# High School girls suspended for saying "vagina"



## Zodd (Mar 7, 2007)

> Saying the word "vagina" during a reading at a John Jay High School open mic session has resulted in suspension for three female students and has sparked a debate about censorship throughout the community.
> 
> School administrators had warned the girls it would be inappropriate to say the word while reading a selection from Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues," but the students were willing to suffer the consequences.
> 
> ...




What do you think? Is it censorship? Is saying vagina unnecessary?


----------



## delirium (Mar 7, 2007)

What are they supposed to say? Cencorship up that yang that is.


----------



## EJ (Mar 7, 2007)

they deserve it. I hope they get pooprd on by there dogs.

While that was inmature, im totally speechless.


----------



## martryn (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, in this case, I agree with the school board.  The girls were asked not to say it, for whatever reason, and they did it anyway.  They knowingly went against their superiors, who were at least partly justified in their regulations, and therefore should suffer the consequences.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 7, 2007)

It's pretty retarded.  The initial request for the students to not say "vagina" that is.  (How exactly were they to read from the Vagina Monologues and not say "vagina"?)  The word isn't offensive.  To me, this is the equivalent of a teacher trying to prevent students from using the word "pantaloons" and suspending those who don't comply.

Wet, hot, slutty cunthole is much more objectionable.


----------



## cygnus (Mar 7, 2007)

Yeah, its about as objectionable as saying "hand" or "knee".


----------



## martryn (Mar 7, 2007)

> It's pretty retarded. The initial request for the students to not say "vagina" that is. (How exactly were they to read from the Vagina Monologues and not say "vagina"?) The word isn't offensive. To me, this is the equivalent of a teacher trying to prevent students from using the word "pantaloons" and suspending those who don't comply.



I agree it was retarded.  Perhaps, though, they weren't supposed to read the Vagina Monologues at all.  That seems to make more sense.  They weren't supposed to read from it for that reason to that audience, and yet they failed to comply.  

I think there's more to the story than a simple three paragraphs lets on.


----------



## delirium (Mar 7, 2007)

martryn said:


> I agree it was retarded.  Perhaps, though, they weren't supposed to read the Vagina Monologues at all.  That seems to make more sense.  They weren't supposed to read from it for that reason to that audience, and yet they failed to comply.
> 
> *I think there's more to the story than a simple three paragraphs lets on*.



My thoughts exactly. From what I know about the Vagina Monologues, they're supposed to be pretty racy. Why were they going to, or allowed to, perform it in front of an audience that would have possibly had young children there that they didn't want hearing such things?


----------



## Zodd (Mar 7, 2007)

martryn said:


> Great baseless assumption!



If you know a high school where they suspend kids for saying this, I'd like to know where.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 7, 2007)

Wait, how do you read something from the "vagina monologues" without saying vagina? isn't vagina just a standard anatomy term? I don't get the big deal, little girls know they have a vagina, so who cares?


----------



## SpoonTypeR (Mar 7, 2007)

What happened to *Freedom of Speech*?


----------



## martryn (Mar 7, 2007)

> If you know a high school where they suspend kids for saying this, I'd like to know where.



Saying what?  Vagina?  I don't think you read that carefully enough.  The girls got suspended not because vagina is a bad word, but because they were asked not to say it and said it anyway.  

Think of the legal implications the school board was trying to avoid if a parent in the crowd who was overly sensitive sued the school board for allowing something like that to be said with children present.  The school board's stance, it seems, wasn't against the word, it was against the use of the word when the word was specifically restricted.  



> What happened to Freedom of Speech?



Don't toss around freedom of speech until you know what it entails.


----------



## Toby (Mar 7, 2007)

Though I do agree it is quite uncertain as to why the order was given to not say the word "vagina" in the context of reading out loud extracts from the Vagina Monologues, it is bloody stupid to not explain why that word was forbidden. Clearly it must have some educational value, and therefore all other terms which could be interpreted as a violation of such principle ought to have been forbid as well.

The girl was rather stupid, but so was the administration. The article lacks an important quality called clarity so that we understand what actually happened.


----------



## FrostXian (Mar 7, 2007)

SpoonTypeR said:


> What happened to *Freedom of Speech*?



Irrevelant.

Also, I would like to add;

*Spoiler*: __ 



*Penis.*


----------



## delirium (Mar 7, 2007)

Did you guys just read the 3 paragraphs or click on the link? I read the article from the link and there's definitely a better picture painted. The girls still said the word even after warned, but it's clearer as to why they said it while the principal I still don't understand why he'd discourage them from using it.


----------



## GrimaH (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, the board did say the audience could have included young children, so the decision to make the girls agree not to use potentially offensive words is pretty understandable.
And the girls were pretty stupid themselves to knowingly go back on their word, so yeah, they deserved a suspension.
There's nothing controversial about it, in my opinion.


----------



## delirium (Mar 7, 2007)

That's true.. but



> The move has prompted parents to write to the Board of Education and circulate e-mails calling the suspension a "blatant attempt at censorship."



Why would parents of children from the school be on the sides of the girls?

But again.. Vigan is the proper term for the organ. There's nothing dirty about it. It's not some kind of slang or something. I'm sure kids know what a vagina is.


----------



## Instant Karma (Mar 7, 2007)

The girls shoulda kept thier traps shut. They knew what the deal was ahead of time, agreed, and then chose to ignore it. No matter whether they thought it was silly, or whether it actually was, they shoulda been smart enough to go with the flow as agreed since the presence of kids was to be expected.


----------



## Hitomi_No_Ryu (Mar 7, 2007)

If the school didn't wanted to them say the word...why would they let them openly read out loud the book which has the word in its title?!


----------



## sj2k (Mar 7, 2007)

I am pretty sure the girls didn't do this simply to flaunt it in the face of the administrators, but as a kind of protest to the cencorship.

The fact that the word was not allowed to be said is ludicrous.  It is the name of an organ.  Its is cencorship.  Not the fact that the girls were punished for disobeying, but the order they were given in teh first place.

And martryn, why don't you learn what freedom of speech entails.  Here is what the article said on that



> As for a student's right to free expression, the U.S. Supreme Court has said students *"do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate."*
> 
> Public school officials, however, may regulate student expression that substantially disrupts the school environment or that infringes on the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd, The First Amendment Center said.



Lewd speech can be limited, but the name of an organ is not, in any way whatsoever, lewd.  So while the punishment is not unconcstitutional, not allowing the use of the word itself was.


----------



## Pein (Mar 7, 2007)

oh gosh i love the world


----------



## Turnip Girl (Mar 7, 2007)

Oh noes! It's the name of a body part! 

I said 'leg' earlier on today: quick, somebody censor me!


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 7, 2007)

The school asked them not to, the girls said they wouldn't.

Lying backstabbing girls shouldn't go unpunished.


----------



## Ida (Mar 7, 2007)

Vagina isn't even the "bad" word for it... 

Freedom of speach ftw.


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 7, 2007)

What planet are we living on that girls can't mention parts of their own body without being punished? Are we trying to teach them that their own bodies  are disgusting and vulgar? I thought we were past of the dark ages.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 7, 2007)

They did commit civil disobidience, which while comendable, is still disobediance.  So I will not argue they shouldn't be punished.  However, the school in not allowing the word is clearly showing cencorship and violating free speech.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 7, 2007)

Part of civil disobidience is accepting the punishments associated with that disobidience.

That being said, I'm not sure how the girls could possibly make a reading from the "Vagina Monologues" that doesn't contain the word "Vagina" (I guess if it was like a once sentince reading they could...).  That being said, I think it would have been better for them to simply say a reading from VM is not appropriate for this function rather than saying the word "vagina" is not appropriate.

Regardless, the school warned the girls beforehand not to, if they had a problem with it they should have talked to the school board rather than just go ahead with it.  Just going ahead with it may make a more direct form of protest, they're stuck with accepting the consequences of their actions.

If the school didn't punish them after they said they would, the school would lose some of it's authority with the student body.

(I'm mildly curious as to which reading they gave too.  Some of them would be VERY inappropriate for elementry school students (hell, some of them are mildly inappropriate for high school students)).


----------



## shurikentarget (Mar 7, 2007)

i agree that the girls should be punished in some way for breaking the rules their superiors laid on them. If the agreed not to say the word they should stick to their agreement,
but i think it's silly to suspend them. 

It's like you ask them not to say "leg" on stage but they do it anyway, would you suspend them?


----------



## AshCrestedHeart (Mar 7, 2007)

We should all just give up and call it a vajayjay


----------



## Gunners (Mar 7, 2007)

Meh I back the schools decission. They were speaking in front of a crowd of people for what ever reason they were asked not too say ''Vagina''. Whether I agree with it or not what they asked for wasn't absurd.

It wouldn't kill them or cripple them too avoid the word they felt like being disobediant and they were punished for it. What's with the foo fool people if you break a rule don't act shocked when you get punished.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Mar 7, 2007)

1. The so-called 'young audience' probably already knows about sex and the word "vagina", and probably know 'pussy' too. 

2. Vagina is a scientific term for the female anatomy. The proper term. Like what else would you want them to say, especially when that monologue is about the 'vagina'. So therefore I believe in the first place it was more on censorship than disobedience/insubordination.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 7, 2007)

This is interesting. When I was in an American high school the school had a play called "The Vagina Monologues".

Shows different parts of the nation have different standards.


----------



## Rangamaru (Mar 7, 2007)

They should have not given the speech if they felt their right to free speech was being violated.


----------



## Zodd (Mar 7, 2007)

As far as I can tell, insubordination does not trump free speech. That doesn't mean you can say any vulgarity without punishment. I would love to grill the principal on this. Obviously he considers the word or concept of vagina vulgar, otherwise why would he ban it? I think a lot of female legislators and superintendents would be very interested to hear him explain why. 

I don't recall being traumatized when I heard the word as a little kid.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Mar 7, 2007)

imagine if they showed it.


----------



## sel (Mar 7, 2007)

i think the technical term is bajingo ^^

abd this is stupid - if theyr objected to it why do hte 'vagina' monologues and if they are its stupid to take teh outlook that they did


----------



## xpeed (Mar 7, 2007)

WTF?! That is the most stupid thing i heard of.  Come on!  If you're gonna read "The Vagina Monologue."  There will be "Vagina" in it.  Stupid teacher.  Plus aren't they in High School?  Didn't they have Sex Ed in Junior High?  So how do these adults brainwash these kids?


----------



## Soseki_ (Mar 7, 2007)

Delirium said:


> My thoughts exactly. From what I know about the Vagina Monologues, they're supposed to be pretty racy. Why were they going to, or allowed to, perform it in front of an audience that would have possibly had young children there that they didn't want hearing such things?



I doubt that it was for an audience of six years old...and still the only word incriminated here is "vagina" seriously how in the world could someone (even a six year old) could be shocked by this word ? It was not "cunt" or "pussy" it simply was "vagina"  



Delirium said:


> Did you guys just read the 3 paragraphs or click on the link? I read the article from the link and there's definitely a better picture painted. The girls still said the word even after warned, but it's clearer as to why they said it while the principal I still don't understand why he'd discourage them from using it.



That's not even the point...if you allow the play to be read why would you censor the word "vagina" ? Frankly puritanism like that looks really scary to me...I mean and then what ? No more skirts for girls ? Separate classes for boys and girls ? Prison for non-marital sex ? Funny how fundamentalist Islamist and puritans have so much in common...though no one seems to be afraid of the second.


----------



## mister_manji (Mar 7, 2007)

would it have been better if they had said cunt? how about snatch? box? taco?
im glad these kids are smart enough to use the correct terminology. i think its rediculous


----------



## xpeed (Mar 7, 2007)

Not to mention it's a scientific term for the female reproductive system.


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 7, 2007)

well they shouldnt have approved to read the "the vagina monolouge" in the first place if they dont want to hear the word vagina...duh...


----------



## ANBUBooBoo (Mar 8, 2007)

They deserve it. 

