual induendo. Lack of sexual interest can be cited just as well as sexual interest in the context this article stated, although I'll agree that more have a problem with the second than the first (but that doesn't make the first perverts).
I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying that what is actually in the article merely constitutes a middling lack of judgement - one that should be looked into further. It could easily be more, but most of the statements are responding not to what is written, but to the "bait and switch" at the beginning.
As to the "first steps to strip poker", well given that it's not cardsbeing cited, I'll have to defer to you, as I've never played.
Coaches should be carefull. Coaches should be "beyond reproach". Adults should be mindfull of expected misunderstandings that children will display. ...but I know some guys that can take anything you say and turn it into sexual induendo. Lack of sexual interest can be cited just as well as sexual interest in the context this article stated, although I'll agree that more have a problem with the second than the first (but that doesn't make the first perverts).
. ex-Texan is right. A few years ago in high school my friend had a sister that was a model for a national firm (she is probably rich by now). He passed out some pictures from a make-up ad to some of us and the coaches. Us and the coaches all were in shock. She was gorgeous. We were all asking for his phone number, then he said "Guys, she's 13." The entire place went dead silent. I would have put money on her being at least 16, more like 18.
Are you this evasive in your real-life conversations?
It's not a tough question. Answer it, if you can: If one of the girls took it upon herself to take off her top and/or her bottoms, and the word got out that it was your idea to play strip poker in the first place, would you expect that to fly as a reasonable explanation?
Don't chicken out.
There are few things more embarrassing than talking to a gorgeous diminutive woman who, as you discover as you begin talking, is short for a very good reason; she isn't finished growing yet.
What's worse is when she doesn't mind the age difference. Then you have to sloppily and forcibly extract yourself from the situation.
I didn't bother to answer it, because although the answer to that question is obviously "no", the "if" was not given for the "if/then" statement. That makes it a straw-man.
I'm gonna let it go. If we can't read the original article, then we can't discuss what it means. :(
I'm glad YOU get it. It just kills me to see people rushing to force those of us who know instinctively what is and is not appropriate behavior to act like district attorneys!
Even more infuriating is the way all over this country, it is standard procedure not to reveal who are the teachers who don't know how to behave! Until cases like this are well-publicized and the coaches responsible are named for the record, all the talk by "good" teachers about really, really, really wanting to weed out the bad apples is just talk!
P.S.: Nice sabercat pic. You got a chicken for lepton?
I'm a substitute teacher, and I've been told by particular elementary schools that I can no longer teach at their school. The offense: Talking about American History and Symbols. ie. Flag, Bald Eagle, Constitution. Another school banned me for indicating to the students that their textbooks were providing incorrect and inaccurate statements. (Honestly, they were. Many historical, environmental and geographic errors).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.