Yet want to behave sexually with this nurse?

Image is everything. The nurse in the top photo exudes an image of professionalism and appears deserving of the respect that years of study and sacrifice have brought. She has made herself an object of admiration and deserving of an appropriate amount of respect as such. The nurse in the bottom photo exudes an image of overt sexuality that diminishes the respect that the profession deserves. This woman has made herself into an object of sexual desire or what is commonly refered to as ‘a sex object’. A man may fein respect and interest if said man believes a sexual encounter may ensue. But decent men certainly do not take women like this home to mother. Let’s look at every woman’s fashion essential: The Statement Necklace. Is it wrong for a man to tell a woman he wants to have sex with her, if the signal being given off by the female’s attire is ‘I want every man in the room to want to fuck me.’

Is it wrong for the same man to call this woman a slut?

What if a man calls a woman wearing this necklace a bitch? Would he be wrong?

Is it wrong to ask this man if he has crabs? Would it be inappropriate?

What if a woman shows interest in a man and he brushes her off because she looks like a golddigger? Should she be offended?

What if the same man offers his seat to the same woman wearing this necklace?

What we wear makes a statement about how we want other to perceive us (unless one is a hobolo, whereas one just doesn’t care). Why should the general public not be free to comment and pass social judgment be it positive or negative? Why wear a naked dress, and then call the police because a reaction came from a really ugly guy. Only to then have coffee with a really hot guy who does the same thing an hour later? If it’s not violent and invasive it’s not a crime. Distracting clothing in a professional setting: Senate committee chairman Sen Mitch Holmes recently imposed a dress code on Kansans testifying on elections or ethics bills that explicitly prohibits women from wearing skimpy skirts or blouses with plunging necklines while establishing no wardrobe restrictions exclusively for men. He offered more detailed guidance to women conferees because he had observed provocatively clad females at the Capitol. Revealing too much of the body during testimony to the Senate committee is a distraction, he said. “For ladies,” the rule says, “low-cut necklines and mini-skirts are inappropriate.”

“It’s one of those things that’s hard to define,” Holmes said. “Put it out there and let people know we’re really looking for you to be addressing the issue rather than trying to distract or bring eyes to yourself.” Well, it’s actually very easy to define a dress code if you identify the distracting erogenous zones and deem that these zones need to be covered. Only men can establish these zones as it is the male of the species that are affected by the issue of female dress. These body parts or functions include: wrists, ankles, collar bones, shoulders, necks, breasts, legs, backs, waits, hips, pheromone exposure and overly beautified makeup looks. Toes and feet are especially distracting.

Holmes said he considered stipulating men had to wear suit and tie when addressing his Senate committee, but decided males didn’t need supplemental instruction on how to look professional. Men tend to follow the unwritten code for professional dress. Women tend to push the boundaries of decency. What a woman may consider looks nice on her, a man may think is provocative and may distract his attention from the job at hand. Sen. Carolyn McGinn, a Sedgwick Republican, said wardrobe restrictions set by Holmes could steer people away from the Capitol who don’t have clothing that meets his ideal. An individual’s opinions are more significant than what garment drapes that person’s shoulders, she said. I have never heard of a woman who does not have a conservative business suit, jeans and a shirt would be more than acceptable. If all a woman has to wear to an important government level meeting is a mini skirt and a camisole top, it kinda says she is a slut. Clothing of this type is distracting. Carolyn’s view is “I am more interested in what women have to say to say about the direction our state should go than what they’re wearing that day,” McGinn said. Mr Holmes is of the opinion that he is more interested in what a woman has to say about the direction of the state than to stare at her breasts and have his mind muddled by free-radical pheromones drifting from beneath miniskirts. I should think his argument is much more powerful than a than that of one who would encourage distractions during government meetings. Is it a good idea employing a woman who prefers provocative dress to governmental productivity?