Montana Republican: NO YOGA PANTS, NO NO NO!!!

[DigitalDrifter]

Your opinion. Take your "pseudo-daughter" to an Amish

Your opinion. Take your "pseudo-daughter" to an Amish area.

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Hey I love these things, but I think underage girls need to aware of what their doing, and a father needs to set down some rules for their kids. You got a problem with that ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Black men have typically always been ass men.

Ask yourself this question. Why would you not let your daughter go out in public like that? I only see 2 reasons. Fear or religion.

I'm not religious.

When she turns 18 if she wants to walk around naked, then it's up to her.
As a father, and I am to two beautiful girls, I am very uncomfortable to see an outfit like this that would have men and boys ready to cum in their pants just from looking.

This was beyond even a bikini, this left nothing to the imagination, and as a father, if they're underage, it's simply not acceptable.

 

[Asclepias]

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Black men have typically always been ass men.

Ask yourself this question. Why would you not let your daughter go out in public like that? I only see 2 reasons. Fear or religion.

I'm not religious.

When she turns 18 if she wants to walk around naked, then it's up to her.
As a father, and I am to two beautiful girls, I am very uncomfortable to see an outfit like this that would have men and boys ready to cum in their pants just from looking.

This was beyond even a bikini, this left nothing to the imagination, and as a father, if they're underage, it's simply not acceptable.

So it seems in a round about way would you agree its fear?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Black men have typically always been ass men.

Ask yourself this question. Why would you not let your daughter go out in public like that? I only see 2 reasons. Fear or religion.

I'm not religious.

When she turns 18 if she wants to walk around naked, then it's up to her.
As a father, and I am to two beautiful girls, I am very uncomfortable to see an outfit like this that would have men and boys ready to cum in their pants just from looking.

This was beyond even a bikini, this left nothing to the imagination, and as a father, if they're underage, it's simply not acceptable.

So it seems in a round about way would you agree its fear?

Yes.

It's fear that other men might be more likely to attack them when they are dressed in these.

My local school district has banned girls from wearing these, unless they also have a blouse that covers their butts completely. That's a good policy IMO.

 

[Asclepias]

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Black men have typically always been ass men.

Ask yourself this question. Why would you not let your daughter go out in public like that? I only see 2 reasons. Fear or religion.

I'm not religious.

When she turns 18 if she wants to walk around naked, then it's up to her.
As a father, and I am to two beautiful girls, I am very uncomfortable to see an outfit like this that would have men and boys ready to cum in their pants just from looking.

This was beyond even a bikini, this left nothing to the imagination, and as a father, if they're underage, it's simply not acceptable.

So it seems in a round about way would you agree its fear?

Yes.

It's fear that other men might be more likely to attack them when they are dressed in these.

My local school district has banned girls from wearing these, unless they also have a blouse that covers their butts completely. That's a good policy IMO.

Do you think its an irrational fear or something instinctive?

 

[boilermaker55]

?

Your opinion. Take your "pseudo-daughter" to an Amish

Your opinion. Take your "pseudo-daughter" to an Amish area.

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Hey I love these things, but I think underage girls need to aware of what their doing, and a father needs to set down some rules for their kids. You got a problem with that ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yoga pants are why most men are now ass men instead of breast men.

These things are great, but they can be taken too far.

Last year I was in a Home Depot, and I noticed a girl of about 16 or 17 that was with a man that I took to be her dad.
She was absolutely gorgeous, long blonde hair, near perfect physique. She was wearing the typical black yoga pants that you see everywhere now.
They turned, and from behind it literally looked like her pants were painted on.
I thought to myself that if that was my daughter, and she was under 18, there was no way in hell that I would let her go out in public like that. It was ridiculous, she may as well been naked, and I thought what a bad father this dick was.

Black men have typically always been ass men.

Ask yourself this question. Why would you not let your daughter go out in public like that? I only see 2 reasons. Fear or religion.

I'm not religious.

When she turns 18 if she wants to walk around naked, then it's up to her.
As a father, and I am to two beautiful girls, I am very uncomfortable to see an outfit like this that would have men and boys ready to cum in their pants just from looking.

This was beyond even a bikini, this left nothing to the imagination, and as a father, if they're underage, it's simply not acceptable.

So it seems in a round about way would you agree its fear?

Yes.

It's fear that other men might be more likely to attack them when they are dressed in these.

My local school district has banned girls from wearing these, unless they also have a blouse that covers their butts completely. That's a good policy IMO.

Do you think its an irrational fear or something instinctive?

