The whole article is immature and naive; not to mention how it ignores many other principles Scripture relates to the lust of the flesh, guarding your eyes (the pathway into the soul) or the pride of life. Like one court judge commented ‘it may be hard to define pornography (in this case modesty) but you know it when you see it !’ If it were not so prostitutes and poll dancers would just wear pants suits (probably more comfortable). Saying men are responsible for their own lusts (which of course no one debates) does not in turn empower women to dress without conscience or love toward others. The hermeneutics of the article ignores much. But we can make any argument seem plausible when we desire to justify what we want or don’t want to change about ourselves.