Go back to North Korea.

I'm being completely serious here. Let me put aside the mask of satire and present a more reasonable solution:



A uniform serves the purpose of making the opposite sex look as unappealing as possible, thus removing sexual relationships as a stumbling block to the education of the country's youth. It also ensures that students going to and from school will not engage in illicit behaviour, as the uniforms will help age and identify them. The west is crumbling under top-heavy social infrastructure and the loss of bread-and-butter industries, and the only way to turn this around is if we nurture a productive future work force, that seeks to create rather than to demand. School must be reformed to be a place of learning, nothing else. The Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians are doing it, and look where they are now. In 20 years they will be the First world, and North America will turn into the worst of Socialist Europe.

By the way, Fred? That Ad Hominem attack of yours is baseless and just serves to show that you are an example of what's wrong with youth today.

I went to a school with a uniform. It was hideous, uncomfortable, we all hated it, and people still had sexual/romantic relationships lol.

I agree that putting limits on skankiness may be a good idea (no jeggings/leggings except with long shirts, no skirts shorter than/pants lower than _____ etc.) but uniforms? nah.

How is this any different than it's ever been? People always tend to think that the newest generation of teenagers is so much worse than the last. If anything I'd say our generation is more serious about academics than any generation in the last 50 years at least.

I've had experience wearing uniforms as well as going to school in regular attire. Uniforms are not as unappealing as everyone thinks however, the ones that you posted are appalling.

Are you kidding?

lol, no, people can wear what they want when they want.

Your assumption that students (or more likely female students as you have seemingly alluded to) go to school for the purpose of 'showing off' and 'sexing it up' is flawed. The vast majority of students go to school to learn so that once they graduate they can pursue whatever career they want to pursue. There are students who are far more interested in sex then school, but this is a psychological issue and not a material (clothing) issue. These students are also much fewer then you make them out to be. I begin to wonder whether you are making a misogynist generalization on female students by indirectly stating that women need to have their sexuality controlled as it will consume their academic career. By the same token you are stating that men cannot learn in environments where a or many female students are wearing clothing that is sexually appealing to them as thinking about sex will take precedence over academics. As another poster brought up their are uniform fetishists in schools who would prefer a uniform policy as far as sex appeal goes.

Personally if one can't concentrate on school because the student next to you looks sexy then one must mature or consult a psychiatrist.

The question then is 'What is mainstream behaviour?' as it varies culture to culture, time to time and person to person.

Then what mechanism(s) does the government use to define mainstream behavior?

I think you mean autocrat as autocracy is a form of government.