I don't think it's irrational for a father to set standards for his underage children.
I'm not exactly ordering my girls to wear the burka, and I don't expect my boys to be monks.
In fact they had a lot of latitude.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oops! Now you changed it from people looking like trash to people being (are) trash. The first is an evaluation of outward appearance, the second is a judgment on the intrinsic worthiness of people. I'm sure they are one and the same to you, but to the rest of us, the difference couldn't be greater.

That is probably the most intelligent post in this thread so far. This, I can work with....

If you go back to the beginning you will see that I have not changed anything. I've maintained that trashy is as trashy does. You are correct to note that what one projects is not necessarily equivalent to a person's "inner quality," if you will. But on the other hand, a person's outward behavior is typically a reflection of their inner character.

I think most people tend to consider a person's inner character as a static thing, and society as a whole certainly leans more in favor of that belief. Is it not normal for people to see past behavior as being a strong indicator of future behavior? If you know someone who has a history of excessive gambling and despite reforming their ways they have recently been made multiple requests of you to borrow petty amounts of money, would you not wonder if they've perhaps fallen off the wagon? Modern business practices have begun to focus much more heavily on an intrinsic view of employees and employment candidates, hence the surging popularity of the behavioral job interview and the nearly ubiquitous personality/talent assessments that more and more companies are using to pre-screen applicants and to evaluate their potential and qualifications for growth. In a more personal example, if a lover cheats on you, would you not lose trust in that person? Doesn't their behavior indicate something about the quality of their character? Isn't the act of losing trust a judgement about their intrinsic character; one based on their outward behavior, and including an expectation that said intrinsic character has a strong likelihood of re-creating similar future behavior?

I tend to take a somewhat different view in that I see intrinsic value to be much more flexible, and even malleable to a certain extent. A person can be dishonest and conniving one day, but a model of honesty the next day. A person's intrinsic value can change from day to day. If a person is a model of honest today, does that chance the fact that they were a dishonest person the day before? No, it does not. Neither assessment is wrong. Both are correct in their moment of time. In the long term, intrinsic value can also be assessed overall based on the behavioral trends. A person can be generally an honest person even though they've had times when they've been very dishonest. A person can be an overall kind and gentle person even if they've had times when they've been cruel and mean spirited.

We all have our demons, nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean that a person is evil just because they've made some poor choices at some point. Speaking of choices, that's what it all comes down to at the end of the day. Whatever interior character a person has, all behavior is a decision. Your intrinsic qualities can influence your decisions, but they do not control them. You are always in control of your decisions. I believe that there is a chicken-and-egg reinforcement relationship between inner character and behavior. Good character influences you to make more good decisions. Bad character influences you to make more bad decisions. But we also have the ability to take conscious control and made decisions in spite of that influence. Start getting into the habit of making the kinds of better decisions that reflect a higher quality of character, and your inner character will grow to absorb those qualities.

So yes, intrinsic value is different than outward behavior. But the two have a very close relationship, and we as individuals have the ability to utilize that connection.

 

[SwimExpert]

So you can't tell the difference between non sexual nudity and two people humping?

Of course I can tell the difference. But they do have something in common, which is that they are both socially unacceptable. Why should public sex acts remain socially unacceptable? As you said, the human body is a beautiful thing. I would also add that physical love is a beautiful thing. Doesn't that make public sex more beautiful than non sexual public nudity?

Regardless of the reasons, we are all responsible for our behaviors. We have a responsibility to evaluate and understand how our behaviors will generally be perceived. If we choose behaviors that will incite negative views of ourselves, then we bear the responsibility for those decisions.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oops! Now you changed it from people looking like trash to people being (are) trash. The first is an evaluation of outward appearance, the second is a judgment on the intrinsic worthiness of people. I'm sure they are one and the same to you, but to the rest of us, the difference couldn't be greater.

That is probably the most intelligent post in this thread so far. This, I can work with....

If you go back to the beginning you will see that I have not changed anything. I've maintained that trashy is as trashy does. You are correct to note that what one projects is not necessarily equivalent to a person's "inner quality," if you will. But on the other hand, a person's outward behavior is typically a reflection of their inner character.

