[REJECTED] Waist Not, Want Not

by **Socio Polor** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:24 pm

Title: Waist Not, Want Not

Description: Sagging is the latest fashion trend sweeping @@name@@, with youngsters hailing it as "the wardrobe wonder!" and "the hippest hit!" But when high schooler @@randommalename@@ strolled into class with pants at knee level, the debate began: is this style simply a contemporary chic, or has it slumped into the near-nudity territory?

Validity: Prudism Policy and Moderate to High Youth Rebellion (Maybe?)

Option 1: "What on Earth is going on with our youngins, @@leader@@?" asks @@randommalefirstname@@ Urkel, sporting pants so high they might as well be a scarf. He places his hands on your shoulders and pleads, "This saggy-pants fad is improper and indecorous! Let's enforce waistlines at the navel, just like mine!" As he strikes a pose, he spins and accidentally shatters your prized vase. "Oops! Did I do that!?"
Effect: size 50 pants become the new extra-small

Option 2: "While I concur with Mr. Urkel's distaste, dictating dress codes isn't the answer," interjects @@randomname@@, a renowned fashion designer in @@name@@. "Our country's stale styles have driven kids to dress like exhibitionists. They need a fresh, fabulous look to redefine themselves – something I can create. Collaborate with me, @@leader@@, and I'll turn these youths into runway royalty!"
Effect: city sidewalks transform into daily catwalks

Option 3: "Hold your haute couture horses," interrupts @@randomname@@, head of the @@name@@ Cultural Society. "Sagging is a form of self-expression for ethnic minorities, especially our Bigtopian residents. Banning it equals discrimination. Why not raise awareness about this cultural phenomenon with billboards and posters proclaiming 'We sag 'cause we swag!' Catchy, right? In fact @@leader@@, I think it'll be great if you too would partake in this new fad, just think how popular you'd be with the young generation!"
Effect: politicians are often caught with their pants down

Title: It’s Just Swag

Description: Sagging has become the number one fashion trend in @@name@@, with many teens and youthful denizens dubbing it "the trend of the decade!" and "the new cool!" However, when high school student @@randommalename@@ came into class with his pants at his knees, many have begun to question if this fashion craze has gone too far down, with some considering it borderline nudity.

Validity: Prudism Policy and Moderate to High Youth Rebellion (Maybe?)

Option 1: "What in tarnation has happened to our youth @@leader@@?" questions @@randommalefirstname@@ Urkel, whose pants exceed the waistline. He approaches you, putting his hands on your shoulder. "This sagging of the pants is all wrong and isn't proper, I tell you. Do away with it and instead make every @@demonym@@ wear their trousers firmly at their navel as mine see." He does a pose for you and, by spinning, accidentally knocks over your vase. "Oops! Did I do that?"
Effect: length forty pants are the new small

Option 2: "I agree with Mr. Urkel that this is indecent, but mandating how people dress isn't the way to go," intervenes @@randomname@@ one of @@name@@'s prominent fashion designers. "It's clear to me that the problem is our country's outdated fashion that has these kids dressing like strippers. What they need is a new style of glamour, something that'll impact how our youth show themselves, something I can make. Work with me @@leader@@, and I'll have these kids looking like supermodels!"
Effect: sidewalks are now looking like runways

Option 3: "Before we start putting young @@demonymplural@@ into the next fashion week magazine, hear this out," interposes @@randomname@@, head of the @@name@@ Minority Club. "Pants sagging has become a way for ethnic minorities, primarily our Bigtopian residents, a way of expressing themselves; banning it will only discriminate against them. Why not raise awareness amongst the populace on this rising culture, maybe some billboards and posters that read 'We sag because it's swag.' It has a sorta ring to it, don't you agree?"
Effect: politicians and business people are seen sagging through important meetings

by **Baggieland** » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:28 am

Hi Socio Polor, I am glad to see that the quality of your writing is definitely improving, however, I can't see this being an issue. What you're talking about here is just a fashion trend. Fashion trends have never required government intervention. In a couple of years this trend of wearing your pants half way down your legs will just be a bad memory. I grew up in the 1970s, but I'm not going to write an issue about how flared trousers emotionally scarred me for life. And in olden days a glimpse of stocking was thought of as shocking, but now, anything goes.

