[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Sticks

I used to know a wife of an evangelist who would take issue with you on that.

She had absolutely no sympathy for women who complained about sexual harassment from men, because these women were wearing sexually provocative and enticing clothing. Her rebuff to these women was "If you are not selling, don't advertise"

This gets back to my analogy of the house holder, are you saying that people should be allowed to go out, leave their doors and windows unlocked, and not expect to be robbed by any passing thief. Of course householders don't do that, when we go out, we make sure windows and doors are locked, and those of us with them set burglar alarms. We take precautions because we live in a fallen world.

I thought feminism was about women taking more control of their lives, so they should take control of what they wear, taking into account that some men are uncouth and hedonistic. Surely this is the equivalent of locking a front door, again it is not rocket science.

Why do we need to waste valuable parliamentary time, when women have the ability to prevent this antisocial activity by adjusting what they wear? We need all the parliamentary time there is to sort out Brexit...

What exactly are you annoyed about? That your "right" to peer up a non-consenting woman's skirt has the potential of being taken away from you? Poor you. Meanwhile, woman are being made to feel uncomfortable on a day-to-day basis because of men who aren't getting any back at home.