Pants, pants suits, etc., on a woman can be very sexy. They appeal to the homosexual in a man, and each male has certain homosexual elements. For some men, doubtless a woman in pants combines the best of two worlds. Also, of course, pants, from the woman’s point of view, appeal to the Lesbian in her. Every female, of course, possesses some Lesbian inclinations. It is natural, to some extent, for a woman to occasionally feel attraction toward other women, and for a man to feel it toward another man. Indulging these inclinations, of course, is quite a different matter, one likely to lead to frustration and incompleteness. It is no accident that there are two sexes, which have been, by sexual selection, designing one another for hundreds of generations for the mutual pleasure of the other. Men have chosen attractive women, and women, to the extent permitted, have chosen attractive men. After hundreds of centuries of this sort of thing it is no wonder that human males and females are sexy, attractive creatures. Men and women are for one another; anything else is second best. Another significance of the pants suit, etc., is that it taunts the man, in a very female fashion, challenging him. It is the assumption of what, culturally, is still regarded primarily as a male prerogative. It is a tacit sexual challenge to the male to remove them from her, to make her again a female. What man does not, or would not, enjoy removing such a garment from a woman? They can be removed rudely and swiftly, of course, only if the woman is on her back. (In certain sex games, one might suppose, the woman begins them in pants; she is not, however, permitted to finish them that way.) Incidentally, it is doubtless a cultural matter that pants have been identified as a male garment and dresses as female garments. If men wore dresses and women pants, many of the same observations such as those above would retain their validity. Substantially the same challenge, for example, in a world in which dresses were primarily male clothing, would be symbolically uttered by a woman who refused to wear pants and donned a dress. In our culture, of course, the dress is predominantly a female garment. This may change, but, as of now, it is substantially true. It is perhaps worth remarking on why women have been placed in dresses. Simply because something is cultural does not mean that it is random, or might as simply have been another way. The reasons would appear to be twofold. Pants permit great freedom of movement; dresses, particularly long dresses, prohibit it. The dress is a hobbling device, which reflects the bondage of the female. It is as useful as chaining her ankles together. She cannot run. She is confined. She is captive. She is owned. The second reason is an extremely sexy one. It is, briefly, that she, at least throughout most periods of history, is not permitted protection or shielding for her genitals. Petticoats, for example, do not shield the genitals. They cover the hips and legs. Most men, throughout history, have had the exquisite knowledge that, beneath those long dresses, the genitals of those gracious beauties were exposed, even those of a queen. The hand can easily creep up an ankle; it can knife up a dress; a dress can be, simply and aesthetically, lifted and thrown back. The dress, historically, is a tantalizing garment. It also makes the woman more available. The current miniskirt, incidentally, is a marvelous garment symbolically. Long may it wave! First it incorporates a clear rejection of the role of woman as hobbled prisoner. The miniskirt permits great freedom. Secondly, it exhibits an admirable pagan acceptance and pride of a girl in her body. In this sense it is very healthy and very feminine. She is female, and she shamelessly and joyously exhibits her beauty. Thirdly, it is a tantalizing garment, because it suggests the openness of her, her availability, the ease with which a male hand is invited to touch her. It says she is beautiful and sexy, and wants to be a good lay. In the light of such considerations the panties or pantyhose commonly worn under such a garment are almost irrelevant. The one difficulty with the miniskirt is that it, like other skirts, does not exhibit the sweetness of her ass as well as it might. This difficulty is remedied, of course, by levis, bikinis, and such. Women must understand, it seems, that their asses, like the rest of them, are very attractive to men. The flanks of a filly drive stallions wild.