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:14 am

It's less that it's ugly, and more that in particularly prudish societies, even seeing someone's underwear would be considered indecent. Though NationStates is usually about setting policy in broad strokes rather than micromanaging precise details, and if we are going to be nitpicking the exact limits of acceptable nudity beyond "public nudity is legal or not", there are probably more important questions to ask.

...But seriously, people actually do this?

Even leaving aside how ridiculous it looks, how would you walk with your pants halfway down your legs?

by **Jutsa** » Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:20 am

You wouldn't walk; you'd strut.

But yeah, I think the bigger issue is that this has overlap with an existing issue!

I mean, yes, it's technically different, but I'd say it's a similar topic: How much is showing too much?
#504

by **Socio Polor** » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:17 am

Baggieland wrote:Hi Socio Polor, I am glad to see that the quality of your writing is definitely improving, however, I can't see this being an issue. What you're talking about here is just a fashion trend. Fashion trends have never required government intervention. In a couple of years this trend of wearing your pants half way down your legs will just be a bad memory. I grew up in the 1970s, but I'm not going to write an issue about how flared trousers emotionally scarred me for life. And in olden days a glimpse of stocking was thought of as shocking, but now, anything goes.

Thanks Baggie

. Though the thing with sagging is it's considered by some to be "borderline nudity" and disrespectful to themselves and people around them. Also a few states such as South Carolina, Florida and New Jersey to name a few passed bills in the past that made it illegal to sag in public.

Jutsa wrote:You wouldn't walk; you'd strut.

But yeah, I think the bigger issue is that this has overlap with an existing issue!

I mean, yes, it's technically different, but I'd say it's a similar topic: How much is showing too much?
#504

Eh, it's similar, but not a complete overlap so it should be alright

by **USS Monitor** » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:29 am

Trotterdam wrote:It's less that it's ugly, and more that in particularly prudish societies, even seeing someone's underwear would be considered indecent. Though NationStates is usually about setting policy in broad strokes rather than micromanaging precise details, and if we are going to be nitpicking the exact limits of acceptable nudity beyond "public nudity is legal or not", there are probably more important questions to ask.

...But seriously, people actually do this?

Even leaving aside how ridiculous it looks, how would you walk with your pants halfway down your legs?

People do it.

According to my ex, it was originally a prison thing where guys would pull their pants down to let other inmates know they were available to be banged. But then people started doing it outside prison because they thought it made them look thuggish and edgy.

My ex is not a reliable source on all things, so if you've seen this debunked somewhere, then such is life, but that's what he told me.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:42 am

Baggieland wrote:Hi Socio Polor, I am glad to see that the quality of your writing is definitely improving, however, I can't see this being an issue. What you're talking about here is just a fashion trend. Fashion trends have never required government intervention. In a couple of years this trend of wearing your pants half way down your legs will just be a bad memory. I grew up in the 1970s, but I'm not going to write an issue about how flared trousers emotionally scarred me for life. And in olden days a glimpse of stocking was thought of as shocking, but now, anything goes.

I agree with Baggie, though I'd say that given enough context a fashion trend could constitute an issue.

For example, #593 is about women's sleeves getting shorter in nations with oppressive laws against bare flesh. That works as an issue because it goes beyond fashion and into societal beliefs about modesty and gender roles.

Here, if you were to reframe the fashion trend as being indicative of something else, it might work. However, as we already have issues complaining about rap music and/or rebellious youths, it may be hard to find an angle that doesn't overlap existing issues.

by **Socio Polor** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:03 pm

Thanks for the comment CWA!

I'll see if I can specify a bit further why sagging is "bad"

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:17 am

Doesn't SWAG stand for "Secretly, We Are Gay"?

by **Verdant Haven** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:55 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Doesn't SWAG stand for "Secretly, We Are Gay"?

Nope.

That's one of many false acronym etymologies for the word. It actually has been in English for about 700 years, entering in to Middle English from one of the Scandinavian languages (I don't recall which), referring to a lurching or swaying movement (the word "swagger is derived from the same place). This developed to the idea of a bindle or overstuffed bag that bounces or sways as being called a swag, and that (by the 1700s) became a term for a bag of loot or stolen goods carried by a bandit or swagman.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:42 am

Snopes factchecks the assertion awesomely, btw:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swag/

Looking forward to seeing the revision here, SP.

by **Socio Polor** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:20 pm

Updated

by **Socio Polor** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:50 am

Any more feedback?

by **Socio Polor** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:08 pm

Further Feedback?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:47 am

Same criticisms as before. There's no context.

