No, immodest dress feels enticing to most women. That is why many women like immodest dress, it makes them feel like they have power over men. A lie, but how can they know unless someone tells them?

We are MORE powerful. We have the rights to make decisions regarding our lives that we never had before! We are no longer seen as sluts who must quickly marry in a hush-hush ceremony for having a male best friend, are in political positions to push for medical research that benefits us as well as men (I am pro-life, so I don’t mean abortion), and are independent. We don’t have to rely on men to support us, having to marry someone we don’t love just to have a roof over our heads. Don’t start talking about a women remaining under her father because you’d be preaching to someone whose father is dead. Women are no longer bred for the purpose of serving a man at home and to give him children. We are valued as human beings, strong, capable, intelligent.

2) Do you think immodest dress is an expression of power for some women? Do you think that this is calculated or subconscious? Why or why not?

Yes, it is an expression of power. Once upon a time we were nothing more than creatures bred to marry and breed and lather, rinse, repeat. Now we aren’t stuck in the rols of being good only to have sex and babies with. It’s still relatively new for women to be able to dress sexy and have the power to say no, to not have to marry, to not have to do what she doesn’t want to do. It’s calculated. We do it because we can.

3) Do you agree with Mr. Prager’s that we should eliminate all sexual harassment laws (except those prohibiting threats) or apply them equally to women? Why or why not?

How ignorant. Laws ARE applied equally to women as they are to men in the workplace! I was actually in trouble at my job because a man didn’t like the way I said, “Hi,” to him in passing! So don’t tell me that woman have is to easy. Don’t you dare blame men! Sexual harassment laws came about because of inappropriate advances, men not taking no for an answer. Yes, a man may be sexually attracted to a woman, but you are saying he’s a mindless idiot if he can’t control himself. That’s like blaming the rape victim for wearing a skirt. You’re doing men AND women a disservice here.

Have you given any thought to the fact that the vast majority of our political system is made up of men? Men who so far outnumber the women in politics that we have so little say? This means that MEN wrote most of the laws to get us into the situation we are in, yet you blame the way women dress as the problem.

4) Are women naive when it comes to immodest dress? What are your thoughts?

Modest and immodest is a mindset. I know many Christian women who believe that women dressed too immodestly in the regency era for showing parts of upper arms, and I’ve knows woman who weat tank tops, yet conduct themselves in very feminine, modest ways. It’s not the dress, but the attitude and demeanor behind it. I feel more modest and feminine in a shorter black lace dress with no sleeves sitting “like a lady” than I do in pink jeans and a close-fitting, long-sleeved top trying to sit “like a lady.” By visuals, the shorter, sleeveless lace dress is the more immodest as more shows, yet I am treated more ladylike. It’s not the clothing that decides modesty from immodesty.

5) Would you agree with the statement, “What you attract them with you attract them to,” when applied to immodest dress?

No. You can catch someone’s attention with scantily-clad boobs, but in the end, attraction is more than sexual. It’s not going to work if there’s no mental and emotional attraction in the end. Even in the more-modest (by most standards) recency era women wore lower-cut tops than today, and corsets of the Edwardian era served partly to emphasize a woman’s curves. A woman’s beauty, her physical shape, and her breasts have always been a consideration for men. Why is it so wrong today? We are humans who mostly have the primal urge to seek a partner and mate. Larger boobs are subconsiously connected with milk and the ability to feed, and an hour-glass shape is connected with a body meant to bear children. So the “goods” are on display to evaluation. The physical sparks the interest to get to know the woman on a deeper, more meaningful level. How is this any different from what always has been? Why was it okay “then,” but not now?

2. No. I think it’s a subconscious expression of powerlessness and confusion. Because women aren’t sure what their roles are or where they fit in, they have lost their sense of identity and purpose. In an effort to “find themselves” (for lack of a better concise description), they try whatever means possible to figure out who they are and where they belong.

3. I think Mr. Prager is wrong in saying that sexual harassment laws aren’t applied equally to women. Sure, there are women who get away with it, but there are also men who get away with it. It’s not the laws that are bad, it’s society’s eagerness to make people pay for “wrongs”, and that’s what causes them to be used improperly. Unfortunately, I think the laws are very necessary because they substitute for parents’ responsibility to teach their children to respect themselves and others. While I would love it if parents as a whole would start doing their job, we need something to protect people in the mean time.

4. I’m not sure naive is the best way to describe it. They are definitely confused and lost about priorities and purpose.

5. Somewhat, I guess. But remember that I don’t think women dress for the primary purpose of attracting men.

2) Yes. I think some of it is calculated. I mean, how can you wear an immodest top and NOT KNOW that it is immodest?

3) There should be no double-standard. Either apply it to both or repeal it.

4) I think not. Again, how can you NOT know that something is immodest.

5) Yes. Kinda like flirts. They are only attracting other flirts. If they married one, they would be unhappy, as the person would continue to flirt.

Did you catch that distinction? I don’t think Mr. Prager was saying women aren’t prosecuted for sexual advances (verbal or phsycial) but rather for immodesty, which isn’t normally considered.

With that clarified, do you think it would be a good idea to apply sexual harassment laws “equally” by prohibiting excessively immodest dress?

Interested in hearing your thoughts.

Most definitely. I would also say that it has hurt our culture. If women are not in the home teaching their children strong morals and encouraging their husbands, you have immorality in society and a much-higher divorce rate. Protectress of Society is a rather honorable role.

2) Do you think immodest dress is an expression of power for some women? Do you think that this is calculated or subconscious? Why or why not?

It’s an expression of weakness more than anything. If a woman feels the need to degrade herself in such a way, well, it must be weakness. I think that in many cases it isn’t calculated or subconscious, at first. It’s just the trend and society digs trends. After awhile, they become attached to it.

3) Do you agree with Mr. Prager’s that we should eliminate all sexual harassment laws (except those prohibiting threats) or apply them equally to women? Why or why not?

I understand the intent of the laws but I think that it is not the place of the government to make that decision - keep it in the hands of the employer. If someone’s in that situation, it’s unfortunate but they can always resort to informing the boss or (if it is the boss), leaving the company. Hard, but that’s the best for our civil government (and, thereby, us).

4) Are women naive when it comes to immodest dress? What are your thoughts?

It would be naive to think that any woman is totally oblivious to the immodesty. One subconsciously knows what is immodest but some just have the nerve to deny their God-given conscience in favor of the flesh.

5) Would you agree with the statement, “What you attract them with you attract them to,” when applied to immodest dress?

As the result? I would say so. It might just account for the high divorce rates, etc. If a man is drawn by lust and not love, both have lost the game - big time.