Regardless of what the school administration decided, the girls agreed to their terms and then blatantly disobeyed them. They're not stopping them from saying "vagina" to their friends at school. The deal was that if they wanted to get up on _the school's_ stage, on _the school's_ property, they wouldn't use that word, and the girls agreed.


----------



## EXGod (Mar 8, 2007)

don't they have sex education course? vagina is a reality and it sounds scientific, what could be so wrong with it? malicious people are troublesome


----------



## Hubbahubba (Mar 8, 2007)

What the friggin hell is wrong with saying a body part?

So in some schools is it bad if I say...........................EYE?!?!?!?

its a friggin body part, its technical name, get used to it  ya pansies.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 8, 2007)

You break rules you get punished!! Its a hard knock life.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 8, 2007)

Right, part of civil disobediance, breaking a bad rule, is to accept the punishment.  They accepted it, and now there is a huge outroar, so it worked!  But the rule itself was cencorship, and illegal cencorship.


----------



## Silver Reflection (Mar 8, 2007)

After being warned previously,the girls should have shut their mouths.But it is a little ridiculous.Saying Vagina is better than saying cunt.As long as the word served a purpose in getting the point of the story/play through to the reader without being overly obscene,then it shouldn't be punished.Sometimes you have to say 'shit' or 'vagina' in order for the authors purpose to be clear.

But if they weren't allowed to say vagina,why were they allowed to read from the vagina monologues?


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 8, 2007)

Akeboshi - Wind


----------



## Goodfellow (Mar 8, 2007)

Oh gee, now I really started to wonder about the cause of many teenage pregnancies.

NOT


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

martryn said:


> Well, in this case, I agree with the school board.  The girls were asked not to say it, for whatever reason, and they did it anyway.  They knowingly went against their superiors, who were at least partly justified in their regulations, and therefore should suffer the consequences.




obeying a bad rule or law is idiotic though, espeically when said rule trys to inhibit the Freedom of Speech


----------



## sj2k (Mar 8, 2007)

> After being warned previously,the girls should have shut their mouths.



no.  The girls were not warned first of all, they agreed not to say it.  And they should be punished, but they also did the right thing.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 8, 2007)

> no. The girls were not warned first of all, they agreed not to say it. And they should be punished, but they also did the right thing.


Actually they didn't do the right thing. Regardless the school has its image too look out for. I take it soccer moms would have been at the play? Whilst some people are open minded they are the worst breed of people.

Overall the school probably doesn't care, it's the abuse they will get from complaining parents it could potentially get them in trouble and cause uneeded hassel. 

The school setting this shit up is down too stupid parents. I don't really blame the school for doing what they did as they need too protect themselves.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

its a school so Freedom of Speech should be enforced even more


It's just like all those stupid fucking book bannings


If I was in their place I'd have probably done the same thing


----------



## Gunners (Mar 8, 2007)

> its a school so Freedom of Speech should be enforced even more
> 
> 
> It's just like all those stupid fucking book bannings
> ...


You know what would get the point across better? Refusing too take part in the play and gathering people who share the same opinion as them. Them doing what they did too the majority ( which isn't people here) they will look like rebellious teens.

Also I kinda know how people at that age opperate. Whether they did it for protest sake or too just do something they were told not too do is a debatable issue. The media takes a certain stance so they will be potrayed as activists or protesters. It is quite possible that the girls had no noble reason behind their actions.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 8, 2007)

I don't know what they expected.  If you actually read the news article the girls AGREED to not say it. They made a deal with the administration, they broke that deal.  That is why they were suspended, not for simply saying vagina.


----------



## Dionysus (Mar 8, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I don't know what they expected.  If you actually read the news article the girls AGREED to not say it. They made a deal with the administration, they broke that deal.  That is why they were suspended, not for simply saying vagina.


Can school administration make any sort of request and have it be the deciding factor of a suspension?  Hopefully they just follow set guidelines (ie. perhaps set be a school board) instead of making shit up on the spot.

Are verbal contracts normal policy for school judgements?  (Leaving aside it was an agreement with some people who are likely minors.)


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 8, 2007)

Dionysus said:


> Can school administration make any sort of request and have it be the deciding factor of a suspension?  Hopefully they just follow set guidelines (ie. perhaps set be a school board) instead of making shit up on the spot.
> 
> Are verbal contracts normal policy for school judgements?  (Leaving aside it was an agreement with some people who are likely minors.)



Not any request, but a request not to do something in public since it might cause a scene is definetly a valid request for them to be suspended on.

They were afraid it would cause a scene, the girls agreed to not say it, they made a deal with the administration not to do this thing in public, then they did it anyway.

Sorry, that is grounds for suspension.

If they didn't want to be suspended they should have _not_ agreed to not do that.  They should have said "I don't see the problem with saying vagina".

Directly disobeying your teachers is grounds for detention of suspension, how is this any different aside from this being a much bigger case.


----------



## Zodd (Mar 8, 2007)

One could argue that the First Amendment trumps obedience.


----------



## Vegitto-kun (Mar 8, 2007)

America should restart their entire country, its fucked up


----------



## Gunners (Mar 8, 2007)

> America should restart their entire country, its fucked up


You realise this happened in one state out of 50?

Also it doesn't justify starting the whole country over again. Granted they do some shit which pisses me off in the grand scheme of things they are relatively successful.


----------



## Saosin (Mar 8, 2007)

That's ridiculous.

I wonder how they teach sex ed at that school.


----------



## Vegitto-kun (Mar 8, 2007)

Kirin said:


> You realise this happened in one state out of 50?



Yeah, you think I stated that statement just because of this. Fucked up shit happens all over america.


----------



## Psycho (Mar 8, 2007)

what do you mean nothing about censorship?!?! he probably wants his kids to grow up and die chast


----------



## kahlmoo (Mar 8, 2007)

this just seems like the girls suffer from a case of stupidity.
if they say don't say it, then don't focking say it. keep it simple stupid D:


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

yeah stoping speech is probably the biggest example of censorship you can find




> this just seems like the girls suffer from a case of stupidity.
> if they say don't say it, then don't focking say it. keep it simple stupid D:




this type of talk scares me more than lots of stuff I hear about.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 8, 2007)

Zodd said:


> One could argue that the First Amendment trumps obedience.



So if I make an agreement with you not to say/do something then turn right around and do it in public...I haven't wronged you in some way?

I'm one of the biggest supporters the first amendments got, but this isn't a freedom of speech issue, this is some girls blatantly breaching an agreement with their school.

If someone tells a teacher to fuck off, do they not get detention/suspension, or does the first amendment trump that?


----------



## Gunners (Mar 8, 2007)

> Yeah, you think I stated that statement just because of this. Fucked up shit happens all over america.


Yeah well it has a large population. Considering news sells best when it is bad it is only natural. Shit happens all over the world. America is an established country with a mixture of people so it will make news.

A country like ohh for example, Belgium. Generally people think nothing when it comes too Belgium they generally don't care about it so news won't make the it international. With America because it a somewhat influencial country the bad properties of it is highlighted.

Point is bad stuff happens all over the place. I don't really agree with the countries runnings but in the big picture it isn't that bad. The fact that people are able too complain about this incident here shows this.


----------



## jjah55ik (Mar 8, 2007)

That is so wrong... what's wrong with vagina? For a baby it's a door to this world =) plus it ain't a cuss or slang, it's in dictionary wtf is wrong with peter breslin?


----------



## Fonster Mox (Mar 8, 2007)

They should've said "bajingo".


----------



## Gunners (Mar 8, 2007)

> That is so wrong... what's wrong with vagina? For a baby it's a door to this world =) plus it ain't a cuss or slang, it's in dictionary wtf is wrong with peter breslin?


Man words are in the dictionary........... .

I don't see anything against the word but what they did was wrong. For the simple fact that they made an agreement and went against it. Regardless of the schools reasons ( Though I could possibly agree with them) they made an agreement. If they had a problem they should have brought it up earlier.

They actually made the immature approach. To me because they took this approach it suggests they were being stupid kids and thought they would do something they were asked not too do.


----------



## mister_manji (Mar 8, 2007)

Zodd said:


> One could argue that the First Amendment trumps obedience.



indeed it does


----------



## Zodd (Mar 8, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So if I make an agreement with you not to say/do something then turn right around and do it in public...I haven't wronged you in some way?
> 
> I'm one of the biggest supporters the first amendments got, but this isn't a freedom of speech issue, this is some girls blatantly breaching an agreement with their school.
> 
> If someone tells a teacher to fuck off, do they not get detention/suspension, or does the first amendment trump that?



First, you're not obligated to follow promises unless it is contractual. Second, you can be disciplined at school for obscenities, or at least separated. The principal would have to argue that the the vagina is an obscenity. He will have a difficult time doing this considering the word is a reference to a book, and not a disrespectful vulgarity intended to harm someone.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 8, 2007)

Zodd said:


> First, you're not obligated to follow promises unless it is contractual.


Actually, you'll find that most high schoolers are not of the age of consent that they can agree into a contract.

Furthermore, you'll find that when you were enrolled in school your parents gave consent for the school to teach you.  Part of that consent was students agreeing with the guidelines of the teachers and staff of the school.

So basically, yes, if the principal said "don't do this" the student is obligated to not do it or to face disciplinary action because of this.  This is further backed by the fact that the students involved acknowledged and agreed with the principal.



Zodd said:


> Second, you can be disciplined at school for obscenities, or at least separated. The principal would have to argue that the the vagina is an obscenity.


Actually, you'll find that the administration has pretty much free reign to make whatever rules they want.  If the students object to it, they can make their case to the administration or to the school board.

If they just do it anyway they're going to be punished.  That's life.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 8, 2007)

Zodd said:


> First, you're not obligated to follow promises unless it is contractual. Second, you can be disciplined at school for obscenities, or at least separated. The principal would have to argue that the the vagina is an obscenity. He will have a difficult time doing this considering the word is a reference to a book, and not a disrespectful vulgarity intended to harm someone.



First, that doesn't apply to children.  A child in a school IS obligated to do what their teacher tells them to.

If a teacher says "don't play on that fence", the kid has to stop playing on the fence.

Secondly if a school has a sign on a room like say "keep out" and a student goes into that room, the student can and SHOULD be disciplined for that, they broke the rules.

As for not being obligated to follow an oral aggreement, thats not true.  As long as it can be proven you agreed to it then you are bound to oral agreements.

The fact remains these girls were given a rule, AGREED to the rule then broke the rule, they were punished and rightly so.


----------



## Zodd (Mar 8, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually, you'll find that most high schoolers are not of the age of consent that they can agree into a contract.



I'm aware of this. It's the same reason minors aren't supposed to have credit cards, because contractual obligations aren't relevant with minors. 



EvilMoogle said:


> Furthermore, you'll find that when you were enrolled in school your parents gave consent for the school to teach you.  Part of that consent was students agreeing with the guidelines of the teachers and staff of the school.
> 
> So basically, yes, if the principal said "don't do this" the student is obligated to not do it or to face disciplinary action because of this.  This is further backed by the fact that the students involved acknowledged and agreed with the principal.



This is clearly not always the case. Read Tinker v. Des Moines



> In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John Tinker (15 years old) and Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (15 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War. The school board apparently heard rumor of this and chose to pass a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school...
> 
> The court's 7 to 2 decision was handed down on February 24, 1969. It held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom...




So, in fact, you are not correct that it is always the case students must obey the principal. 




EvilMoogle said:


> Actually, you'll find that the administration has pretty much free reign to make whatever rules they want.  If the students object to it, they can make their case to the administration or to the school board.
> 
> If they just do it anyway they're going to be punished.  That's life.



Actually, again read above. The SCOTUS invalidated even the school board's authority in preserving freedom of speech in schools.


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 8, 2007)

OMG. As if those children would die if they said it. If they're scared of the place every human comes from, they shouldn't have them read this shit.


