>>4479038>How? The female body is refreshing.
There you just summed it up for us, you're reducing a woman to just her body. Women are more then that. Much more. Mothers, sisters, daughters. You're only talking about a women from your perspective, what you get out of it, seeing her body. You degenerate. > How is covering it up under 12 layers of clothing and elaborate hairstyles and repressed sex refreshing?
Strawman. While some of the women here are in elaborate outfits, there are plenty of examples that aren't. It's refreshing to see women who respect themselves and don't need to rely on showing flesh in order to be attractive, beautiful or valuable.
Why do you have a problem with someone dressing in a way that isn't sexual? Why does clothing have to reveal sexual organs or be sexually suggestive? Why cannot clothing express other things about us that don't have anything to do with sex? Like honour, confidence, strength, culture, etc. >Post-victorian nonsense
Actually it's anti-liberal morality. >Liberals rail against 'objectification' and agree w/ you that women are either jane austen or a prostitute.
No thats 'Progressives', liberals are concerned with freedom above all, 'don't hurt anyone and you can do what you like,' stupid shit like that. Progressives are the ones shouting sex work is real work and encourage young women to show their assholes on the internet for money.