I think most people tend to consider a person's inner character as a static thing, and society as a whole certainly leans more in favor of that belief. Is it not normal for people to see past behavior as being a strong indicator of future behavior? If you know someone who has a history of excessive gambling and despite reforming their ways they have recently been made multiple requests of you to borrow petty amounts of money, would you not wonder if they've perhaps fallen off the wagon? Modern business practices have begun to focus much more heavily on an intrinsic view of employees and employment candidates, hence the surging popularity of the behavioral job interview and the nearly ubiquitous personality/talent assessments that more and more companies are using to pre-screen applicants and to evaluate their potential and qualifications for growth. In a more personal example, if a lover cheats on you, would you not lose trust in that person? Doesn't their behavior indicate something about the quality of their character? Isn't the act of losing trust a judgement about their intrinsic character; one based on their outward behavior, and including an expectation that said intrinsic character has a strong likelihood of re-creating similar future behavior?

I tend to take a somewhat different view in that I see intrinsic value to be much more flexible, and even malleable to a certain extent. A person can be dishonest and conniving one day, but a model of honesty the next day. A person's intrinsic value can change from day to day. If a person is a model of honest today, does that chance the fact that they were a dishonest person the day before? No, it does not. Neither assessment is wrong. Both are correct in their moment of time. In the long term, intrinsic value can also be assessed overall based on the behavioral trends. A person can be generally an honest person even though they've had times when they've been very dishonest. A person can be an overall kind and gentle person even if they've had times when they've been cruel and mean spirited.

We all have our demons, nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean that a person is evil just because they've made some poor choices at some point. Speaking of choices, that's what it all comes down to at the end of the day. Whatever interior character a person has, all behavior is a decision. Your intrinsic qualities can influence your decisions, but they do not control them. You are always in control of your decisions. I believe that there is a chicken-and-egg reinforcement relationship between inner character and behavior. Good character influences you to make more good decisions. Bad character influences you to make more bad decisions. But we also have the ability to take conscious control and made decisions in spite of that influence. Start getting into the habit of making the kinds of better decisions that reflect a higher quality of character, and your inner character will grow to absorb those qualities.

So yes, intrinsic value is different than outward behavior. But the two have a very close relationship, and we as individuals have the ability to utilize that connection.

That was a lengthy, thoughtful response. Thank you. I'm elevating you in my mind as a poster of higher esteem and reconsidering my previous comments as having missed something.

The problem I see is asserting your opinion of how one dresses as indicative of their overall character. I know for a fact that the fatter people are, the harder it is to look good. And expensive. Walmart may be filled with these people but they don't cater to them in the clothing department; their merchandise no bigger than 3X. And you can't walk out of Destination XL without parting with a few hundred dollars. Finding things that fit can be a challenge. Now the debate over how much control they have over their obesity aside, I'm suggesting they don't have as much choice as you think.

And when it comes to character, I think it's better evaluated by what people do rather than how they appear. I know a woman tattooed head to toe that would give you her last morsel of food if you were hungry. Appearances don't tell the whole story.

But my biggest issue with this prude in Montana is pushing a law that targets clothes that reveal the outline of genitals, furthering the myth that the human body is obscene, shameful, and something to be hidden at all times. It's also a repugnant "Family Values" agenda that has government intruding on things I think should be none of its business. Unless people are posing a health hazard by going naked and leaving pubic hair and fecal smears all over, I don't think government has a compelling interest in telling people how to dress.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you can't tell the difference between non sexual nudity and two people humping?

Of course I can tell the difference. But they do have something in common, which is that they are both socially unacceptable. Why should public sex acts remain socially unacceptable? As you said, the human body is a beautiful thing. I would also add that physical love is a beautiful thing. Doesn't that make public sex more beautiful than non sexual public nudity?

Regardless of the reasons, we are all responsible for our behaviors. We have a responsibility to evaluate and understand how our behaviors will generally be perceived. If we choose behaviors that will incite negative views of ourselves, then we bear the responsibility for those decisions.

Well most people can tell the difference. My own home is "clothing optional" as many homes now are. Sure it's controversial on parenting forums, but just a style of parenting that some people disagree with. Now if my wife and I were having sex in front of the kids, CPS would be called and charges brought to bear. As it is, we grown ups limit our naked time while the kids are free balling all the time.

And it's that way in public too. Even laws that are relaxed on nudity in certain venues don't allow somebody to start masturbating in public, even though it's as you said, natural. There seems to be a consensus that public sex acts are always obscene even where nudity is allowed.

 

[SwimExpert]

My premise is your post.

No, you are inserting your own assumptions, which you've been doing since the beginning of the thread. First you were assuming that I was angry or offended, now you're making new assumptions.

Thats all I need to know about you.

Thank goodness. For a moment there, I thought you were going to be a closed minded bigot who had no interest in understanding my position before you made judgements.

