Or should it be buried? Forget about TV3. RTM has overtaken them in terms of credibility anyway. Let’s look at the issue, or non-issue, whichever way you want to look at it.

My interpretation of their statement: Girls’ uniform are too thin and white resulting in their inner wear and skin easily seen by young boys who are swayed to suddenly commit social ills including those of the sexual kind (is there any other when it involves skin and inner wear?). Girls are also responsible because they use this to their advantage by teasing guys, leading to even more social ills.

I disagree with putting the blame on uniforms for the rise of social ills and sexual experimentation amongst the young. The actual causes require a deeper discussion which I have neither time nor inclination to delve into now. Clothes do not make a man (or woman in this case).

But fundamentally, let’s look at the typical girls’ uniform. It’s white, and it’s thin. Does it allow for the inner wear and skin to be easily seen? I hate to admit it, but it does, doesn’t it? I certainly remember those girls at my school...well, I should stop there.

Let’s just say I think we could all agree the white material is pretty see-through comparatively to other materials and colors. Does this arouse interest amongst the boys? You could argue that pornography has taken away a lot of our sexual innocence, but nothing’s quite the same as the real thing.

So a few things about their statement actually makes sense (damn it), though I’d be hard-pressed to find one to admit to this, especially in blogosphere.

So, as much as I wish I could totally dismiss their claim, it does warrant a discussion. A small one, perhaps. It’s a fact that the uniform is white and thin. It’s a fact that comparative to other colours, white allows more light to pass through and therefore is more see-through (if all other things are equal).

It’s a disputable fact that boys are interested in seeing what is behind a female’s uniform (I believe they are). It’s a disputable fact that some girls do tease boys by wearing sexy inner wear underneath their school uniforms (I can personally attest to this phenomenon).

The only portion of the statement that we can say is rubbish is their direct correlation between see-through uniforms and social ills and rise in sexual experimentation amongst the youth. Even this could not be dismissed quite so easily if you use logic.

The association may not have framed it in this way, and perhaps they didn’t think about it this way. Perhaps they just wanted to speak out for the sake of speaking out (like most members of society today...so yesterday man). But the validity of their claim shouldn’t be dismissed. If there’s an alternative, shouldn’t we explore it?

Oh, is it sexy? That’s totally subjective isn’t it? But could you say it’s 100% NOT sexy? Go figure.

p/s: But isn’t the guys uniform also white, thin and see-through? Damn. I guess I was sexyback before Justin made it cool...hehehe