Hug Ban

[natedogg]

Yet another example of why a public school monopoly is a bad system. With school choice of some kind, parents who want their children banned from hugging would be free to enroll in this school.

natedogg

[andyfox]

"administrators said the ban was enacted because while most touching may be welcome, some touching isn’t."

Why, then, don't they just ban involuntary hugging?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
"administrators said the ban was enacted because while most touching may be welcome, some touching isn’t."

Why, then, don't they just ban involuntary hugging?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, isn't that molestation?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
"administrators said the ban was enacted because while most touching may be welcome, some touching isn’t."

Why, then, don't they just ban involuntary hugging?

[/ QUOTE ]

A very sensible question. Our society has got to the point where banning an *actual* harm is considered "not enough". We must outlaw the behaviours that *could* lead to the harm.

We are plagued with myriad laws designed to prevent some higher level problem by banning a correlated innocuous behaviour.

Open container laws, cartoon kiddie porn, drug prohibition, etc are all examples. there are plenty more.

A ban on hugs because someone might get hugged against their will is just natural in light of our society's current approach to law and its role in a citizen's life.

note: this "hug ban" is all just part of the new "no fun century" we are living in, which i posted about a while ago.

last note for Andy: I'm sure that involuntary hugs were *already* against the rules. But that's not enough. It's like adding more gun control laws because someone broke an existing one.

natedogg

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
A very sensible question. Our society has got to the point where banning an *actual* harm is considered "not enough". We must outlaw the behaviours that *could* lead to the harm.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, sounds very familiar...

[andyfox]

I imagine these things work in kind of a pendulum fashion: too much leeway, followed by too much Big Brother. When I was in high school, the policy was officially "Hand in hand, or hands off." Made sense, I think. In many of the classrooms, the teacher spoke in the middle of the room, with the desks on either side facing each other. Those were the days of miniskirts, so we delinquents perfected the delicate operation of dropping our pencils in a strategic area of the floor to get maximum viewage up the girls' skirts. One male teacher would put the waste basket on top of a closet every day and would ask a girl in a short skirt to reach up to get it. Can you imagine what would happen to him today? So surely things were tolerated that shouldn't have been, just as surely as some of the things you describe as "no fun" are ridiculous.

Here are the lyrics of the song we would sing in assembly every Tuesday:

"Bless this house, O Lord we pray,
Make it safe by night and day . . .

Bless these walls so firm and stout,
Keeping want and trouble out . . .

Bless the roof and chimneys tall,
Let thy peace lie overall . . .

Bless this door that it may prove,
Ever open,
To joy and love . . .

Bless these windows shining bright,
Letting in God's Heavenly light,
Bless the hearth, the painting there,
With smoke ascending like a prayer!

Bless the folk who dwell within,
Keep them pure and free from sin . . .

Bless us all that we may be,
Fit O Lord to dwell with thee . . .

Bless us all that one day we may dwell,
O Lord! With Thee!"

This was a public school in New York City.

I think, as a society, we could probably benefit more from a mandatory hugging policy than a ban.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"administrators said the ban was enacted because while most touching may be welcome, some touching isn’t."

Why, then, don't they just ban involuntary hugging?

[/ QUOTE ]

A very sensible question. Our society has got to the point where banning an *actual* harm is considered "not enough". We must outlaw the behaviours that *could* lead to the harm.

We are plagued with myriad laws designed to prevent some higher level problem by banning a correlated innocuous behaviour.

Open container laws, cartoon kiddie porn, drug prohibition, etc are all examples. there are plenty more.

A ban on hugs because someone might get hugged against their will is just natural in light of our society's current approach to law and its role in a citizen's life.

note: this "hug ban" is all just part of the new "no fun century" we are living in, which i posted about a while ago.

last note for Andy: I'm sure that involuntary hugs were *already* against the rules. But that's not enough. It's like adding more gun control laws because someone broke an existing one.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Orthodox Jewish laws have been explained to me this way. You don't want to get anywhere near breaking a rule so do what they call 'building fences' and outlaw behavior that is similar or could lead to breaking a rule.

Could have something to do with Judiasm having a long history. It's a lot easier to make laws than to repeal them and power likes to accumulate more power.

[Thug Bubbles]

Funny. Hugging was banned in my Middle school. As was hand holding and kissing. FWIW, the issue has little to do with area and everything to do with an idiotic administrator.

[W brad]

I just hope that this girl is added to the Sexual Offenders Registry. She's an obvious canddidate to be an offender once she becomes an adult.

Since we won't be able to ship her off to jail (still a minor), at least we can protect the future generations of children from her.

[SNOWBALL]

my favorite part "In Fairfax County, Va., Kilmer Middle School has banned not just hugging, but all physical contact — including high fives. "