Another factor isn't so much what a woman wears, but the context in which she wears it.

Rex mentioned a 'clothes optional' beach. At such a beach, or at any beach, a woman wearing little or nothing is usual, and can barely expect to attract attention. The recent debates about privacy in a public place also can be applied here.

With one exception: except under very specific circumstances, it is illegal to take, or have in your possession, pictures or videos of a girl (or a boy for that matter) under 16 without clothes or in what could be described as 'erotic' situation, but can also be described as pornographic poses or situations.

There is an anomaly here in the law: a girl under 16 can legally go topless on many beaches (every beach in Sydney at least). So she can consent to displaying her breasts, and on clothes optional beaches the rest of herself as well, but she cannot consent to having her photograph taken in the same state of undress, as such a photo is in itself against the law. I am not arguing here that child porn should be allowed: I am simply pointing out an anomaly under the law.

So the law attempts to protect against child pornography, but does not present children from exposing themselves. Perhaps children under 16 should not be permitted to expose themselves on beaches or anywhere else?

Getting back to context: a girl wearing a Lycra outfit with a gym bag over her shoulder in a suburban shopping centre is simply showing that she is going to the gym. The same attire, at 2.00am in Kings Cross, St Kilda or on Canterbury Road is saying something very different.

And rape isn't always about power: as an example, a man who takes sexual advantage over a drunk girl at a party is as guilty of rape as someone who uses a knife to threaten. However one can be seen as a sexual encounter without informed consent, the other can be seen in the context of sex and power, obviously without consent.

If you walk about naked in public you'll get arrested. And some would say that's just silly if a woman is involved...try doing it if you are a man.

An article made extraordinary by its courage and bravery. Thank you.

"As a feminist, I want to shout out to young girls, like an onlooker in a pantomime, watch out, you’re being had.

Agreed. The biggest con job lately is this idea that the best way to impress the opposite sex is to assert your sexuality. The "pop" dress code implies that our mainstream culture regards sexuality as the quality in a woman that men regard with most esteem. Thus women who are neither experienced nor available attract lecherous dolts who are being lead along by their testosterone rather than their heads. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for lecherous behaviour from males.

Dressing and behaving like this is distracting and even embarrassing to even the most liberal man. My Doctor said to me the other day whilst discussing my blood tests. "Ronnie there is actually some blood in your testosterone -you must be getting old."

Here is where the woman may get her power trip. She has replaced her shoulder pads with cleavage and leg. This "girlpower" is again a con because it so pretentious and depends on a power that doesn't involve the intellect, character, culture or even a proper sensuous aspect.

I am not saying that women shouldn't dress sexily and seductively during special times or walk down the beach in a brief, but gee wiz I'd sooner sit on a train with a group of real punk rockers (who would most likely agree that girlpower is more music industry a scam) than sit on a train or a workplace with tits and bums flashing all over the place.

In certain situations the advertisers have conned the girl into marketing her own gullibility and a demeaning a one dimensional model that will only attract a person of limited character. Often the girls have attributes that are very appealing but the people they attract aren’t interested in a real well-rounded woman. Girlpower and flashing is just a male way for certain women to feel secure. Having said this, it goes without saying that this is no excuse to harm people who choose to dress provocatively. No excuses.

Hamlet...well said..*context*..... and strangely enough, there are different 'boundaries' depending on context.... like beach has one set, office has another, family gathering another.

SHOCK HORROR.. we are talking about... wait.. CULTURE :)

Ronnie.. ditto on the gullability of girls and the pressure from the Music industry... we should stone the MTV producers at the outskirts of the city :)

David, re: music industry. So you do have soemthing in common with alternate old-school punk rockers. Maybe if youngsters were more individual they would give the manufacturers of godlike icons that must be followed to fit in the finger and assert their own self worth.

Barbara can I please go off topic here for a moment? David take a look at a the movie/doco "New York Dolls". It tracks the life of base guitarist Arthur Kane (Killer K)who died a while back. Take special notice of David Johannsen's tribute song to KillerK. Hymm 29 "Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." Take notice also of the the way the other band members who aren't really converts respect Killer K.

Notice also the how the ones who step outside the music industry's genres are the ones who are treated as heretics - at first. New York Dolls saved the music industry - set down the roots for alternative music. Maybe we should encourage our kids to be heretics for they are the ones who will undermine the culture of unthinking obedience to the mainstream music industry's pap.