So you know, there's a Quote function in the Hubski Markup. If you put | before and after things you want quoted it'll make it a lot easier to read.

I think we're seeing eye to eye here more than we are disagreeing, especially on the effect of social constructs on how we view other people. I'd also like to repeat here (as I tried to make clear in my original comment), that these are things that affect all genders, not just a men vs women thing.

Treating a person differently has little to do with hormones.

I agree, however there are many, MANY sexual assault and rape cases where "S/He was asking for It" or "Look at what S/He was wearing, I couldn't help myself" are used, along with other defences that place the blame on the victim while citing an inability to control themselves. What do we mean when we say someone "can't control themselves"? Usually we are referring to some sort of Edwardian concept of the "animalistic human" which we all keep inside of us, mostly composed of hormones and the "reptillian brain" (a theory which is not 100% accepted, though it is popular in public thought). So when I said "Unable to control their reaction to their hormones", this is what I was referring to. If you can't "Control yourself" in that sense, then perhaps you need to get some help.

Where do we treat the female form as inferior and what does that have to do with wearing decent clothing in public?

I won't comment specifically on the treatment of the feminine figure as inferior, though If you decide to embark on a journey through sociological textbooks to get more info I think you'd gain at least some good points to refute or differ from.

However, you touch upon a pivotal concept. what exactly are "decent clothes", where did we get that Idea, and how do we define it? There are all sorts of things that are considered "Decent Clothes" which are also able to be put into the light of a sexual object (Without delving into the idea of "Fetish" whether in the Marxian or causal usage of the term). A plain black Pencil Skirt that is Knee length and non-revealing Can be seen as incredibly sexy, as can the suits shown in the original article. What these person are wearing is seen as "Decent Clothes" in a young office setting (maybe add a blazer for the woman). But someone could be wearing these clothes and be walking home, get raped, and then someone would say "they were asking for it." that shit's unacceptable, yo.

But we have two options: we can make some sort of societal dress code which prevents "Dark thoughts" (See Burkas and Niqabs), or we can allow people to wear what they want and not be such judgemental pricks who can't prevent themselves from being handsy. Because the Status quo just isn't cutting it.

What does this have to do with the article?

At this point in my comment I've moved into a broader picture, not just involving the clothes we wear, but how we treat people who are "Societally exceptional" or not fitting into "normal." We simultaneously put them on a pedestal and throw rotten tomatoes at them, when they deserve neither. I see that as pretty fucked up, and it's what I was trying to get at.

you see fewer men going against what is expected of them.

Men are at a historical advantage here in what is "expected of them", though, come to think of it, what is really "expected of them?" Why do women AND men need to be stuck in the rut of what has been historically expected of them?

It's late, I'm getting ramble-y again, so I'll leave it there, because it's going to get incoherent. Needless to say, Of course these things affect all genders and all people. Switching the Genders, as the article does, is a literary exercise to put a finer point on what people say, and the problems with it.