----------



## Zodd (Mar 8, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> First, that doesn't apply to children.  A child in a school IS obligated to do what their teacher tells them to.
> 
> If a teacher says "don't play on that fence", the kid has to stop playing on the fence.
> 
> ...



Read Tinker v. Des Moines I posted above. The teacher can order the kid not to play on the fence, but that isn't a matter of free speech. Neither is entering a room free speech. Oral agreements apply to adults, and yes I am aware that a contract can be verbal, that wasn't my point. 

You can't be punished for exercising free speech. Even the SCOTUS said certain apparel, such as black armbands, can't be removed because it is an extension of their right to free speech. Many people believe minors have little to no rights. This is not the case. They are fully protected under the Constitution, except in matters that don't apply to minors.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 8, 2007)

Zodd said:


> Actually, again read above. The SCOTUS invalidated even the school board's authority in preserving freedom of speech in schools.



Read the article, this wasn't in the classroom, this was in a voluntary performance that had other people in attendance than just the student body.

Tinker v. Des Moines doesn't directly apply as it wasn't a school required activity.

 is a better example, which the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.

But even that case isn't exactly the same as there is the fact that the students agreed to one course of action and then violated that agreement (which warrants punishment in general).


----------



## sj2k (Mar 8, 2007)

Tsuki, as I said, they did deserve the suspension.  But the 'rule' or request, it wasn't just a request, was cencorship and wrong.  The school was cencoring the students in an illegal manner.

As I think zodd pointed out well, the order from the principal was in fact a violation of the first amendmant.  The order itself was unconstitutional, and should not stand.  In fact, I think the girls, if they so choose, would have a valid argument to have the suspension removed from their records.  Then again, maybe they shouldn't.  Maybe they should apply to liberal colleges, and point out how they stood up for free speech and were willing to take the punishment.

THAT would make a great college essay


----------



## Zodd (Mar 8, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Read the article, this wasn't in the classroom, this was in a voluntary performance that had other people in attendance than just the student body.
> 
> Tinker v. Des Moines doesn't directly apply as it wasn't a school required activity.
> 
> ...



I'm actually following that case closely, and the highest authority so far in the case has ruled in favor of the student. Right now, it's law until the SCOTUS overrules the 9th circuit's decision. From the article, the SCOTUS ruled that freedom of speech does not stop at the school gates. If this were on private property, it would be a different matter. Whether it is in the classroom or not, they still have those rights. They may not have been required to speak at the mic, but they may have been required to attend. 

Also, the agreement to which the principal made the students agree may also not be constitutional. No one can give away their constitutional rights. No agreement is valid on the precondition that you give up your rights.

EDIT: WTF is up with NF's Apache servers?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 8, 2007)

Zodd said:


> Also, the agreement to which the principal made the students agree may also not be constitutional. No one can give away their constitutional rights. No agreement is valid on the precondition that you give up your rights.



This is getting crazy.

By your argument no government entity can restrict speech (so long as the speech isn't vulger) in any forum?

Lets try that out.  Go to the next city council meeting, and once they start, stand up and start reading loudly from the phone book.  See how long it is before you get kicked out (or perhaps arrested in a form of contempt depending on how hard-core your city is).

The school made restrictions known to the students as to what content they thought was appropriate for this forum (which had "small children" in attendance according to the article).  They have every right to restrict what forms of communication can go on.

If a student stood up and started chanting in Klingon for three hours, do you think they wouldn't pull him off the stage eventually?  Would it be censorship for them to do so?  Would it be Unconstitutional censorship for them to tell him he can't give a three-hour speech in Klingon before he went on stage?

Face it, the school has the right (and to some extent the requirement) to place restrictions on what is appropriate for a venue.  In this case they may have been extreme in their restrictions (as I said before, it would depend on the full text of the reading, some VM readings are quite graphic, some are fairly tame), however being extreme does not mean they don't have the ability to make the restrictions.

The students had options to talk to other administrators or to the school board if they felt that these restrictions were inappropriate.  They choose not to do so, so they should deal with the consequences of their actions.


----------



## Zodd (Mar 8, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> This is getting crazy.
> 
> By your argument no government entity can restrict speech (so long as the speech isn't vulger) in any forum?
> 
> ...



I know what you're saying. And I agree with you (and so does SCOTUS) that free speech can't be used to shield disruptive or offensive behavior. If there is evidence that these three girls intended to disrupt the event, then I think it is not free speech and their punishment is justified. But the girls seem sincere in promoting an idea or belief, so I must side with them. 

I don't think a vagina reference is an attempt to promote unprotected sex, sexual abuse, rape, etc.


----------



## hara_karikitty (Mar 8, 2007)

They should be punished, but hell, not suspended. These kids are gonna learn the word in a few more years anyway. 

And what was the title of the book? 

"Today we will be reading from 'The *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*' Thank you"

Yeah... punished, but not have their education ruined.

Kids learn new words every day. Why, just the other day my niece called her sister a lesbian. 

an 8 year old calling a 6 year old a lesbian. They learned that at school. My sister has never used that word in front of her kids in her life. Kids learn things. They learn fast. They're like sponges up until a certain age.

You can't guard them from everything. 

But if those girls were specifically told then they get what they deserved. Just giving my two cents. One part of each possible story -shrugs-


----------



## hara_karikitty (Mar 8, 2007)

They should be punished, but hell, not suspended. These kids are gonna learn the word in a few more years anyway. 

And what was the title of the book? 

"Today we will be reading from 'The *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*' Thank you"

Yeah... punished, but not have their education ruined.

Kids learn new words every day. Why, just the other day my niece called her sister a lesbian. 

an 8 year old calling a 6 year old a lesbian. They learned that at school. My sister has never used that word in front of her kids in her life. Kids learn things. They learn fast. They're like sponges up until a certain age.

You can't guard them from everything. 

But if those girls were specifically told then they get what they deserved. Just giving my two cents. One part of each possible story -shrugs-


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> This is getting crazy.
> 
> By your argument no government entity can restrict speech (so long as the speech isn't vulger) in any forum?




thats how it should be for anyone in a public place including Vulgar words

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


and let me ask a question before someone says "It wasn't designed to protect vulgar words", What the point of a law that only protects words that noone has a problem with?


----------



## Bender (Mar 8, 2007)

A girl get's suspended for saying vagina? That's so gay. I said that in school and I never got in trouble.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 8, 2007)

Taleran said:


> thats how it should be for anyone in a public place including Vulgar words



*sigh*  I'll say it again, go to your next city council meeting (in city hall, a public place) and stand up and start speaking loudly about nothing in particular.  See how quickly you get thrown out.

Heck, even if you're speaking on-topic the city council can (and likely will) limit the amount of time you have to address them.

Public place does not mean infinite right to speak about anything at any time.  There are rules and regulations and they're in place for a reason.

In this case, it was a public performance that was (presumably) advertised.  The school has a right and a duty to the people attending to have some amount of control over the content of the performance.  To deny them this is not "freedom" it's "anarchy."

It would be different if the students got together to set up their own performance independantly.  But at an official school function it's different, the school gets to set rules.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

Public School = Public = Constitution Trumps All


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 8, 2007)

Taleran said:


> Public School = Public = Constitution Trumps All





EvilMoogle said:


> *sigh*  I'll say it again, go to your next city council meeting (in city hall, a public place) and stand up and start speaking loudly about nothing in particular.  See how quickly you get thrown out.



The Constitution guarentees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly but not freedom-of-speech-wherever-and-whenever-you-want.


----------



## coriander (Mar 8, 2007)

hmmm... if the word _vagina_ would not be given a malicious tone it would simply sound like any body part. at least it sounds better than _cunt_. or would they rather call it female genitalia.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

Thats what Freedom of Speech means..............


and besides doing something like that in a building where people are trying to get work done is fucking stupid


school play =/= important council meetings


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 8, 2007)

Taleran said:


> Thats what Freedom of Speech means..............
> 
> 
> and besides doing something like that in a building where people are trying to get work done is fucking stupid
> ...



You can't have it both ways, do I have freedom to say whatever I want whenever I want when I'm on public property or does the government have the right to limit speech when there's something "important" going on?

Like I said, even if you're on-topic debating a city measure at the city council meeting they'll likely limit the time you have to address, and if you go over they'll make you stop (by asking, by removing you from the meeting, or by arresting you depending on the city and how strict they are).


----------



## Taleran (Mar 8, 2007)

your probably right but that doesn't make it right.


and I think anyone would try to fight an arrest like that.


----------



## Kaitlyn (Mar 8, 2007)

......................................

......................................

......................................

......................................

...............................vagina.


----------



## montypython (Mar 8, 2007)

heehehehe. Vagina. heheheehehehe. boobs


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 8, 2007)

-It seems, the school is right, since, this was discussed with the students before hand and(by the school's words) the girls agreed not to use the word.
-So what the girls were actually suspended for was not censorship. It was "insubordination". The girls had led the school to believe that they wouldn't you the word, thus, the school allowed the performance, which would be viewed by very young children. 
-Had the school allowed the girls to say the word in the first place, they would have risked liability for exposing young children to an environment that their parents parents felt was inappropriate. The only other way, would have been to give parents a warning as to the age sensitive content of the "school production". And what kind of school would want to put on shows that require strict parental guidance?

I feel that this is the school's logic.
Note: This is not my logic.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 8, 2007)

i wonder.... what if the girls said penis?


----------



## sj2k (Mar 8, 2007)

Evil Moogle.  You are getting away from the point.  They were allowed to go up there.  They were allowed to have time, and they stayed withing that time.  Those rules are not cencoring what they can SAY, only how long they have.  Cencorship is in the material, not the time.  It is the fact that they said you cannot say the word vagina.  It is not a bad word, there is nothing wrong with it, if a 3 year old hears it, or 73 year old.  There is NOTHING wrong with the word, which is why it is not considered vulgar.  So small children should be irrelevant.

Edit: X-box, I see nothing wrong with the word vagina.  Some people are going to be offended if you use ACE instead of AD, you can't please everyone.  What you can do however, is respect a right to free speech.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 9, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> -Had the school allowed the girls to say the word in the first place, they would have risked liability for exposing young children to an environment that their parents parents felt was inappropriate. The only other way, would have been to give parents a warning as to the age sensitive content of the "school production". And what kind of school would want to put on shows that require strict parental guidance?





its called the Vagina Monolouges Neway so WTF are the renaming the show aswell?


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 9, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Edit: X-box, I see nothing wrong with the word vagina.  Some people are going to be offended if you use ACE instead of AD, you can't please everyone.  What you can do however, is respect a right to free speech.



-Careful, don't make any assumptions as to my personal beliefs.

-My statement was not about wether or not the parents in the audience would have been offended by the word. 
-My post was about the fact that offended parents can and will sue the pants off of a school district for exposing their children to something they felt inappropiate. And it was about the schools right to take actions to avoid such conflicts. 
-We all know by now what the ACLU has done to this nation.
Christmas, pledge of allegence, praying, sex ed, and many other elements have been forever changed as far as our public school systems are concerned.
-I'm saying that this is the true motive behind the schools actions. And I'm not saying that I agree with it. I'd rather see more public school districts take a stand.


----------



## Misa (Mar 9, 2007)

What about in Biology class?

they have to say vagina sometime...


----------



## Zodd (Mar 9, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> -We all know by now what the ACLU has done to this nation.
> Christmas, pledge of allegence, praying, sex ed, and many other elements have been forever changed as far as our public school systems are concerned.



Wouldn't you agree that despite the ACLU's championing of things you don't like, they are a necessary balance to protect our rights? For instance, they defended Limbaugh's right to medical privacy in the drug case, iirc.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 9, 2007)

Taleran said:


> its called the Vagina Monolouges Neway so WTF are the renaming the show aswell?



Exactly, the fact that the school allowed the performance proves the UNbiasedness on their part. They could have blocked the show but, instead, they asked that the girls leave out any elements that would leave the school legally liable in any lawsuits. 

