"In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
Now, heaven knows,
Anything goes."

Cole Porter wrote these lines in 1934, before most of us on this thread were born.

Just goes to show that debates about "modest" dress are a perennial favourite, eh?

And thanks for the tip, RObert, I was wondering what that new button was for!

Somebody made the point early on in this forum, but it is worth saying again - indeed, I've been repeating it like a broken record for years.
If we are going to blame women and the way they dress for rape - because it creates such temptation in men that they cannot control themselves, why do we not then blame the rich man for tempting the poor man into becoming a thief? Surely the desire to own things - or even just to be able to feed your family - is just as uncontrollable an urge as the desire to rape an uncovered woman? It seems to drive much of the world (that bit called the economy), after all. Yet no religion, anywhere, blames the rich man for the crime of thieving. Doesn't the thief get his hand cut off under Sharia law? So surely this nonsensical ( and mysogynist) argument is just more of that good old double standard so beloved of all the world's major religions?
Here's another example of the difficulty some men have in seeing the world from a different perspective. back in the early days of the Jewish state, there was a serial rapist wreaking havoc in Tel Aviv. The Isreali cabinet gathered to discuss what they could do. A curfew of 9pm for women and girls was suggested - to protect them. It was gaining approval until the one female cabinet minister (Golda Mier) intervened. "A curfew is a good idea." she said, "But as it is obviously a man who is doing the raping, it should be all men and boys who must be off the streets by 9pm." There was a horrified silence, and then all the men in the cabinet hastily decided a curfew had no merit. She relates this incident in her biography "My Life."

You should have whispered that. Golda Mier was 71 when she became PM and our Man of Steel might get to hear about it.

ena, as is the way of these things I just recently heard that story somewhere and thought how well it illustrates the way women's basic rights are so often considered to be negotiable, or contingent on circumstances, whereas men's rights are inviolable. What? Expect MEN to modify their behaviour?? But that's a breach of human rights!
I think a lot of the posters here who complain about how hard done by white heterosexual men are nowadays are reacting to the relatively recent phenomenon of men's interests not being prioritised in every situation. It used to be that women were always the default losers; now sometimes men are the losers too, so their impression is that the tide has completely turned and women are now calling all the shots. In actual fact (if there is such a thing) there are now both male and female losers. Sorry, this post probably belongs in the paternity fraud comments.

Couldn't agree more, hedgepig.
I am sick of being told by posters on this site that, as a feminist, I must hate men, when all I really do is expect no more and no less of them than I would any other human being.
I LOVE men, and women and children - all of them in principle and a great many of them in practice.

R0bert thanks for the advice :-) but what posts of mine were you refering to when you wrote "you can copy a link to a specific post by hitting the small blue icon under a post - the one on the right of the set of icon's under each post"?