Both of these are [i]somewhat[/i] true. But which one is more true? I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand, it really is a slippery slope to start censoring women based on how men will react. On the other, common sense does have to come into play at some point. I mean, girls can just come to school in swimsuits, and then expect nobody to stare or be aroused. So where exactly is the line? Who decides if something is "explicit" or "intentionally sexual?" Leggings are tricky for school dress codes, you see. Because they technically cover everything up. When I was a kid, "spaghetti straps" were the hot topic. Schools everywhere were banning them, claiming they showed too much skin, and were a distraction in the class room. Today, leggings are the latest banned article of clothing. But what is the justification for banning them? Shorts and skirts are easy. Most schools just have rules on how many inches above the knees they can be. Simple. And for boys, the only rules are usually no sleeveless shirts, and no sagging pants. Again, easy. But leggings are a completely different animal. They cover [i] everything,[/i] so none of the previous rules apply. The problem is the thin material, combined with them being extremely tight & stretchy, creating a silhouette of girls' bottom halves. Some would argue it's closer to body paint than actual clothing. But why stop there? If sheerness and tightness are the problems, couldn't you just ban anything made from the same material? What's next? Banning under armour? Or how about just really tight jeans? Furthermore, isn't it a little accusatory to just assume that boys will be distracted? Or do you think that this is just an undisputable fact that they won't be able to resist looking? As a guy, I can tell you, if I see a girl in leggings, [b]I'm going to look.[/b] But is that really a bad thing? Am I so overcome with lust that it's actually affecting my education? [i]Is[/i] there scientific data that suggests repeated moments of arousal can negatively impact academic performance? I did some light digging and found that [i]"men’s performance on working memory and attention tasks declines after interacting with a beautiful woman (Karremans et al., 2009)."[/i] Studies have found that cognitive function decreases as men become sexually aroused. Basically men get stupid around women they're attracted to, but I'm sure you already knew that. So what should schools do with this information? Well, a simple solution is same-sex schools: all male or all female. I briefly attended an all male high school, which is why I can tell you first-hand, the difference was [i]astounding.[/i] I never realized how much time I dedicated to [b]staring at girls' asses,[/b] until there weren't any girls around anymore. It was SO much easier to learn. Instead of performing mating rituals all day to attract female attention (acting like macho douchebags), we were actually all just motivated to [i]learn.[/i] I didn't even know that was possible. Anyways, that was just my experience. Maybe it was just ME who was a hypersexual teenager with the attention span of a grapefruit. Scientific research and personal experience lead me to believe leggings and yoga pants are definitely a distraction, but should girls be punished for that? I mean, isn't sexual arousal pretty arbitrary? What if one day, all the boys in a school suddenly become OVERCOME with uncontrollable desire for girls who wear blue? What, is the school going to add a blue jeans ban to the dress code? This type of thinking is how we end up with women walking around in sheets. And I don't think any of us want that. It's oppressive and stunts progress. So what are we to do? Besides same-sex schools, I don't really see a fair way to fix this issue. What do you guys think?