(as far as the question on the whether the school advertised the name of the "piece" then turned around and punished the students for saying a word in that name  ...... I'll give you one guess)


----------



## Nejie (Mar 9, 2007)

It must be a catholic school that is why saying penis or vagina is forbidden


----------



## Zodd (Mar 9, 2007)

Nejie said:


> It must be a catholic school that is why saying penis or vagina is forbidden



It was a public school. Private schools can make whatever policy they want since it is on private land.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 9, 2007)

Zodd said:


> Wouldn't you agree that despite the ACLU's championing of things you don't like, they are a necessary balance to protect our rights? For instance, they defended Limbaugh's right to medical privacy in the drug case, iirc.



Lets not turn this into an ACLU debate. I haven't condemned all of their actions.

But to answer the logic behind your statement, I do not believe in such things as "necessary evils".


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 9, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Evil Moogle.  You are getting away from the point.  They were allowed to go up there.  They were allowed to have time, and they stayed withing that time.


They were allowed to go up there under the condition that they not say "vagina" (for whatever reason).

That makes the question "can the government limit what people can say in a controlled environment?"  I think it's self-evident that they can.

To parallel this to the "city hall" example I've been using.  If you go to your next city hall meeting and get on the list to address city hall before the meeting, they're going to ask the topic you wish to bring up.  Then assuming time permits, they'll assign you some amount of time (which varies from city to city).  For the sake of argument, I'll say 5 minutes.

If you say you're going to talk about zoning restrictions in block 300 of west avenue for your topic, but then stand up and start reading the latest "Anne Rice" vampire story for 5 minutes, this is what's going to happen.  They're going to listen for a brief period, then they're going to inturrupt you and ask you what this has to do with zoning restrictions in the 300 block of west avenue.  If you were to say "why nothing, but I've got four and a half minutes of time left and I won't allow you to censor me in what I talk about" and go back to reading, you'll find yourself in trouble (again varying by city likely just hauled out of the metting and sternly warned never to pull a stunt like that again).

When there's an organized forum (be it a city hall meeting or a formally organized school activitity) the organizing body _does_ have the ability to place restrictions on the content of the participants.


----------



## Zodd (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't think the city hall example is a very good one. In that example, the person hogging the floor time is disrupting the event. Theoretically infringing on others' right to speak. I don't believe these girls attempted disruption.

In fact, what you're describing is a crime called "disorderly conduct."


----------



## Saya (Mar 9, 2007)

That's completely ridiculous. :|


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 9, 2007)

LOL, I swear to God that I just turned on the TV and "Analyse That"(or whatever the sequels called) was on. The guys says, "It's hard to hear with the Vagina Monologues going on up there", just as I turned the TV on.

I know that it might be kind of cheesy, but, I've been cracking up at this coincidence for the past few minutes.  

It's on "tbs" right now.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 9, 2007)

Zodd said:


> I don't think the city hall example is a very good one. In that example, the person hogging the floor time is disrupting the event. Theoretically infringing on others' right to speak. I don't believe these girls attempted disruption.


So there was an infinite amount of time for people to present their acts?

By the girls giving their act they were theoretically infrining on others' right to perform.  Their act is EXACTLY what I paralleled in my last example, saying they're going to do one thing during an X minute performance, then giving a different performance.  The only difference is their performance may have only varied by one word.




Zodd said:


> In fact, what you're describing is a crime called "disorderly conduct."


Great, then the girls are guilty of the school-rule equivilient of "disorderly conduct."  And that's what they got suspended for, not specificaly for the use of the word "vagina."


----------



## Zodd (Mar 9, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> So there was an infinite amount of time for people to present their acts?
> 
> By the girls giving their act they were theoretically infrining on others' right to perform.  Their act is EXACTLY what I paralleled in my last example, saying they're going to do one thing during an X minute performance, then giving a different performance.  The only difference is their performance may have only varied by one word.
> 
> Great, then the girls are guilty of the school-rule equivilient of "disorderly conduct."  And that's what they got suspended for, not specificaly for the use of the word "vagina."



But... they aren't attempting to disrupt. You have to attempt to disrupt. No reasonable person would conclude they are attempting to disrupt by repeating the title of a book.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 9, 2007)

Zodd said:


> But... they aren't attempting to disrupt. You have to attempt to disrupt. No reasonable person would conclude they are attempting to disrupt by repeating the title of a book.



But... you weren't attempting to disrupt.  No reasonable person would conclude you are attempting to disrupt by reading the first 5 minutes of a book.

Or hell, if you don't like that example we'll make it even closer.

You arrive at City Hall before the council meets.  You talk to the clerk and say you want to address city hall on the subject of the zoning of the 300th block of west avenue <A> (a completely 100% relavent topic for a city council meeting).  You're given 5 minutes to address city hall later in the meeting.

When that time comes, you stand up and start giving your prepaired and practiced speech about the need for a 15mph speed limit on the 6000th block of Grand <B> (also a completely 100% relavent topic for a city council meeting).

The city council's going to inturrupt you shortly into the speech for clarification.  When you say "well, I know I said I was going to talk about <A>, but I thought was more important to talk about <B>" they're going to tell you to come back next week and register to talk about <B> instead.

If the city council said that they weren't listing to <B> complaints and you used <A> as a cover to stand up and speak, they might hold you in contempt of city hall.  (In some cases city hall will only hear certain topics on the first meeting of the month, or whatnot).

That is what these girls did.  When they asked to give their performance, they were given a condition on the topic of it.  The condition was "you can't use the word vagina" (which was in the performance in addition to the title, in fact we don't know from the article that the title was even mentioned).  They agreed to this condition and were assigned a time-block to give their performance.

They then violated the condition they were given.  None of the parties involved disagree with this (it isn't a case of "well, we didn't know that we couldn't say Vagina").  Thus they were punished for breaking their agreement with the school.


----------



## neko-sennin (Mar 9, 2007)

GrimaH said:


> Well, the board did say the audience could have included young children, so the decision to make the girls agree not to use potentially offensive words is pretty understandable.



How so? Little girls aren't allowed to know the technical, medical term for part of their own body? I thought this was a school, not a _Sunday_ school. Heaven forefend that a little education might happen inside a school. 

Though "The Vagina Monologues" is an odd choice for a school production, and I think the admins were the dumbest ones of all, for telling someone they could put on a show that they weren't even allowed to speak the full title of. What were they going to advertise it as? The "Hoo-Haw" Monologues? Wtf are these ninnies on?



EvilMoogle said:


> When they asked to give their performance, they were given a condition on the topic of it. The condition was "you can't use the word vagina" (which was in the performance in addition to the title, in fact we don't know from the article that the title was even mentioned). They agreed to this condition and were assigned a time-block to give their performance.
> 
> They then violated the condition they were given. None of the parties involved disagree with this. Thus they were punished for breaking their agreement with the school.



They chose to give the performance, and I applaude them. They've got guts. They were given an unreasonable condition for approval, and chose to stand up for women (and art) everywhere. As far as I'm concerned, an "agreement" made under duress is nothing more than coersion.


----------



## Refresh (Mar 9, 2007)

it really depends on the way they said it and if they used it in a degrating or derogatary term, if they used it a pure scientic way then suspending them is completly un-ethical and pointless for if they used it in a way were it was causing harm and disruption in the school then they deserved it willingly


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 9, 2007)

Refresh said:


> it really depends on the way they said it and if they used it in a degrating or derogatary term, if they used it a pure scientic way then suspending them is completly un-ethical and pointless for if they used it in a way were it was causing harm and disruption in the school then they deserved it willingly



...

I'm guessing they used it in the Vagina Monologue-y way, seeing that they were reading from the Vagina Monologues, which is a series of monologues paying homage to the vagina and is seen as a liberation of female sexuality. It's really very unlikely they were using it in any kind of derogatory way, since that would be flying the face of what the Vagina Monologues are about.

Ironic that they wanted to censor a play about liberating female sexuality. The play highlights the shame women and girls have been taught to feel about their own bodies, and some brightspark freaks out over the word vagina and feels the need to shove it back in the closet as if its some dirty, lewd word? So what if there are kids present? They need to learn about these things some time. You can't pretend the things between their legs dont exist forever.


----------



## Ichiban-nin (Mar 9, 2007)

neko-sennin said:


> How so? Little girls aren't allowed to know the technical, medical term for part of their own body? I thought this was a school, not a _Sunday_ school. Heaven forefend that a little education might happen inside a school.
> 
> Though "The Vagina Monologues" is an odd choice for a school production, and I think the admins were the dumbest ones of all, for telling someone they could put on a show that they weren't even allowed to speak the full title of. What were they going to advertise it as? The "Hoo-Haw" Monologues? Wtf are these ninnies on?
> 
> They chose to give the performance, and I applaude them. They've got guts. They were given an unreasonable condition for approval, and chose to stand up for women (and art) everywhere. As far as I'm concerned, an "agreement" made under duress is nothing more than coersion.



Yes, after reading more from the article many do agree that the admins made a bad move. It's a proper term for the anatomy of the human body, nothing to be ashamed of. It's because people withhold from saying or spreading this word for educational purposes that other crude alternative words are used.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 9, 2007)

X Box, when I used you in my answer, it wasn't directed specifically at you as an individual.  I don't know the gramatical term, but htere is one, lol.

And the ACLU is the greatest organization on the planet, I am a proud member 

Evilmoogle, your example is not working.  A better example would be if at town hall you had a legitimate topic to bring up, reading from the vagina monologues was a legit presentation, and the word vagina was neccecary for your topic, and the council said sorry, you can't say that word even though it is part of your topic.  That would be wrong, and that is the appropriate example.

And we shouldn't have prayer in school, under god should be taken out of the pledge of alliagance, nazi's should be allowed to march, sex-ed is the only reason we don't have such a high pregnacny rate (abstience only fails), Rush has a right to privacy, Christian students should be allowed to have a bible passage in their year book quote, Evolution should be taught in school, racial segregation should not be in schools, there should be no ban on iteracial marriage, woman should be allowed to have abortions, there should be no warrentless wiring tapping, no matter how horirble he is, fred phelps should be allowed to say what he wants, people should be allowed to access pro-gun web sights in public libraries, people should be allowed to anonomously send spam, and the patirot act needs to go!

The ACLU is what makes this country great


----------



## VerdantVenus (Mar 9, 2007)

Man, that is just asinine, how the heck does the school expect to educate people from the Vagina Monologues, if they censor the word Vagina?  Do they censor the word vulva? I admire these girls, showing bravery against this stupidity. Education today, I believe, just underestimate their students to a severe extent. What they did is probably the most counterproductive thing to do in an education facility, it's just like the author of the book said, violence on women is due to education. Man, this sounds like a bad bet between the teachers, it's like they wanted them to do this.


----------



## M E L O D Y (Mar 9, 2007)

how stupid -.- kids in my class use WAY worse terminology and noone gives a damn... but it was there fault, wateva.


----------



## chubby (Mar 9, 2007)

Wow, we should take a hint from Europe and censor things less. I mean look at them, the rates for sexual offenses and rape is _much_ lower over there.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 9, 2007)

Chubby, check out france and cencoring...


----------



## chubby (Mar 9, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Chubby, check out france and cencoring...


How do I do that?


----------



## sj2k (Mar 9, 2007)

I just meant that france has a new law restricting free speech.


----------



## chubby (Mar 9, 2007)

sj2k said:


> I just meant that france has a new law restricting free speech.


Ooooohhhhhhhh, I see. Well I still feel like they will be less censored than us (and when I say "us" I mean the United States).


----------



## Red (Mar 9, 2007)

Doesn't surprise me, I was severely punished for writing an essay titled "words that sound funny"

the words included were:


Uranus(the planet)
masticate
kumquat
Gaylord
and the words 4Q said at a fast rate.

Edit: How can you forbid someone to say _*vagina*_ when he or she is reading an excerpt from the _*vagina*_ monologues?

