219
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by lavenie@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hraegsvelmir@ani.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's a uniform, they call it a uniform, their school enforces it as such, yet you're here saying it isn't because it lacks a school logo. You're the one trying to force a novel definition of the term uniform on us, so it's on you to actually provide a coherent definition of the term and convince us it beats the one everyone else is using, which you fail to do.

Also, school uniforms often consist of much more than just a skirt. Typically, it will be a skirt, stockings, blouse, a blazer in the winter, and possibly even shoes. Do you know these girls? If not, how do you magically know they would be fine with the rest of their uniform if they didn't have to wear a skirt? You're making a lot of baseless assumptions, from what I can see.

Also, for what it's worth, nothing in the article even says they are asking to not have to wear skirts or do away with uniforms. They are requesting that porn producers be banned from buying and using schoolgirl uniform costumes in pornography. Straight from their petition linked in the article:

Ban School Uniform in Pornographic Content

We, the Little Feminist Bookclub (LFB) of the Cooper School, believe that it is crucial that school uniform being depicted in pornography is banned. The possession and publication of this repulsive content clearly aims to simulate a child. We are calling on the Prime Minister to ban this use of the uniform designed to make us feel safe.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

They actually are making a very good point though. How do you legally define a uniform.

What exactly is it that they are proposing to ban here, because as far as I'm aware porn doesn't actually depict a particular school's uniform they just depict a general suggestion. White button shirt, skirt, tie.

What exactly would the law say? How would it be worded?

[-] hraegsvelmir@ani.social 0 points 1 day ago

That's a perfectly valid point about law that they have bumbled adjacent to, but never actually broached themselves. I'm not saying that the law would even necessarily be a good idea, just pushing back on their original, nonsensical claim that if something doesn't have a logo, it doesn't count as a uniform. They just claim this isn't a uniform on an absurd basis, and provide no support to justify why anyone should accept that idea when it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of a uniform.

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2026
219 points (96.6% liked)

World News

58516 readers
3890 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS