Thursday, March 4, 2010

Time For Your Opinion, Please

These signs were recently posted at our small local mall.  I'd like to know your personal opinion on whether they are going to far in restricting self expression, or if you think that this is a necessary step.  I'll share my thoughts tomorrow.



 
Thank you, and have a beautiful day!


7 comments:

  1. They forgot about the ladies with the low jeans and the thongs showing. As long as you have pants on and your not in your underwear only. I have never seen a sign like that but hey I don't get out much. We have an outlet mall close by so I don't get to regular ones much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No Hoods on head I can understand but no shirt and no shoes, in the mall? I won't visit this mall as my thongs do exposed from time to time when I squat down! Sorry, can't help it ;0)

    As for going too far... I am pretty sure something bad must had taken place in the mall, else the management won't had put up such a ridiculous signage. JMHO. Can't wait to read your thoughts :0))

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well...my thoughts are this.. If people really have to post signs to tell others Not to do this..it must have gotten out of control. I can see it as a safety issue, the hoods.. I can see it as a theft issue..wearing such big clothes, you have ample room for more..having worked in retail, I see the other side as well. Also, I tend to feel a little uncomfortable when surrounded by kids with their pants on the floor and no shoes or shirts on. lol.. Idk.. I suppose they have a right to want their shopping mall to be a respectable place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've never seen anything like this before. And while I personally dislike offense #2 and #3, there are plenty of law-abiding and well-behaved kids who dress like that because that is the "style". My young boys aged 7 and 9 often look like example #1 because they are quite skinny, but you would have to pull their shirts up to see :) And I have to agree with the other commentors, they have left out girls with really low cut pants and shirts that don't cover their abdomens. And what about tops that expose too much cleavage, etc.

    This sign could be argued as sex-discrimination. And I think that they may hurt themselves because teens and young adults will choose to shop elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Personally, I feel that those restrictions are carrying things just a little too far. And I agree that evidently the situation must have gotten out of control for the regulations to be put in place, BUT ..... if a person does not like the way another person dresses, then the offended person should look away!

    Once an organization/group/gov't. is allowed to control how others dress, then what is next?? What we read? What we say? The religion we are allowed to believe in?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Apart from the thong issue already discussed, what is the difference between #1 and visible bra straps? Something that was once considered taboo is now a common occurrence. While I do not find the style in #2 attractive, everything is covered, so . . . whatever . . . different strokes for different folks. I do think an argument can be made in support of #3 considering the fact that malls cater to a diverse cliental and mothers probably don't want to expose their young children to the once comical plumber's crack!

    No hoods, shoes, shirt have been a standard for quite some time -- hoods for legal reasons and shoes and shirts for hygienic and safety ones. I think the same can be said for #3 -- that it is not hygienic (would you want to sit on the same seat in the food court after that?!). But, the other two are a style issue and should not be regulated in the way they are attempting.

    Stepping off soapbox now!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe I'm too literal, but the second "sentence" of the sign actually says that you WON'T be served UNLESS your underwear is exposed and you have a hood on your head. The bozo of a writer contradicts him/herself by use of the word NO in reference to these things. Just saying.

    To those who have commented before, just because the illustrations used are of guys in boxers, they could just as easily be women in thongs - except #2, but subbing out a low cut top there with way too much boob exposed would "cover" the inappropriate dress of the female contingent. The text does refer to skorts and skirts.

    This would be a great one to submit to passiveaggressivenotes.com. I'd love to see what those folks had to say about it.

    BTW, I completely agree with the sentiment that the sign is TRYING to convey about covering up one's behind. The hood thing could go either way, but I understand that it's in the interest of safety and being able to identify thieves/assailants/abductors on surveillance cameras.

    Sorry I was late to the party. I'm trying very hard to catch up on reading 2000+ posts currently in my reader.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you so much for visiting my blog! I love reading your comments, and hope that you will come back again! The tea kettle is always bubbling perfectly, the cookies freshly baked, and the door is always open!