There are some poeple who define themselves by being oppressed, or perceiving themselves to be oppressed.
The very idea that some prick reckons the way a woman, or man for that matter, is dressed somehow reflects on their sexual availability is laughable at best, and as such should be treated only with derision and not as some kind of piss-weak global feminist drum workshop opportunity.
(, Sun 12 Jun 2011, 12:42, Reply)
So you're saying
that neither men nor women dress in a revealing manner in order to show off their bodies and attract the attention of the opposite (or same, if that's your thing) sex?
(
pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:04,
Reply)
I don't think bogus is saying that
it's undeniable that fashion/body decoration/plumage is used throughout nature to attract the opposite sex. But in most species that is merely to gain attention before the start of mating rituals; like elaborate dances in birds, neck rubbing in giraffes or "asking someone out" in humans.
sexy clothes are sexy clothes, they aren't "shove it in any hole now" signs. But with wining and dining you could be lucky.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:27,
Reply)
Apparently...
...in geordieland the mating ritual is "can ah stick me nob in yer gob in the bog, pet".
I agree with you, was just trying to clarify.
(
pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:51,
Reply)
No, I'm saying that anyone wearing anything they want does not warrant sexual assault
And anyone who thinks otherwise is a laughable prick.
(, Sun 12 Jun 2011, 14:52, Reply)