I mean the basis of the readings are centered around _*vagina *_, if you didnt want to you or your children to hear the word _*vagina *_why bring them to the reading of the _*vagina *_monologues? and the school authorities know the books theme is about _*vagina ,*_ and the word _*vagina*_ would be found in the book. And they are girls, so that means girls cant say _*vagina *_. Pus Insubordination cant be punished with suspension. thats just fucked up. Hell if I was those three girls I'd say _*vagina *_until my vagina fell off.

(edit: reps to whoever counts the number of times I have said _*vagina *_)


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 10, 2007)

lol in my school anyone can say vagina and get away with it


----------



## chubby (Mar 11, 2007)

Red said:


> Doesn't surprise me, I was severely punished for writing an essay titled "words that sound funny"
> 
> the words included were:
> 
> ...


11 times.

I win!!! 

No rep needed though, just did it for the hell of it. And I agree on all points.


----------



## Yakuza (Mar 11, 2007)

One word
RIDICULOUS


----------



## Purgatory (Mar 11, 2007)

This oddly and funnily (Is that a word?) reminds me of the one episode of King of the Hill where Peggy was going to teach sex ed and practiced saying all the sex organs..

GIVE ME A V! GIVE ME AN A! GIVE ME A G! GIVE ME AN I! GIVE ME AN N! GIVE ME AN A! PUT IT ALL TOGETHER AND WHAT DOES IT SPELL!?

Va....*GINA!*


----------



## VerdantVenus (Mar 11, 2007)

Dheano said:


> One word
> RIDICULOUS


Shhh! Or else you'll be suspended for saying that!


----------



## Lilith (Mar 11, 2007)

*Spoiler*: __ 



vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina
vaginavaginavaginavaginavaginvaginavaginavaginavaginavaginavagina




Oh shit xd
im supended now?xd

This is  so  dumb XD  
and what is with  
*Spoiler*: __ 



Penis


 ?  LOL


----------



## Freija (Mar 11, 2007)

well they could say cunt instead, would that work better ?


----------



## Jack Bauer (Mar 11, 2007)

If gurls can't say vagina, they should stay off the intrawewbs.



...Seriously I just find it stupid that an open mic session let them READ "The Vagina Monolouges".  It's that person's fault.


----------



## VerdantVenus (Mar 11, 2007)

It's so stupid, they reduce such a powerful book to pornography, I would say that school should be destroyed, if I did not believe in education.


----------



## Red (Mar 11, 2007)

chubby said:


> 11 times.
> 
> I win!!!
> 
> No rep needed though, just did it for the hell of it. And I agree on all points.


You win 


Dheano said:


> One word
> RIDICULOUS


You are fucking banned from NF, Ridiculous is an offense word and little children may be offended.


----------



## VerdantVenus (Mar 11, 2007)

Red said:


> You win
> 
> You are fucking banned from NF, Ridiculous is an offense word and little children may be offended.


*gasp* You said offended! Ban!! Oops *slaps my mouth shut*


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 12, 2007)

Red said:


> Doesn't surprise me, I was severely punished for writing an essay titled "words that sound funny"
> 
> the words included were:
> 
> ...



gj 11 vaginas. too bad i cant say vagina until my vagina falls off XD


----------



## shizuru (Mar 12, 2007)

Zodd said:


> What do you think? Is it censorship? Is saying vagina unnecessary?


what about penis?


----------



## VerdantVenus (Mar 12, 2007)

Chibi_sasuke2k5 said:


> what about penis?


They can say phallus, but I bet they would suspend you for that too.


----------



## kire (Mar 13, 2007)

well I can think of a whole lot of _other_ words they could have used...vagina is one of the nicer..
I think the school was just over-reacting, and now they look like an ass everywhere.  If anything, those girls should get detention, then the matter should be dropped.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 13, 2007)

lol my history teacher says the most swear words ever and practically any thing he wants.

He was like this country practically controlled this other country. In modern day terms, they were their bitches and hoes


----------



## BowL (Mar 14, 2007)

No, that should not have been allowed. If they were reading it in front of peers, was it just the school, or was family there? If it was family, then little children would also have been present, and that is not acceptable. Not to mention, they were asked not to say it, and continued to say it anyways...stupid girls.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 14, 2007)

Poolee Lowery said:


> No, that should not have been allowed. If they were reading it in front of peers, was it just the school, or was family there? If it was family, then little children would also have been present, and that is not acceptable. Not to mention, they were asked not to say it, and continued to say it anyways...stupid girls.



it was a vagina monologue??.....
i would assume u would say vagina


----------



## Lord Yu (Mar 14, 2007)

Young children have vaginas. I don't see what's wrong with the word vagina. Vagina is not an adult thing. Goddamn puritans.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 14, 2007)

Lord Yu said:


> Young children have vaginas. I don't see what's wrong with the word vagina. Vagina is not an adult thing. Goddamn puritans.



Well, there is nothing wrong with saying vagina. It is just that the school wants to look good or rather get attention. LMAO puritans - what r u? an antipuritan?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 14, 2007)

Lord Yu said:


> Young children have vaginas. I don't see what's wrong with the word vagina. Vagina is not an adult thing. Goddamn puritans.



Well, the problem isn't with the word vagina exactly.  The problem is that parents tend to be crazy and over-reactive creatures.  Anything that offends a signifigant number of them will get blown out of proportian.

But the school has no control over the parents.  All they can do is try to control the students.  Here they thought that students saying "vagina" in a public performance at the school would cause problems for the school, and so they tried to do pre-emptive damage control (by telling the students not to say "vagina").  The students agreed, then decided amongst themselves to ignore what they agreed to with the school.

Because they broke their agreement with the school, they were punished by the school.

Was the school over-reacting by limiting the word "vagina"?   I don't know.  Maybe they've had conflicts with parents in the past over similar situations and were trying to avoid them this time (fun example, long ago when I was young I worked at a Scout camp.  One time a Scoutmaster complained to the camp because one of the counselors used the word "poop" in a skit.  And Everybody poops.).

If the students disagreed with the decision of the school, they have every right to approach the school board for an appeal.  They choose to take matters into their own hands instead.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 15, 2007)

Evil, as I said, the punishment itself was, hopefully, a form of civil disobediance.  In that case, you are prepared to accept the punishment, even if you are disobeying an unjust, or unconstituional, law or rule.  I think that was the case here.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 15, 2007)

but cmon a vagina monologue...


----------



## Darkspines (Mar 15, 2007)

Why not stop them reading the section from The *Vagina* Monologues altogether?

Silly School.


----------



## majinveggito (Mar 15, 2007)

It shouldn't be a big deal. But the problem iks that they agreed not to say it and that's where the problem lies. But I do believe they had the right to say it...but they should have never consented to the school's proposal and that's why they're in hot water.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 15, 2007)

wtf i dont get why u shouldnt say vagina in a freaking fagina monologue. that makes no sense. and i now i realized i make no sense.


----------



## Hwon (Mar 16, 2007)

Well here is the thing.  They were given the oppurtunity to talk for whatever reason infront of people and before hand they were told not to say this word.  Now freedom of speech protects your right to say it, but it doesn't protect you from them suspending you.  It didn't even have to be vagina it could have been lollerskates or spam if the school doesn't want you saying those things than they do have the right to make you leave when you say them.  It is still ridiculous though since the word shouldn't be offensive to an adult and children are untainted so they can't perceive any sexual meaning to it.  If you think I'm kidding check this link out.

*


----------



## Naruto_Sama (Mar 16, 2007)

Hmm. How can you not say vagina and a book about them or w/e? But the students agreed not to say it...uhh....I'm not sure if you should get suspended for using a term that wasn't OBJECTED to be offensive...I'd have to say detention or something instead.


----------



## Ae (Mar 16, 2007)

that was retarded


----------



## Beo (Mar 16, 2007)

Bloody hell, schools are just getting retarded these days....


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 17, 2007)

Beo said:


> Bloody hell, schools are just getting retarded these days....



indeed.

there should be a poll for this vagina topic


----------



## element_ice (Mar 17, 2007)

that is kinda retarded, but if they said they werent going to say it then they shouldnt have said it. how long are they suspended?


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Mar 17, 2007)

The Vagina Monologues shouldn't have been allowed there in the first place. And what the teacher says, goes.


----------



## Altron (Mar 17, 2007)

Though to suspend them for that is restricting the 1st amendment


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 17, 2007)

yeah ur right. what happened to freedom of speech?


----------



## sj2k (Mar 18, 2007)

> The Vagina Monologues shouldn't have been allowed there in the first place.



instead of spouting off things that you KNOW will make people angry and insult you, because regardless of what others say, you are not an idiot, why not expalin your reason here.



> And what the teacher says, goes.



And when the teacher says the jewish kids killed jesus, and need to sit in the back of the room?


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 18, 2007)

Magister Rild said:


> The Vagina Monologues shouldn't have been allowed there in the first place. And what the teacher says, goes.



Interesting statement. You get two points II 

What's with the purple font?


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 18, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> Interesting statement. You get two points II
> 
> What's with the purple font?



Well it was his opinion that the vagina monologues shouldn't have been there. But regardless, it was there. And it is ridiculous when you can't say vagina in a vagina monologue


----------



## Jagon Fox (Mar 18, 2007)

I'm both highly amused, and irritated. Vagina? So what, there are lot more offensive words to say then that. It's the proper name for it. One day I'm expected to send my daughter for higher learning to be taught by uptight idiots! Oy!


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Mar 18, 2007)

sj2k said:


> instead of spouting off things that you KNOW will make people angry and insult you, because regardless of what others say, you are not an idiot, why not expalin your reason here.
> 
> 
> 
> And when the teacher says the jewish kids killed jesus, and need to sit in the back of the room?



Get a damn grip.


----------



## ~Kaio-Cam~ (Mar 18, 2007)

lmfao  

they were reading from something called, "The Vagina Monologues"..... uh, I would like to know what someone is reading to me. Insubordination my ass lol. 

"I want you to read from "The Vagina Monologues" to  a group of people, but whatever you do, don't say "vagina" lol. 

Really punishment isn't needed especially since your reasons is pathetic.


----------



## Kai (Mar 18, 2007)

The girls possess human curiousity, and thought it was fun to test the school board by doing what they were told not to do.

Whatever rules this [strict] school enforced, they broke it anyways and the girls got suspended as a result. They were already warned up front, so their suspension was a justification for their actions.


----------



## Spica (Mar 19, 2007)

You're kidding? They got suspended only because of that?


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 19, 2007)

What a stupid school XD 

If anyone here goes to that school, plz do tell me


----------



## martryn (Mar 19, 2007)

> yeah ur right. what happened to freedom of speech?



Not applicable in certain cases.  You really don't have rights until you hit adulthood.  Not all those guaranteed in the Constitution.  The founding fathers really meant that to be applied only to certain people. 



> instead of spouting off things that you KNOW will make people angry and insult you, because regardless of what others say, you are not an idiot, why not expalin your reason here.



The Vagina Monologues really shouldn't have been allowed due to its sexual content.  It's the same thing as something like The Departed winning best picture.  Doesn't mean we should encourage 6 year olds to watch it. 



> And when the teacher says the jewish kids killed jesus, and need to sit in the back of the room?



I'm sorry, maybe he should have said: 
"What the teacher says, goes, within reason."

They were very reasonable and justified in this case. 

And for all you little asses that pop in here and say the school is stupid, or unfair, or retarded:
I really want to beat the shit out you.  You're punk ass teenagers with no regard for authority, and that pisses me off.  Respect your betters, and in this case your teachers and principles are your betters.  They have degrees and certification that make it so.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 19, 2007)

lol GGed XD


----------



## sj2k (Mar 19, 2007)

> Not applicable in certain cases. You really don't have rights until you hit adulthood. Not all those guaranteed in the Constitution. The founding fathers really meant that to be applied only to certain people.



Actually, as I mentioned above (I have no idea were do you may not have read it) the supreme court ruled that your freedom of speech and expression does NOT end when you enter a school, and minors still have that protection.



