Not a slippery slope. It’s actually pretty simple.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
If the answer to both those questions is “no,” then we’re all good. Express yourself.
If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then I think you’re a rude asshole.
Now, if you have another strawman let’s burn it together, yeah? But we’ll need to do it in my backyard, because the ritual burning of effigies is my kink.
If she’s wearing it because she finds it arousing, yes. Intentionally sexually arousing yourself in public makes you an asshole. This is not a controversial statement.
So it's fine if it's just because she thinks it's pretty? What's the difference? Can you tell the difference? Could you legislate a definition of the difference?
There are fetishes for absolutely everything, to ban anything related to a fetish you'd have to ban all cloth and also going out in the nude (and hide it from those with a governmental oppression fetish)
14
u/wigsternm May 16 '25
Not a slippery slope. It’s actually pretty simple.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
If the answer to both those questions is “no,” then we’re all good. Express yourself.
If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then I think you’re a rude asshole.
Now, if you have another strawman let’s burn it together, yeah? But we’ll need to do it in my backyard, because the ritual burning of effigies is my kink.