The difficulty then is the male rapist is individually accountable, while all the slatternly dressed women accept no responsibility for the state of society.

“Sadly the continued banning of clothing like yoga pants for the sake of ‘modesty’ only serves to reinforce the rather antiquated and negative stereotype that women are responsible for the behavior of men. All the while, giving men (or in these cases, high school boys) an opportunity to sidestep personal accountability.”

We used to have some sort of social contract. Women behaved decently and men defended them. All men were obligated to defend any woman, even if she wasn’t connected to you in any way. A good man would defend a “helpless” female from the predations of evil men. Decent women would behave decently. Now women want to behave anyway they want and still want to be defended. Of course people of all genders should be able to go about their business and not be molested.

No deserves to be raped. But throw us a bone. If women are going to be dressed in ‘nothing left to the imagination’ style there will be unpleasant consequences. But we aren’t under Sharia law and ain’t nobody gonna tell any woman what to wear.

There seems no good answer here.

We used to have some sort of social contract. Women behaved decently and men defended them. All men were obligated to defend any woman, even if she wasn’t connected to you in any way. A good man would defend a “helpless” female from the predations of evil men. Decent women would behave decently. Now women want to behave anyway they want and still want to be defended. Of course people of all genders should be able to go about their business and not be molested.

No deserves to be raped. But throw us a bone. If women are going to be dressed in ‘nothing left to the imagination’ style there will be unpleasant consequences. But we aren’t under Sharia law and ain’t nobody gonna tell any woman what to wear.

There seems no good answer here.

“I’ve heard plenty of women say they wear yoga pants because they are comfortable. But somehow I can manage to wear comfortable clothes and not show off every inch of my ass and thighs.”

‘Morality police’ are an inescapable fact of life. You can’t not have morality imposed on you. In the case of ‘everyone being able to walk around nude on the sidewalks of your hometown’ someone is imposing the moral view that this is OK.

The idea that there should be no rules is self-refuting.

When someone uses the ‘morality police’ argument, what they really mean is ‘shut up’.

So let’s have the discussion about what kinds of morality we want to impose with the power of the state, and what kinds we want to leave to ‘the private sector’.

Women may have a legal right to wear provocative clothing – but it is not a thoughtful, kind thing to do to vulnerable males.

Men are aroused by what they see and it is not kind of a woman to advertise what you are not selling or offering for free.

Neither is it kind/thoughtful/good manners to wear provocative/distracting clothing in school or business settings. When getting dressed, both males and females need to have some common sense, good judgment and thought/concern for other people.

Some parts of the female and male body should only be viewed in intimate settings. However, I believe in the holy life-long faithful male/female covenant/vocation of marriage and that sex and nudity should be confined to the married couple.

So tired of having eyes assaulted by people’s lack of sense of what is appropriate for business, school and public events.

Some people look obscene or ridiculous in yoga pants, others look fine. But for school classrooms, they are inappropriate. For yoga class or exercise, they are great. Same for sports bras/midriff tops for running. Those are not class room and business attire – and some people just shouldn’t wear them outdoors.

YouTube has a series about what horrible outfits some people wear to Walmart.

It shows some people really need guidance and educating about appropriate attire in public. As they say in the South, ‘their Mamas didn’t teach them anything.’

The D’s think big; they’re out to ream us by messing up energy, immigration, finance, health care, international treaties, defense, domestic surveillance … and to pervert government with rampant PC-ness and chronic racism in all aspects of American public life.

The R’s want to impose the sartorial equivalent of anti-litter laws.

In the annals of Crimes Against Humanity, the two simply can’t compare.

Really? That’s all you can think of?