You are a close minded bigot if you claim people are trashy due to their clothing and you are unable to articulate a suitable reason other than because "you say so".

That sounds like a judgement of my intrinsic value. Goodness me, what hypocrisy. Looks like you're the one battling with cognitive dissonance.

No one is arguing some people are trashy so dont try to deflect.

But how can you identify which people are trashy? You've ruled out the permissibility of such assessments.

I wont allow that.

Oh look, you're forcing your beliefs on other people. You've now done everything you've accused me of doing. Like I said earlier, all you're doing is projecting.

Attributing trashiness to what someone wears is an idiots game.

Perhaps. But you need to look deeper. I'm not attributing trashiness to what people are wearing. I'm attributing to decision making reflecting a lack of class and self respect. Notice these two women, who are wearing exactly the same thing. The first one presents herself as trashy, the second one does not.

Claiming that anyone that doesnt have a mindset such as yours is also an idiots game.

I guess that makes you an idiot, because all you've been able to say is that Swim Expert is a closed minded bigot because he disagrees with you.

As of yet you have failed to provide anything but circular logic for you conclusions. You fail massively on an intellectual level.

Actually, the problem is that you refuse to elevate your mindset to a higher level, and insist on framing everything I say within the scope of the assumptions you keep making and are unwilling to shed. You also seem to lack any degree of social awareness. Your whole position seems to boil down to saying because you have an opinion, all views on the matter are opinions. That is circular logic. You simply will not get it through your head that just because your position is an opinionated one based on personal preferences does not mean that another person's position cannot be an assessment based on objective truths. That's no different than creationists saying that their belief is equally valid to scientific knowledge because belief in science is no different than belief in religion. You are operating on the intellectual level of a creationist.

And you want to talk to me about intellectual failure? Son, you need to get with the program. Your grade school level of thinking on this is far too inhibited. At least St. Mike is disagreeing with me intelligently and with an open mind. You think you know it all and have life all figured out. You haven't even scratched the surface.

 

[Political Junky]

How long before Right Wing Christians call for women to wear a hijab or burka?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How long before Right Wing Christians call for women to wear a hijab or burka?

Are you stupid?

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually its your problem not mine. You are controlled by what someone decides you should do.

No, I am controlled by my own decisions. And thus, I am responsible for them.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right. You have the right to change what you don't like about America, but everyone else has to leave?

What am I trying to change?

 

[SwimExpert]

Well most people can tell the difference. My own home is "clothing optional" as many homes now are. Sure it's controversial on parenting forums, but just a style of parenting that some people disagree with. Now if my wife and I were having sex in front of the kids, CPS would be called and charges brought to bear. As it is, we grown ups limit our naked time while the kids are free balling all the time.

And it's that way in public too. Even laws that are relaxed on nudity in certain venues don't allow somebody to start masturbating in public, even though it's as you said, natural. There seems to be a consensus that public sex acts are always obscene even where nudity is allowed.

But why?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Right. You have the right to change what you don't like about America, but everyone else has to leave?

What am I trying to change?

You're just now getting around to responding to that?

Nobody needs to go to Europe just because they believe Europeans do some things better.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well most people can tell the difference. My own home is "clothing optional" as many homes now are. Sure it's controversial on parenting forums, but just a style of parenting that some people disagree with. Now if my wife and I were having sex in front of the kids, CPS would be called and charges brought to bear. As it is, we grown ups limit our naked time while the kids are free balling all the time.

And it's that way in public too. Even laws that are relaxed on nudity in certain venues don't allow somebody to start masturbating in public, even though it's as you said, natural. There seems to be a consensus that public sex acts are always obscene even where nudity is allowed.

But why?

Because nudity is not obscene, the open display of sex acts are.

Even defecating is natural, doesn't mean people want to see it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oops! Now you changed it from people looking like trash to people being (are) trash. The first is an evaluation of outward appearance, the second is a judgment on the intrinsic worthiness of people. I'm sure they are one and the same to you, but to the rest of us, the difference couldn't be greater.

That is probably the most intelligent post in this thread so far. This, I can work with....

If you go back to the beginning you will see that I have not changed anything. I've maintained that trashy is as trashy does. You are correct to note that what one projects is not necessarily equivalent to a person's "inner quality," if you will. But on the other hand, a person's outward behavior is typically a reflection of their inner character.