Description: Many of today’s @@demonymadjective@@ youth have lately been spotted roaming the streets with their pants sagging, exposing their undergarments. Many find this latest trend unbefitting while others see nothing wrong with it. Citizens across @@name@@ are now wanting to see an end to this fashion dispute.

The second sentence is redundant, as all it does is say that there are different opinions. The third sentence is redundant as it just says there is an issue. So all you're left with is this:

Description: Many of today’s @@demonymadjective@@ youth have lately been spotted roaming the streets with their pants sagging, exposing their undergarments.

There's still no issue there. There needs to be some reason why this is an issue or dilemma, and right now there's none.

by **Socio Polor** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:19 am

Ohh that's what you meant. I'm slow sometimes

by **Socio Polor** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:19 pm

Last bump (for now at least)

by **Altmer Dominion** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:10 pm

You've still not changed the description enough for me to consider that you've satisfactorily addressed Baggie and CWA's concerns. Redundant padding aside, there's yet to be a core national dilemma here.

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:06 am

I'm sorry, I don't see how this would work as an issue. If you want an issue about fashion trends, I suggest looking into Carribean countries who ban camouflage clothing. That would make an interesting issue

by **Socio Polor** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:07 pm

Update! So I altered the description of the issue to make it more of a dilemma. Wondering if it's good enough or should I alter it more or some other aspect of the issue. Any comments, of course, are always welcome

by **Socio Polor** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:11 pm

I'm also even open to the possibility of completely rewriting this issue, do any of y'all think I should do that, or leave it as is and just revise it more?

by **Socio Polor** » Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:55 am

Ok, so I decided to add more to the first option as it didn't seem to suggest anything and I removed the term "videos" from the third effect line as it would go against nations who don't have internet.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:41 am

There's potentially an interesting issue about clothing styles here, but it's not being delivered. Right now, you're issue is:

"Some crazy people wear saggy pants.
1 - Let us dress how we like.
2 - That's stupid, stop them!
3 - Halfway compromise
The end."

Can you see how thin that premise is?

To me, the most interesting thing about sagging is that some US states felt the need to specifically legislate against a style of dress that is more common amongst certain ethnic groups.

The fact that the style of dress is sagging isn't that interesting. More interesting is the idea that clothing styles could be regulated -- for ostensibly reasonable justifications -- in a way that in practical terms disproportionately targets an ethnic minority's fashion choices.

I think it ought to be more like:

1) This clothing style is indecent, and stupid, basically. Ban it.
2) It's stupid, but you can't interfere with the freedom to dress in certain ways. Instead, consider subsidising classic fashion and tailors who make smart clothes, and let fashion's change as a result.
3) Attacking the fashion would disproportionately target ethnic minority youths, whose fashion trend it is, instead maybe educate people about diversity, and maybe make a speech or two while adopting the fashion yourself. (effect: politicians are often caught with their pants down)

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:42 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:There's potentially an interesting issue about clothing styles here, but it's not being delivered. Right now, you're issue is:

"Some crazy people wear saggy pants.
1 - Let us dress how we like.
2 - That's stupid, stop them!
3 - Halfway compromise
The end."

Can you see how thin that premise is?

To me, the most interesting thing about sagging is that some US states felt the need to specifically legislate against a style of dress that is more common amongst certain ethnic groups.

The fact that the style of dress is sagging isn't that interesting. More interesting is the idea that clothing styles could be regulated -- for ostensibly reasonable justifications -- in a way that in practical terms disproportionately targets an ethnic minority's fashion choices.

This may have happened before.
Zoot Suits.
Production ostensibly banned because they used so much more fabric than ordinary suits, and wartime shortages existed, but...

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:46 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:To me, the most interesting thing about sagging is that some US states felt the need to specifically legislate against a style of dress that is more common amongst certain ethnic groups.

Why are the ethnic minority wearing this? Is it actually traditional in their culture, or did they deliberately make up a weird fashion just for the sake of being different?

[REJECTED] Waist Not, Want Not

[REJECTED] Waist Not, Want Not

Who is online