School Uniforms - Good Or Bad? 1. Deroticed girls

As usual, people believe that squeezing children into school uniforms will prevent sexual abuse, rapes, etc.

This kind of argument is similar to the one saying that "she provoked him and she is to blame". People who share this opinion should see on the Internet how great of an erotic fetishism the school uniform is for men! All the laughter from people who hear that argument will be the best evidence that what I have just written is very true. That is why I would firmly stick to that reaction.

Unless you're going to persuade the ladies who don't get what you're talking about - they'll probably stare goggle-eyed at you with astonishment. The results on the Internet should open their eyes to that problem. It's also typical that in countries where uniforms are most popular - for example, Great Britain or Japan - they have the most erotic connotations.

Evidence for that can be found in Google. If one looks for "school uniform" in Google, one will encounter pages presenting uniforms as erotic fetishism. Yet, once you insert "schoolgirl" or "school uniform" in Google, you'll be flooded by a great number of pornography sites!!!

Summing up, if anyone believes that girls in uniforms will be safer, is definitely wrong. On the contrary, this kind of clothing may just attract more deviants.

2. Uniforms will prevent fashion and vanity ecstasy

a. Uniform requiring clothing of a specified colour and cut e.g. white blouse/shirt; navy blue sweater/cardigan, grey skirt/trousers. But the school doesn't impose any shop or brand.

The 'fashion parade' will stop only seemingly, because the need for individual expression cannot be suppressed by uniforms. Children and teenagers will certainly find other ways to emphasize their distinctness, and to show their alleged superiority over other children. Thus, if a school uniform consists of a navy blue sweater/cardigan/shirt and grey skirt/trousers, one child will have the most expensive, designer sweater/cardigan/shirt and designer skirt/trousers, while the other will wear old, stretched rags. Where is that equality?

One cannot compare two sweaters just because they have the same colour and name. People who are still in favour of introducing school uniforms, should familiarize themselves with experiences in that field taken from other countries.

In Belgium, for example, there are private schools which require uniforms jimmy choo shoes and this leads to fanatic attitude on behalf of the children towards these clothes. That is because of the fact that by depriving somebody of their identity, it will turn into a complete obsession. Kids in such schools go nuts and feel excessive pressure not only to possess the best and the most fashionable clothes, but also those of the "right" brand.

As I've written before, one grey skirt cannot be compared with another, even if its cut or length are firmly determined. Commercial companies easily make use of kids' obsessions and compete to produce such cool stuff. It also has an appropriate price!

Thus, any parent who thinks that their children's obsession with clothes will come to an end, is mistaken. It'll be just the opposite, because both bans and orders result in resistance. The jimmy choo stricter these bans and orders are, the jimmy choo outlet bigger resistance and obsession among people of different ages they cause. So, not only among adults, but also among children and teenagers.

The ban on wearing designer labels won't change anything either, because producers will find the gap in the market at once. They'll start producing clothes without any logos, but which can be immediately recognised by children as the better ones. The quality, as well as best cut are easily noticeable.

Those who remember jimmy choo uk times when they wore school uniforms themselves, should be aware of the fact that they'll not eliminate any fashion parades, competitions or condescension acts. People should remember themselves and talk about what they did when they were that age in order not to be deprived of their individuality. Uniforms didn't change anything in the schools that I attended.

b. Full uniforms - they're bought in one shop and they are all of the same quality, have the same cut, including shoes and bags - however, they're quite expensive.

Such uniforms will be out of reach for many children. There'll be children possessing only one such uniform.

Not to mention the fact that introducing identical uniforms will cause a hellish temptation of corruption. Because, who is to decide which shop will provide children with uniforms?

Imagine the hell a child will have to go through, when possessing only one uniform? His/ her uniform will be much more worn-out in comparison to other children's uniforms. So where is this alleged equality? It'll be also more often dirty, because it will be washed only during the weekend. And what about winter, if it doesn't dry until Monday?

Of course, we assume here that a child has such responsible parents that they won't forget to wash and iron the uniform. At the same time we realise that this is not always the case. There are children whose parents won't care about their child having a clean uniform every single week. Parents don't have time, they forget, are tired, or simply drink, etc. And then what? What should such a child wear to school? A dirty uniform? A wet uniform?

Of course, one child will have a few uniforms and they'll always be new, not worn out, neat, clean and ironed. At the same time, other pupils will wear dirty, worn-out or even ragged uniforms. They may also be too small, because there can be a case when parents don't have enough money to buy a child a new uniform, when the old one doesn't fit any more.

We shouldn't forget that as many as 30% of children in Poland live in poverty and don't have anything to eat. They don't have enough money for school equipment or books, let alone buying a new uniform.
That will only be extra expense, because everyday clothing can be found in second-hands for peanuts. A uniform cannot.

Apart from that, should jimmy choo sale all parents be obligated to keeping their child's uniform clean and ironed? What if they don't fulfill their duty? Can a child, in such a case, wear other clothes at school? Following this thought, a child who has such irresponsible parents will surely feel discriminated by other children? Finally, everybody will realise that such a child has parents who don't take care of him/her. This is an 'ideal' reason to tease and persecute the child! Why should children suffer the negative consequences of being neglected?

Yet another matter concerning the alleged equality of the children in uniforms.

At once there'll be established schools that are "better" and "worse". Richer children will attend one school, and the poorer a different one. As every school will have its own uniform, it'll be easily noticeable which school a child attends. So, there is a great probability that children outside the school ground will be treated with contempt, hate or envy.