>>81857718 (OP)
This is generative AI. There are almost no Roman prostitutes in it's database, so it outputs the closest thing it has s lot of data for: ancientese not too fancy not too poor woman. It is, of course, not accurate. Most Roman prostitutes were slaves in rags.
>>81858082
That just looks like most normal summer outfit. If she has a normal t shirt would it be "less slutty" then? Or are those high waisted shorts need to go as well?
women post their presence in easy to find places now because they know they aren't obligated to commit to anything. not that that was what you were talking about though.
>>81857727
Honestly, toplessness isn't that big a deal. I'm with the feminists on this one and not just because I want to see boobs. Yes, breasts are sexual, but the mark of civilization is covering the genitals. Barebreasted dresses existed that were still arguably less revealing than modern form-fitting leggings, which are designed to show off the vagina. It's flat-out showing off the cunt that is barbaric.