I think most people tend to consider a person's inner character as a static thing, and society as a whole certainly leans more in favor of that belief. Is it not normal for people to see past behavior as being a strong indicator of future behavior? If you know someone who has a history of excessive gambling and despite reforming their ways they have recently been made multiple requests of you to borrow petty amounts of money, would you not wonder if they've perhaps fallen off the wagon? Modern business practices have begun to focus much more heavily on an intrinsic view of employees and employment candidates, hence the surging popularity of the behavioral job interview and the nearly ubiquitous personality/talent assessments that more and more companies are using to pre-screen applicants and to evaluate their potential and qualifications for growth. In a more personal example, if a lover cheats on you, would you not lose trust in that person? Doesn't their behavior indicate something about the quality of their character? Isn't the act of losing trust a judgement about their intrinsic character; one based on their outward behavior, and including an expectation that said intrinsic character has a strong likelihood of re-creating similar future behavior?

I tend to take a somewhat different view in that I see intrinsic value to be much more flexible, and even malleable to a certain extent. A person can be dishonest and conniving one day, but a model of honesty the next day. A person's intrinsic value can change from day to day. If a person is a model of honest today, does that chance the fact that they were a dishonest person the day before? No, it does not. Neither assessment is wrong. Both are correct in their moment of time. In the long term, intrinsic value can also be assessed overall based on the behavioral trends. A person can be generally an honest person even though they've had times when they've been very dishonest. A person can be an overall kind and gentle person even if they've had times when they've been cruel and mean spirited.

We all have our demons, nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean that a person is evil just because they've made some poor choices at some point. Speaking of choices, that's what it all comes down to at the end of the day. Whatever interior character a person has, all behavior is a decision. Your intrinsic qualities can influence your decisions, but they do not control them. You are always in control of your decisions. I believe that there is a chicken-and-egg reinforcement relationship between inner character and behavior. Good character influences you to make more good decisions. Bad character influences you to make more bad decisions. But we also have the ability to take conscious control and made decisions in spite of that influence. Start getting into the habit of making the kinds of better decisions that reflect a higher quality of character, and your inner character will grow to absorb those qualities.

So yes, intrinsic value is different than outward behavior. But the two have a very close relationship, and we as individuals have the ability to utilize that connection.

That was a lengthy, thoughtful response. Thank you. I'm elevating you in my mind as a poster of higher esteem and reconsidering my previous comments as having missed something.

The problem I see is asserting your opinion of how one dresses as indicative of their overall character. I know for a fact that the fatter people are, the harder it is to look good. And expensive. Walmart may be filled with these people but they don't cater to them in the clothing department; their merchandise no bigger than 3X. And you can't walk out of Destination XL without parting with a few hundred dollars. Finding things that fit can be a challenge. Now the debate over how much control they have over their obesity aside, I'm suggesting they don't have as much choice as you think.

And when it comes to character, I think it's better evaluated by what people do rather than how they appear. I know a woman tattooed head to toe that would give you her last morsel of food if you were hungry. Appearances don't tell the whole story.

But my biggest issue with this prude in Montana is pushing a law that targets clothes that reveal the outline of genitals, furthering the myth that the human body is obscene, shameful, and something to be hidden at all times. It's also a repugnant "Family Values" agenda that has government intruding on things I think should be none of its business. Unless people are posing a health hazard by going naked and leaving pubic hair and fecal smears all over, I don't think government has a compelling interest in telling people how to dress.

I don't think attractiveness is really the issue so much. You don't have to look great to have class. You just need to be presentable and show that you have some basic self respect. My sister is one of the references that I always look to. She's been overweight pretty much her entire life. But she carries herself well. She makes the effort to present a good image of herself. Things like that do go well beyond clothing. But the decision to make the effort goes along way too. On Monday I start a new job. I'll be going in in a clean charcoal suit, pressed shirt, actually have a new tie I'll be wearing. Actually, the tie isn't necessary as they've already told me that the dress code is business casual and that ties are not required. But I do this in order to present the best image of myself as I can. For the second day, I plan for a navy blazer with gray slacks, and probably will not be donning a tie again without a specific need, so that I won't create the impression that I hold myself separate from the rest of the group. My presentation is a decision I make. Adults are expected to understand that our behaviors have consequences and that how we choose to present ourselves will create perceptions by those around us.

I agree that this guy in Montana is being a douche bag. If a woman wants to go out in public in yoga pants, that's her right. The government has no place getting involved. If people are bothered by it, they don't have to look. She'll reap the rewards and punishments from society on her own. Let individuals assess the moral quality of behaviors for their own selves, and live their lives accordingly.