As I advised ...
Save it.
To reiterate from the present thread↑:
• We might observe yet again the correlation of misogyny with a dependence on a misandrist presumption of the incivility of males.
And then reiterated the underlying problem with the traditional logic among Guardians of Female Chastity, which also happens to be the asserted logic in the Oklahoma situation:
• But apparently, boys in Oklahoma, well, it would seem the reason people want to tell girls what they can and can't wear is that the boys just can't help themselves.
I closed with a potshot at the male supremacists:
• You need your #WhatAboutTheMen?
Well, there you go.
And then you went and asked some bizarre question↑ about leggings and yoga pants, and then a random one about some YouTube video that you can't even explain the significance of.
And it turns out you were just changing the subject↑.
It would be one thing to try to actually answer your inquiries, but they are incomprehensible.
To wit:
One answer is that between tributary and symptomatic, it's a dynamic interrelationship. This answer would point to the relationship between gendertyping, sexual roles, and what any garment is for.
Or perhaps I might simply laugh off the general stupidity of it all and note that I don't expect the reiteration of what is pretty straightforward will take this time, since you missed so widely the first. This point would orbit the posts from others I quoted. Those people reject the proposition of "rape culture" according to some fear of unfairly typing men, yet we see time and again that the misandrist typing of men as "savages by nature", &c., does not, in fact, come from feminists or analyses of rape culture but, quite apparently and repeatedly, from those who disdain the idea according to the straw man about stereotyping.
It isn't the proposition of rape culture that types men as rapists. Infinite Prevention Advocacy, male prerogative, man's inclination, the boys can't help but be distracted, and so on; these are all assertions against women, and in order to do it, the misogynists only need to indict all males.
Like in this thread. You're only, what, the fourth person to try some manner of the political correctness retort, and you couldn't even be bothered to account for the failures of those who preceded you.
There's always another one waiting to try.
And, yeah, when this idiocy shows its head, these days my inclination is to stomp it into the grease under the dust that followed the car that ran over the dog that was humping the leg of the horse you rode in on.
Honestly, man, if you've got a point to make, then make it.
And if your point is just to be the next vapid dismissal of rape culture as some sort of politically correct bogeyman, been there, done that, twice at least, and still don't like it but that doesn't matter since it doesn't fucking work, anyway.
Hey, I enjoy a navel-gazing, blow by blow recap, pseudo stream of consciousness as much as the next guy, but this borders on ridiculous. I asked a simple question about a news story you cited, with the equally simple intent of questioning whether it illustrated what you seemed to claim it did. I even provided counterpoint, from women, that objections to certain apparel did not necessarily hold a one-to-one relationship to rape culture/male supremacy motives. Instead of simply agreeing with this trivial fact, you seem to get overly defensive, to the point of blathering your way right past the simple observation.
So in that same vein, how would other school dress codes meant to lessen distractions (like barring gang-affiliated clothing) play into rape culture? What, they don't? OMG!