To Donna Karan, et al:

Under-dressing does not constitute implied consent.

I don't recommend walking around in your skivvies, ladies.  However, it is curious to me that someone female walking around in their skivvies is seen as "asking for it" whereas someone in a two piece at the beach (sometimes even less fabric than the former) is not.

I like to shop conservative clothing sites (because most of it is darn comfortable), but it should be socially acceptable for me to wear whatever I want.  My clothing should not automatically reflect my preferences, politics, or desires.  It is clothing.  It's simply something to wear.

A few college friends of mine completed their senior choreography concert in the nude as a method of proving the non-sexuality of nakedness for the sake of nakedness.  I thoroughly agree with the concept.  There is some highly personal sharing going on when you walk around in the nude, but to automatically sexualize it seems perverse.

Around 2005, an elderly man was found in downtown Seattle, walking completely in the nude.  I don't believe that it made the news...folks helped him out pretty quickly.  I was there...and worried like the people around me.  The man required assistance, but no one seemed to sexualize his nudity as a matter of course.

The hyper-sexualization of female nudity must be responsible for the ridiculous double-standard regarding nipples. I'm a huge fan of the breast.  They're awesome from stem to stern.  But WHY is it unacceptable for a woman to bare her breast to feed an infant in public?  Odds are, you were breastfed too.  Aside from the biological purpose of the breast, the primary (outwardly) physical difference between male and female breasts is simply a matter of average fat surrounding the mammary gland.  Neither of these factors is objectively sexual.  The determining factor in whether a breast is provocative resides in societal norms.

Now, I am a fan of dressing appropriately for the occasion (for example, I like to leave revealing shirts at home when I'm expected to run a business meeting).  However, consider the double standard in play when it is hot outside.  A man wears what is basically a tank top and short shorts...he's dressing comfortably for a casual jog in the park.  A woman wears what is basically a tank top and short shorts, she's usually considered under-dressed for that same jog.

I repeat:  Under-dressing does not constitute implied consent.

The argument that any woman who is under-dressed is "asking for it" assumes that men cannot control themselves and would likely copulate with anything whatsoever so long as they could get away with it.  That type of mentality takes the double standard of "Boys will be boys" to a point of absurdity.  Further, the concept is universally sexist.

I don't pretend to be the authority on what all *might* constitute consent under different circumstances.  However, to me, it is fairly obvious that we need to take a sharp look at our societal norms and what these norms communicate about self-value.  Violence is not an acceptable response to nudity.