> Respect your betters, and in this case your teachers and principles are your betters. They have degrees and certification that make it so.



I can't decide if you are being seriouse or not here martryn.  A piece of paper does not make someone your better, who they are, what they know, what they do, that can make them your better, not just having someone give you a piece of paper.


----------



## Red (Mar 19, 2007)

martryn said:


> Not applicable in certain cases.  You really don't have rights until you hit adulthood.  Not all those guaranteed in the Constitution.  *The founding fathers really meant that to be applied only to certain people.*


Clarify. I thought the basis of the constitution was equality and rights of the individual.





> The Vagina Monologues really shouldn't have been allowed due to its sexual content.  It's the same thing as something like The Departed winning best picture.  Doesn't mean we should encourage 6 year olds to watch it.


I dont understand you here. The school organized it and knew of the sexual content. In fact the all the monologues in that piece have the theme of sex or the female organ or a portrayal of sex in it's theme. The school allowed it and knew full well of the content, shouldn't the school not the students be held responsible?





> I'm sorry, maybe he should have said:
> "What the teacher says, goes, within reason."
> 
> * They were very reasonable and justified in this case.
> ...


No they were not justified. they had no reason to read from the vagina monologues if the theme or the word vagina would be found offensive, It was a mistake on their part. the girls just exposed their folly.

you're an old timer.

to an extent, but not blind and total faith. Like crayman Sj2k said certificates are just paper, acts and thoughts are what make people "betters"


----------



## martryn (Mar 19, 2007)

> Actually, as I mentioned above (I have no idea were do you may not have read it) the supreme court ruled that your freedom of speech and expression does NOT end when you enter a school, and minors still have that protection.



To a fucking point.  Kids can't run around cussing at each other, or talk during class, without getting punished.  There are rules that supersede Freedom of Speech in certain cases.  Minors have protection as far as voicing opinions, but schools can still go in and enforce their rules on respecting teachers, foul language, dress codes, etc.  



> A piece of paper does not make someone your better, who they are, what they know, what they do, that can make them your better, not just having someone give you a piece of paper.



I'm being completely serious.  Some kid without a high school degree hasn't proved shit yet.  He might be bright, and he might have a cool head on his shoulders, but until he goes out and does something with that, and earns his right to respected, he needs to listen to people with experience.  

My point wasn't the fucking sheet of paper, you liberal asshole, it was the hard work and time spent earning that piece of paper, and what that piece of paper represents.  They've had the proper training, and earned the right to teach.  That gives them authority.  And we don't want to get into a habit of taking authority away from teachers. 



> Clarify. I thought the basis of the constitution was equality and rights of the individual.



It is, if you're a white, land-owning male.  Not saying that that's the way I think, just saying that we need to keep it in perspective.  What we think of the Constitution today isn't the same as what they writers thought of their document.  



> I dont understand you here. The school organized it and knew of the sexual content. In fact the all the monologues in that piece have the theme of sex or the female organ or a portrayal of sex in it's theme. The school allowed it and knew full well of the content, shouldn't the school not the students be held responsible?



Obviously you didn't take the time to actually read the piece.  You're jumping to conclusions.  I took the liberty of reprinting it below.  Are you reading more of the story somewhere?  It seemed as if the particular piece they chose was ok, but for a few lines.  The administration ok'd the piece, as it wasn't too over-the-top sexual, but said that they needed not use the line I bolded:

*Spoiler*: _selected piece_ 





> MY SHORT SKIRT
> 
> My short skirt
> is not an invitation
> ...






You can't say something like "I declare these streets in the name of my vagina" to a group of people that included children.  Certainly not at something sponsored by the school.  All it would have taken was one parent to be offended by what their child heard and the school system would be in an uproar in lawsuits and crap.  We see it all the time.  The teacher/principle/whoever sees this and says the piece is fine, but you can't use that line because of the contents of it.  The girls agree, and then do it anyway.  They got what was coming to them.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 19, 2007)

I agree that the girls shoudl have been punished, they agree to do somethign and then went back on it.  But the policy is what I am saying is wrong.

And whie I have no doubt I said what is in your quote, what was the context, I can't remember


----------



## Dark Schneider (Mar 19, 2007)

Well quite frankly I am stuck in the middle ( as the song goes..) with this issue.

First of all, the girls should be punished for violating a rule, which they initially agreed upon.

But the greater issue lies with the fact that the Vagina Monologues were allowed to be performed in the high school.Seriously, Martryn have you actually read the fucking monologues? The vagina is implied in practically every section.  

The issue boils down to two things: we either allow the performance of the  Vagina Monologues without censorship, or don't allow it to begin with.As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## martryn (Mar 19, 2007)

> And whie I have no doubt I said what is in your quote, what was the context, I can't remember



You were saying how great Marty was/is.



> Seriously, Martryn have you actually read the fucking monologues?



I've read some of it.  I'm not much into all this female empowerment stuff (not that I'm against it).  Did you read the piece I posted that the girls used?  I'm assuming the teachers were reluctant at first, but agreed to let the girls use the piece they showed them given certain conditions, which they then violated.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

I think that the girls should have gotten some sort of lighter punishment. It is not like they are complete evil or anything


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 20, 2007)

bloody_ninja said:


> I think that the girls should have gotten some sort of lighter punishment. It is not like they are complete evil or anything


I think that a "suspension" is pretty light. They didn't get expelled or anything did they? It's not like they've been banned from the school district or something....
Speaking of which, as long as this thread has been going, shouldn't they be back at school(doing just fine), by now?


----------



## sj2k (Mar 20, 2007)

Expelled?  I don't know if you have ever gone through an expulsion hearing X-Box, I haven't but I have had friends who did, and there is no way that ever would have stood up.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 20, 2007)

I don't think they should get a lighter punishment, they made an agreement with the school. If they had a problem they shouldn't have taken part. I agree with the schools reason for setting this up to. 

If a teacher tells you not to talk during a class test and you do so you get punished, the same applies with this. This is more serious though as they did something which could have potentially got the school in trouble.

These girls more than likely did it for bratty reasons too, I know what people like that are like they possibly thought it would be a laugh. If they actually disagreed with the schools request and felt strong about it they would have complained against it.


----------



## Sakura (Mar 20, 2007)

I say it like I say 'the'. Big deal.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 20, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Expelled?  I don't know if you have ever gone through an expulsion hearing X-Box, I haven't but I have had friends who did, and there is no way that ever would have stood up.



LOL, I didn't say that they needed to be expelled(mis-quote much?). If you look at the message I quoted in that post, you'd be able to tell that I was simply pointing out that the girls' punishment was already light, to someone who felt that they deserved a lighter punishment.

BTW: I'm well past grade school, but, when I was still there, I saw my fair share of "3rd-party hearings"(that's what our school district called them back then). I was even expelled and had to attend an alternative school for a few months, one time. I got past all that gang mess, though. Didn't want to end up like so many of the brothas, a few years older than me, were ending up; dead or in jail.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

My school hand book says we arent allowed to say any deragoratory words or any racism remarks. Yet my history teacher uses ^ (use bro), and bitch and hoe all the time. Why doesnt he get suspended or expelled?


----------



## ~Kaio-Cam~ (Mar 20, 2007)

bloody_ninja said:


> My school hand book says we arent allowed to say any deragoratory words or any racism remarks. Yet my history teacher uses ^ (use bro), and bitch and hoe all the time. Why doesnt he get suspended or expelled?



i bet if someone cried about it he would.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

~Kaio-Cam~ said:


> i bet if someone cried about it he would.



When anyone disregards the teacher or goes against his wishes, we get kicked out of the classroom. Its is quite humorous at times though lol.


----------



## martryn (Mar 20, 2007)

> Yet my history teacher uses ^ (use bro), and bitch and hoe all the time. Why doesnt he get suspended or expelled?



What is the context?  Is this a high school history teacher?  I'd say something to someone about it.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

martryn said:


> What is the context?  Is this a high school history teacher?  I'd say something to someone about it.



lol it is a high school teacher. He says those words to gets ppl's attention cuz no one pays any mind to him at all.


----------



## Dark Schneider (Mar 20, 2007)

martryn said:


> You were saying how great Marty was/is.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read some of it.  I'm not much into all this female empowerment stuff (not that I'm against it).  Did you read the piece I posted that the girls used?  I'm assuming the teachers were reluctant at first, but agreed to let the girls use the piece they showed them given certain conditions, which they then violated.




Yes, let me utilize your piece as an example:


*Spoiler*: __ 



MY SHORT SKIRT

My short skirt
is not an invitation
a provocation
an indication
that I want it
or give it
or that I hook.

_ Hmmm tell me Mart what could this possibly be referring to?Playing tag and studying? I think not. The notion of non-consentual sex is discussed (i.e rape). To be extremely blunt, what is under the fricken skirt?!_

My short skirt
is not begging for it
it does not want you
to rip it off me
or pull it down.

_ Same as above_

My short skirt
is not a legal reason
for raping me
although it has been before
it will not hold up
in the new court.

_ How is a female raped?_

My short skirt, believe it or not
has nothing to do with you.

_ Word_

My short skirt
is about discovering
the power of my lower calves
about cool autumn air traveling
up my inner thighs
about allowing everything I see
or pass or feel to live inside.

_ Women have every right to not be harassed/raped/etc when wearing short skirts_

My short skirt is not proof
that I am stupid
or undecided
or a malleable little girl.

_ Short skirt =/= slut_

My short skirt is my defiance
I will not let you make me afraid
My short skirt is not showing off
this is who I am
before you made me cover it
or tone it down.
Get used to it.

My short skirt is happiness
I can feel myself on the ground.
I am here. I am hot.

My short skirt is a liberation
flag in the women’s army
*I declare these streets, any streets
my vagina’s country.*
My short skirt
is turquoise water
with swimming colored fish
a summer festival
in the starry dark
a bird calling
a train arriving in a foreign town
my short skirt is a wild spin
a full breath
a tango dip
my short skirt is
initiation
appreciation
excitation.

But mainly my short skirt
and everything under it
is Mine.
Mine.
Mine.


_ What could possibly be under that short skirt?_




I am not on the "TEACHERS/AUTHORITY SUXXORS !1!!!1" bandwagon. On the contrary, I have always respected authority and still do. But regardless of my respect, I am questioning the policy. As I mentioned previously, the vagina is implied in every fricken verse - one doesn't have to have a master's degree  to know that.  We either allow the Vagina Monologues in their entirety, or we don't allow it at all. It's as simple as that.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 20, 2007)

@Dark Schneider

Hmm... never really paid that much attention to that work. I guess they really did only ask them to refrain from mentioning one word. You've managed  to make the school's logic much more clear, by posting that work(again). 
I guess these girls pretty much ruined it for all the students that will come after them. From now on, if a piece has even one inappropriate word(literally inappropriate) in it; they will no longer be able to perform/recite those works. No matter how positive the true meaning of the work is or how much the school agrees with the base meaning of the message. 


Looking at the piece myself, it becomes apparent that the *school teachers, themselves, agreed with the message of "Vagina Monologues"*, and wanted the students to be able to pass that message along to the audience(those that would comprehend).
However, the school also recognized their responsibility towards the parents in the audience and their young children:

*1.* They did not want to anger any parents, who would be well within their rights to file complaints/law suits if the performance purposely included age sensitive material w/o notification, warning, or advertisement in advance.(when was the last time you saw the word "vagina" in a G-rated movie? What do you think would happen to a teacher they showed a PG-rated movie to class of kindergarteners w/o, first, getting parental consent from the parents of each and every child in that class?)
*2.* The school did not want to label this school function as "age sensitive". Such an act in and of itself would cause disruption in many a school district.

It seems that the school didn't have a problem with the girls reciting this piece about, "female empowerment", but rather with placing the young children in the audience in a position that their parents were strongly against. The school decided to "push the line" and allow the girls to perform the piece w/o labeling the performance as age sensitive, granted that the girls agreed not to use the word "Vagina" which is only written once in the piece.
*So the school's only mistake was trusting the girls*. Now, because of these girls, any works containing age sensitive words, "no matter how honorable the general message", are permanently off the shelf.

