>>81519375 (OP)>If they dress like whores they shouldn't be surprised if men stareDon't say that. Ever. They want you to say that shit. If you say that, you already lost.
They'll bring up consent, that clothes don't mean permission to harass, that men should be the ones who resist looking. Etc. Etc. It's trivially easy to autistically look away
Instead, bring out the fact that wearing revealing outfits in public, with the intention of looking sexy; is a form of sexual harassment. Her clothes are a form of sexual harassment. There's no ifs and buts about it. If a man wore tight pants with the express purpose of showing off his bulge in public, we'd call him out for sexual harassment. We the public didn't give him consent to be an exhibitionist.
Even if it was for fashion. It isn't, really. Fashion follows money. And sex sells. So women dressig like whores to follow fashion trends might be worse. Being a mindless magazine worse might be worse than being an exhibitionist.
Here's another way to put it. Remember how angry you get when you see a gay guy wearing kink leather outfits in public. Or a transgender wearing skimpy obviously sexual clothes. And them doing it near children? We can call them out for being sexual harassment. Trying to look sexy in public is sexual harassment. Trying to create sexual feelings on unsuspecting strangers, in public, is sexual harassment.
The only reason we don't recognize is as such is because modern social norms were dictated in the 40s by closetedngay men overcompensating
>Yes, Jim, we sure love women showing off their bodies. Nothing I love more than seeing nipples in the street. You dont enjoy that? You some type of homo?Or you could simply point out an irrefutable fact. Women who dress skimpy have obvious self esteem issues that they should bring out instead. They are starving for attention and that should be adressed. They are selling off their gender to the male gaze. Bring out feminist arguments.