RE: Blurred lines

I think there is a deep misunderstanding between "offending the eye" and laws. What offends my eye does not need to be legislated, is my view on this.
There are men I find quite handsome bare-chested and I would be sad if my eye were no longer allowed to behold such naked masculinity. If such things were banned by law (or habit), then not only the rather unattractive men would be deprived of the opportunity to give vent to their sweating upper bodies, but also the others.
In my opinion, granting women and men equal rights is pointless because they are unequal. I say frankly that I do not think that the image of the always oppressed woman is correct. They may have been disadvantaged in some areas of life, but not in others. Women never had to go to war, they are statistically less suspected and convicted of criminal offences. And if a woman wants to take revenge on a man, she has many means to do so. She can damage the man's reputation, ruin his financial existence if she sets out to harm him. Fathers have a much harder time getting custody of their children in this country, for example. Dealing with men at the youth welfare offices, for instance, is not necessarily the same as dealing with women. There are also interesting historical examples that contradict the image of the eternally oppressed woman. But that would be going too far here.

I just want to say that I plead for a free body culture and then also accept that my eye is insulted from time to time. By the way, I would say that if you sexually harass someone, it's the intention rather than the appearance.

Greetings to you.