*The school and the girls are both at fault*. However, one thing this is NOT, is a case of *"freedom of speech"*. I doubt that this school would ever discipline a student for saying "vagina" in class or around school, as long as it wasn't a school function were young children were present.

Wow, I wonder how many people will skim over this post and attack it w/o reading it all, therefore, demanding an answer that already exists in this same post..... enjoy


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

Dark Schneider said:


> Yes, let me utilize your piece as an example:
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



actually since one line actually says vagina, it would break the rule to read it. yet without reading, you are not participating and teachers love participation


----------



## Kanae-chan (Mar 20, 2007)

Um, wow. Really, since when was that a bad word?

And Also...you think those kids know what a vagina is? And if they do...okay,so what? It is a part of the body. Big Woop!


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

No Ai's Sakura said:


> Um, wow. Really, since when was that a bad word?
> 
> And Also...you think those kids know what a vagina is? And if they do...okay,so what? It is a part of the body. Big Woop!



that isnt the point. if ur mom tell u not to eat ice cream and u eat it. does that mean eating ice cream is bad? no , it's bad because u were told not to do it.

the thing i dont get is that the vagina monologues reading says vagina in the reading itself. and i dont get how u can read it without actually saying the word vagina. do u just say " * BEEEEEPP* "  every time u see the word vagina?


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 20, 2007)

No Ai's Sakura said:


> Um, wow. Really, since when was that a bad word?
> 
> And Also...you think those kids know what a vagina is? And if they do...okay,so what? It is a part of the body. Big Woop!


hmm.... 
Would you agree that a teacher who has shown an R-rated/PG-rated movie to a class of 2nd graders w/o parental consent, is free from lawsuit, dissmissal, and criminal charges?


----------



## Dark Schneider (Mar 20, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> hmm....
> Would you agree that a teacher who has shown an R-rated/PG-rated movie to a class of 2nd graders w/o parental consent, is free from lawsuit, dissmissal, and criminal charges?



My point being that the word is _implied_ through out the monologue. Heck, it's called the Vagina Monologues for a reason. 



			
				The_X_box_360 said:
			
		

> I guess these girls pretty much ruined it for all the students that will come after them. From now on, if a piece has even one inappropriate word(literally inappropriate) in it; they will no longer be able to perform/recite those works. No matter how positive the true meaning of the work is or how much the school agrees with the base meaning of the message.



This is rather ridiculous to state that the word "vagina" is offensive! Honestly, if they were yelling profanity - then that can be categorized as being "offensive". But the vagina, is part of the female anatomy. I can't see how saying vagina - can be offensive, especially when the monologues imply the vagina in every verse for pete's sake.

If we go by the logic that the word "vagina" is inappropriate in a school setting, then the entire monologue should also be deemed offensive in a school setting.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 20, 2007)

Meh if I did something like that my parents would bust my ass when I get home. Not because they think the word is stupid but because I was disobient they would be disgusted to a degree as I got in much shit at school but I was in the right so they stood by me. If I put my self in a situation where I was in the wrong they would be ashamed.

I would ground my child on top of that too. It isn't just the word the fact of the matter is the teachers need to control a class of pupils when you have disobidient children they drag down the rest of the class making the teachers job harder, that in turn becomes a health and safety hazard. 

The children should do what the teacher says within reason for their own safety, if they were told not to skate on the ice and showed the same attitude they could potentially die. ( an example).

A lot of it is the principle.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

Kirin said:


> Meh if I did something like that my parents would bust my ass when I get home. Not because they think the word is stupid but because I was disobient they would be disgusted to a degree as I got in much shit at school but I was in the right so they stood by me. If I put my self in a situation where I was in the wrong they would be ashamed.
> 
> I would ground my child on top of that too. It isn't just the word the fact of the matter is the teachers need to control a class of pupils when you have disobidient children they drag down the rest of the class making the teachers job harder, that in turn becomes a health and safety hazard.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of your reasoning and logic. I just think it is ridiculous how the school can hold a *VAGINA MONOLOGUE* reading. The title has the word vagina in it. On top of that, the text inside even uses the word vagina. And yet students are prohibited to say that word *vagina*.

So what? A school holds a meeting where the text they are discussing cannot be mentioned and reading parts of the texted is also not permitted?


----------



## Kanae (Mar 20, 2007)

Well, maybe they shouldn't have said it, but I think that the people who suspended them are exaggerating =/ I mean, there are a LOT of worse words than vagina =/ for god's sake -.-


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 20, 2007)

Dark Schneider said:


> This is rather ridiculous to state that the word "vagina" is offensive! Honestly, if they were yelling profanity - then that can be categorized as being "offensive". But the vagina, is part of the female anatomy. I can't see how saying vagina - can be offensive, especially when the monologues imply the vagina in every verse for pete's sake.
> 
> If we go by the logic that the word "vagina" is inappropriate in a school setting, then the entire monologue should also be deemed offensive in a school setting.



*You, either, didn't read all of my post or you're deliberately "misquoting" me.*

1. I never called "vagina" an offensive word. I said that it was inappropriate for the situation. A situation which you seem to have chosen to ignore. I guess that could be categorized as *"ignorance"*.

2. I, specifically, stated in the post my belief that this school does not discipline students just because they say vagina in class or around school(school setting). Did you miss that part, or did you ignore(ignorance) it?

3. Either, the true meaning of the work, which is "Women Empowerment", went over your head or you simply choose to ignore(do I even need to say it) it; based on your statements.



P.S. I'm not easily misquoted


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> *You, either, didn't read all of my post or you're deliberately "misquoting" me.*
> 
> 1. I never called "vagina" an offensive word. I said that it was inappropriate for the situation. A situation which you seem to have chosen to ignore. I guess that could be categorized as *"ignorance"*.
> 
> ...



ok... vagina isnt an offensive word...
and the discipline involved with this is too extravagant. unless they werent trying to discipline. maybe the school did this so they can get attention (in the news) .


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 20, 2007)

bloody_ninja said:


> I agree with all of your reasoning and logic. I just think it is ridiculous how the school can hold a *VAGINA MONOLOGUE* reading. The title has the word vagina in it. On top of that, the text inside even uses the word vagina. And yet students are prohibited to say that word *vagina*.
> 
> So what? A school holds a meeting where the text they are discussing cannot be mentioned and reading parts of the texted is also not permitted?



Um, go back and read the article?

I'll give you a hint, the school didn't pick the subject of the girl's reading.  Nor was it a school-required function (at least not that anything in the article mentions).

The girls asked if they could read this selection of the VM.  The school said yes, on the condition that they not say the word "vagina" (which occurs only once in the section they read).

I would assume that the school figured without the context of the word "vagina" everything else is only implied in the speech, so if a child is too young to "get it" they may be confused but few parents would object.

It's basically like how "Shrek" can get a PG rating despite having quite a bit of innuendo in it.  As long as it's only inference young kids are just confused.


----------



## Rise Against713 (Mar 20, 2007)

that's pretty dumb. 

vagina is a medical term. they souldn't be suspended for that


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Um, go back and read the article?
> 
> I'll give you a hint, the school didn't pick the subject of the girl's reading.  Nor was it a school-required function (at least not that anything in the article mentions).
> 
> ...



Yet the school accepted the title. And yet they rejected the title by saying you cant say that word XD


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 20, 2007)

bloody_ninja said:


> Yet the school accepted the title. And yet they rejected the title by saying you cant say that word XD



They accepted the source of their reading but gave them a condition.  That's the way life works, the people in charge of an event get to make the rules.  The students new about the rules before the event but rather than try to get the administration to change the rules they just broke the rules.

After breaking the rules they were punished.  This is a rather simple case here.  If they felt (as the article suggests) that it wasn't right to remove the word "vagina" from the reading then they had time and chances to talk to the school about it.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 20, 2007)

I HATE SCHOOLS


----------



## Muk (Mar 21, 2007)

So is there any resolution to this issue yet? It's somewhat old now. Any follow up on the article?

And I honestly think them using the word vagina is not bad at all. It is a scientific word, imagine what happens when they start censoring scientific words. How the hell are scientist suppose to communicate??


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 21, 2007)

Muk said:


> So is there any resolution to this issue yet? It's somewhat old now. Any follow up on the article?
> 
> And I honestly think them using the word vagina is not bad at all. It is a scientific word, imagine what happens when they start censoring scientific words. How the hell are scientist suppose to communicate??



There was never a resolution to begin with. We were just simply arguing about whether the punishment was justified. and whether the punishment was too harsh or not


----------



## sj2k (Mar 21, 2007)

Evilmoogle, on the surface it appesr to be simple.  The girls agreed to something, they broke that agreement, they get punished.  Simple.

Except for what they agreed to.  That wasn't right.  So its not so simple after all.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 21, 2007)

> Evilmoogle, on the surface it appesr to be simple. The girls agreed to something, they broke that agreement, they get punished. Simple.
> 
> Except for what they agreed to. That wasn't right. So its not so simple after all.


How is it not right? It is the schools business to tell students what to do in certain areas, this I agree with them. You might be open to the word ''Vagina'' personally I couldn't give a shit about the word but others do and to accomodate the other crowd the school told them not to say it. They were well within their rights to do so.

They allowed them to read the script based on the stipulation that they left ''Vagina'' out, it wasn't much to ask. It was pretty logical to me as the adults would get what they were talking about the children wouldn't which was their aim. 

They went against a reasonable agreement so they were punished.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 21, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Except for what they agreed to.  That wasn't right.  So its not so simple after all.


Except that argument suggests that the school doesn't have any control whatsoever over the content of the "open mic session".

This is patently absurd.  Your argument is basically that if the school held a poetry reading, and a student decided to recite multiplication tables the school would have no right or ability to stop him, or even tell him beforehand not to do this.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 21, 2007)

Kirin said:


> How is it not right? It is the schools business to tell students what to do in certain areas, this I agree with them. You might be open to the word ''Vagina'' personally I couldn't give a shit about the word but others do and to accomodate the other crowd the school told them not to say it. They were well within their rights to do so.
> 
> They allowed them to read the script based on the stipulation that they left ''Vagina'' out, it wasn't much to ask. It was pretty logical to me as the adults would get what they were talking about the children wouldn't which was their aim.
> 
> They went against a reasonable agreement so they were punished.



By the way, what kinda school was this? elementary? private?


----------



## Gunners (Mar 21, 2007)

> By the way, what kinda school was this? elementary? private?


I'd assume it was at a highschool you know, check the topic title.


----------



## dest (Mar 21, 2007)

For sex ed parents have to sign a note allowing them to listen. the school was basically protecting their asses by doing this. i know some parents were enraged at this and would have went to the school board and protested if the girls were not punished.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 21, 2007)

bloody_ninja said:


> By the way, what kinda school was this? elementary? private?



Try reading the article linked in the first post 

It was a public high school, at an outside-of-school activity where "young children" were present.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 21, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Try reading the article linked in the first post
> 
> It was a public high school, at an outside-of-school activity where "young children" were present.



lol  

so they girls werent allowed to say vagina...
was pussy allowed?
how about cum?

but if they say " i hope you guys come back" , they said CUM!!! AWWW SUSPENSION <.<
now im getting delarious


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 21, 2007)

@ EvilMoogle

Aren't you getting dizzy from being spun around in circles by some of these posters?
Listen, I have a rule, as far as threads go, when I find my self compelled to give the same answer for the *3rd* time in the same thread. Of course, it's a rule of *3*.
*Three* questions....
1. I ask myself if the poster appears to have chosen to be ignorant to the information that I've previously provided.
2. I ask myself if the poster shows signs of lacking the ability to comprehend the info I've previously provided.
*3*. I ask myself if the poster is exhibiting such blatant signs of idiocy, that the only explanation for their posts could, only, be that they're making an impudent play at raising their post count.

