With regards to descency, isn't it still good practice to go ahead of a woman up the stairs so as not to unintentionally peek up a skirt / dress?
It is impossible to live and hide everything that may be offensive to any one person. With such rules in force, no women would be allowd to even venture on the street, for threat of being accused of solicitating, being a woman. Thus giving men no other choice than to see them, in which attire it may be.
Everybody should be allowed to dress in any way. As long as genetals are not deliberately shown. People have to learn, which include children, that they should not look at others in such a way as to be sure they can see more than the person's INTENTIONS were. If for some reason, your pants button flys off, and your pants fall to the ground, it is normal for others to recognise the ACT as non intentional, and look the other way. That is what THEY, the OTHERS are compulsary to do. That is respect.
I imagine, that as with many things, it is ultimately the intention behind it what makes something good, criminal, accidental, intentional.
Even klimbing ladders, in a skirt, that should be no problem. Otherwise there will be legislation as to which angle there may be insight to the underside of the skirt, which would apply to BOTH sexes!
The car question does make you think, if skirt clothing, and any other clothing is legal, then it should be usable in nearly all situations. As seeing somebody's underwear is in itself nothing shocking, and should be taught that to children, being able to recognise situations with ""criminal"" intent is a more important subjext to learn. What about women's boobs? ( not nipples) I don't mind seeing them myself, but I think that some legislation seems to have overshot it's intentional protective roll.
This is very important, and any lawers on the forum would be appreciated to collect data on such stupid legislations per state, if they exist, as a warning, but also to try to abolish such outdated regulations.
After all, by just showing jour face you may be accused of um being a woman chaser or ...???? Let us all wear Burkas, men and women and be done with it.
It may be a thin line, but if you are not intentionally flashing, go ahead. My rule states that when somebody inadvertantly shows something which YOU find unwanted to see, direct your head away, out of respect for that person, it being unintentional. Don't go to a nudist beach and complain about seeing thingamebobs and dodas ...
Wearing no underpants under a skirt may be a dicey matter, BUT IF Kilt wearing is officially accepted, AND wearing nothing under them is recognised as correct attire, then what about that? Especially outside of Scotland. Just as wearing an all covering gown, the Burka is in some countries still allowed.. ( I think that should not be allowed in western countries. Other discussion)
But children play with eachother, what about that? Often girls have very short skirts, then they would be in court every day, straight out of kindergarten, grade school, for indecent exposure, and sollicitating, dressing in such a way as to expose their underpants or suggest the possibility to be able to see .. something.... . Just too stupid for words.
Intention to commit a fellony must be obtained.
Driving a car is not a fellony, willingly steering a car into something / one is. It is in the deliberate action, not in the deed itself, as the driver may have temperorily lost control and UNWILLINGLY had an accident and so on.
Just look at legislation and move the he.. out of the place where they are ridiculously biased.
So again, I would ask anybody who knows the laws well, to put such information regarding such issues, the way we dress, or even members who have insurance and are free to use lawjers services etc, please find out for us how it really is.
One argument is that ( for us ) life, living has to be livable!
A man is the same man in a pair of pants or a skirt. It is only the way people look at him that makes the difference.