If the answer to any of these questions even appears to be yes, I *exit stage left*

(Note: I don't bother asking the question, "have they seen my earlier post(s)". Laziness gets no consideration)


----------



## Shirozaki (Mar 21, 2007)

People are on crack. 

Agreed with Kanae, there are a lot more worst words than vagina and yes, vagina is used as a medical term. People are getting malicious.


----------



## kojak488 (Mar 21, 2007)

I don't see where the school has a leg to stand on.  They violated the girls' freedom of speech by censoring the word.  It isn't like the word vagina is deemed unprotected speech by the courts..


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 21, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> @ EvilMoogle
> 
> Aren't you getting dizzy from being spun around in circles by some of these posters?


Eh, I was very active in the "Same Sex Marriage" thread for like 50 pages.  This thread is sane and collected compared to that thread.




shirozaki said:


> People are on crack.
> 
> Agreed with Kanae, there are a lot more worst words than vagina and yes, vagina is used as a medical term. People are getting malicious.


Of course there are less acceptable things they could have said, and I'll go out on a limb and bet that had they substituted one of those words for "vagina" they would have gotten in trouble too.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 21, 2007)

X-box, what if it is you who is not understanding the reply?

And please, we are only 12 pages into this


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Mar 22, 2007)

sj2k said:


> X-box, what if it is you who is not understanding the reply?
> 
> And please, we are only 12 pages into this



Bad news, sj2k. It will take a lot more than senseless gibing to lure me back into a topic that has become an impertinent exchange of insolent comments.


----------



## Saya (Mar 22, 2007)

What's so bad about saying vagina in school? :\ For god's sake, they're not in elementary.


----------



## Vicious ♥ (Mar 22, 2007)

HIGH SCHOOL?! what the fuck? I hear more stuff when I walk by a kindergarten!


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Mar 22, 2007)

ITS THE NAME OF A FUCKING BODY PART.

It's not like they said pussy or cunt or cooch. Vagina, is what they said.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 22, 2007)

Emosauce said:


> ITS THE NAME OF A FUCKING BODY PART.
> 
> It's not like they said pussy or cunt or cooch. Vagina, is what they said.



lol goood point there.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 22, 2007)

It's not about the word, it's about the infringement of an agreement. They were told by the school not to say the word, tey agreed to it, and did it anyway.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Mar 22, 2007)

Fuck the school. Fuck the agreement.

Fuck the law. \m/


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 22, 2007)

Emosauce said:


> Fuck the school. Fuck the agreement.
> 
> Fuck the law. \m/



FUCK THE VAGINAS


----------



## e1ia (Mar 25, 2007)

It's def. censorship, a kid has said the f word in front of a teacher and all he got was a detention. Although it's not exactly the same thing, but there def. is something with censorship.


----------



## Steven Pinhead (Mar 25, 2007)

They seiously got suspended for a clinical term? 

What if they said "cunt", what would've happened to them then, eh?


----------



## X (Mar 25, 2007)

The girls could've said something else. :/


----------



## bloody_ninja (Mar 25, 2007)

iono man... this topic is so bull.


----------



## Lain (Mar 26, 2007)

There are plenty of appropriate subsitutes for the word that they could have used...
poontang, vag, cunt, cunny, pink, twat...


----------



## martryn (Mar 26, 2007)

> I don't see where the school has a leg to stand on. They violated the girls' freedom of speech by censoring the word. It isn't like the word vagina is deemed unprotected speech by the courts..



Damnit, man, it wasn't the word itself, it was the fact they were told not to use it for content reasons and they did it anyway.  The school has a right to set rules, and for those rules to be followed.

Seriously, you people need to read more than the first fucking post.  It's hard to stay active in a thread when dumbasses jump in a dozen pages into it and repeat things that were said and refuted on page 2.


----------



## X (Mar 26, 2007)

I wonder if they would have been suspended for saying pussy or cunt :/
Even so, they could just have said, crotch or something.


----------



## bloody_ninja (Apr 2, 2007)

InXanity said:


> I wonder if they would have been suspended for saying pussy or cunt :/
> Even so, they could just have said, crotch or something.



true. groin, crotch, or even private parts lol


----------



## nirvanainanutshell (Apr 2, 2007)

the girls should have been punished for saying it considering the school asked them not to but it is stupid that the school would tell them not to say the word vagina but let them read a book with the word vagina in the title


----------



## bloody_ninja (Apr 2, 2007)

nirvanainanutshell said:


> the girls should have been punished for saying it considering the school asked them not to but it is stupid that the school would tell them not to say the word vagina but let them read a book with the word vagina in the title



but rules are rules. if my mom tells me not to do something, i dont do it, no matter what

azn parents <.<


----------



## akatsuki#2 (Apr 5, 2007)

what else are they suppose to say if they were reading it?


----------



## Yuki Uchiha (Apr 5, 2007)

that is so stupid...what can we say...


----------



## Sands (Apr 5, 2007)

*Spoiler*: _ i like spoilers_ 



there were these guys in school who ran around shouting penis as many times as possible and no teacher cared (happened in like 7th grade though)


----------



## Auraya (Apr 5, 2007)

Thats a bit stupid.People could say worse.


----------



## rockstar sin (Apr 5, 2007)

I can't believe there was a big fuss for saying the word vagina.  There are far more worst words than that and it would of been no problem.  Should they had use the word pussy?  What if a student said stop being a dick should he miss out on education and be suspended?  Some things doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Jeanne (Apr 5, 2007)

What does it mean?


----------



## MasterFreinz (Apr 5, 2007)

I think its silly that they weren't allowed to say 'vagina' in the first place. I mean seriously, its not like its an offensive word or anything, its the technical term.

Thumbs down to too-strict-censorship.


----------



## martryn (Apr 5, 2007)

Ok, seriously, either contribute to the discussion, or get the fuck out.  For those of you who didn't want to read the last several pages, the ultimate conclusion seems to be that the word itself was fine, it was the context in which it were being used.  And the fact they agreed to edit that part of their presentation, but then went ahead and recited it anyway.  They disobeyed their teacher's direct order, and could have possibly gotten the school system in trouble if a sensitive parent didn't want her child to hear.  The school system was trying to protect itself, but the girls were too selfish to care about reasons. 

Seriously, if another person comes in here and says, "What's so bad about the word vagina?"...


----------



## Yuki Uchiha (Apr 5, 2007)

we need to say what we want to say...but that word doesn't mean anything...


----------



## Kyuubi1234 (Apr 5, 2007)

If think sence they agreed not to say it and said it anyway they deserve to get suspended.


----------



## Yuki Uchiha (Apr 5, 2007)

what...oopss i read it wrong..


----------



## Shiro (Apr 5, 2007)

I've heard worse, people call each other whores and bitches at my school


----------



## Dragoness_Noush (Apr 5, 2007)

Hmmmm you can understand why it happened from the school's point of view... but still, that's just pure harsh.


----------



## akatsuki#2 (Apr 5, 2007)

i had sex ed and we said stuff like penis vgina sexual intercourse and well we did not get in trouble we talked about the whole reproduction system.....


----------



## DarkFire (Apr 5, 2007)

well they said they wouldn't say it and it was suppoosed to be in front of kids... i think they deserved it


----------



## bloody_ninja (Apr 5, 2007)

This is getting pointless. The school was trying to censor a word and that was all to it. If you don't want to obey the rules, suffer the consequences


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2007)

Vagina is the proper term...hmm you can't say shit these days. 

Can we still say wang?

Wang.

Wang...


----------



## bloody_ninja (Apr 6, 2007)

cardboard tube knight said:


> Vagina is the proper term...hmm you can't say shit these days.
> 
> Can we still say wang?
> 
> ...



1. School rule says so, you obey the school rule
2. Censorship


----------



## .:)REIRA(:. (Apr 6, 2007)

Wow...Suspended just for that...you know it's just _so_ wrong to say the proper wording for a body part...*sarcasm*

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of anyone being punished for.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2007)

Akat B said:


> Wow...Suspended just for that...you know it's just _so_ wrong to say the proper wording for a body part...*sarcasm*
> 
> That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of anyone being punished for.



Girl at my school got bootcamp for too many dress code violations. True story, her skirt was too short.


----------



## .:)REIRA(:. (Apr 6, 2007)

cardboard tube knight said:


> Girl at my school got bootcamp for too many dress code violations. True story, her skirt was too short.



wtf....that's even worse!! What is wrong with schools these days????


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2007)

Akat B said:


> wtf....that's even worse!! What is wrong with schools these days????



In a few words: Zero Tolerance Policies. 

You get in the same amount of trouble as watching a fight in some places as you do for fighting in it. And even if you get hit and don't fight back, you're still in trouble.


----------



## .:)REIRA(:. (Apr 6, 2007)

cardboard tube knight said:


> In a few words: Zero Tolerance Policies.
> 
> You get in the same amount of trouble as watching a fight in some places as you do for fighting in it. And even if you get hit and don't fight back, you're still in trouble.



Wow, I'm glad I finished school a while ago or else I prolly would've eventually been expelled. O_o


----------



## bloody_ninja (Apr 6, 2007)

Akat B said:


> Wow, I'm glad I finished school a while ago or else I prolly would've eventually been expelled. O_o



lol, or you can be ninja-like like me and say certain words discreetly. Just make sure you dont get caught


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (May 9, 2007)

its the school officials on an ego trip, like all authority figures, they contribute nothing and just control evreyone else stupidly


----------



## Pilaf (May 9, 2007)

GrimaH said:


> Well, the board did say the audience could have included young children, so the decision to make the girls agree not to use potentially offensive words is pretty understandable.



 And as we all know, little children don't have private parts nor know they exist.


----------



## Ember* (May 9, 2007)

Man, that's kind a stupid just for saying vagina they get suspended, It wasn't even a crime lol, but they deserve It anyway.


----------



## Pilaf (May 9, 2007)

Ember* said:


> Man, that's kind a stupid just for saying vagina they get suspended, It wasn't even a crime lol, but they deserve It anyway.



 There's two ways to look at it. You could say they broke a rule and deserve punishment, or you could ask yourself if a stupid rule is worth honoring, and that maybe by breaking rules that don't make sense, people pave the way to having those rules stricken from the books.


----------



## AbnormallyNormal (May 9, 2007)

yes i argee pilaf.


----------



## Kotonoha (May 9, 2007)

Why did this thread get bumped a month later? o__O


----------



## Jaga (May 9, 2007)

Dionysus said:


> It's pretty retarded.  The initial request for the students to not say "vagina" that is.  (How exactly were they to read from the Vagina Monologues and not say "vagina"?)  The word isn't offensive.  To me, this is the equivalent of a teacher trying to prevent students from using the word "pantaloons" and suspending those who don't comply.
> 
> Wet, hot, slutty cunthole is much more objectionable.





Heida said:


> Yeah, its about as objectionable as saying "hand" or "knee".




its more like saying don't say heart or kidney... vagina is the scientific name for a female organ. its just like saying ohh... that makes no sense at all... the teachers should be fined and expelled from there institutions for imposing such measures... 

and i don't know why people try to censor these type of things... over 50% of the population is female and the other half knows about whats up and have all seen it...(even if its in the form of anime pictures...LOL!!)


----------



## Heat3 (May 9, 2007)

i know those girls that this thread is about. the whole thing was ridiculous. im pretty sure they just wanted to see how far they could go with the situation and try to get attention it really had nothing to do with censorship. they said they werent gonna say it and they did, they deserve the punishment. 

i swear people in westchester would do anything to add drama to their lives.


----------



## Sasuke_Asakura (May 9, 2007)

Zodd said:


> What do you think? Is it censorship? Is saying vagina unnecessary?



wtf,thats not even a bad word..lol


----------



## Naomi (May 10, 2007)

Girls got suspended for saying the word vagina!? That is so retarted. Its a body part that all women have. They weren't talking directly about sex, so its no big deal. People blow things way out of proportion these days. Geez.


----------

