As a prudential matter, it would be impossible to enforce.
As a prudential matter, it would do more harm than good: women don’t put on yoga pants specifically to arouse men (usually), but to get a certain freedom of movement that other clothes don’t allow. Banning certain fashions would eliminate that good. It might eliminate one source of temptation for men, but, let’s be real – a man who can’t control himself in the face of yoga pants is not going to be able to control himself in the face of regular, day-to-day conversation with attractive women… to say nothing of the universe of
free internet porn in which we now irreversibly live.
As a prudential matter, it would be impossible to pass, and merely associating ourselves with it would be quite devastating in our present political climate.
As a prudential matter, it seems to me that these laws suggest to women that they are at fault for men’s bad behaviour, and therefore cultures that live under these laws suffer
greater violence against women and judicial cultures that make that violence
more acceptable even in courts of law. This law might conceivably reduce masturbation rates (though I doubt it), but at the same time could cause rape rates to shoot up. (The Muslim countries your friends live in are proof enough of that – sharia may be fair in theory, but, in practice, it executes extreme injustices on women throughout the Middle East, especially in rape cases).
As a matter of justice, it would not be fair: taking away a
woman’s freedom because of
men’s lack of virtue is not assigning the duty to avoid sin where it properly belongs – with the man who commissions the sin, rather than with the woman who (may accidentally) trigger a certain temptation towards it. This, to me, is the most serious problem with it.
I am not willing to say that such a law is
inherently evil, but I am saying that such laws are foolish, ill-advised, ineffective, unenforceable, unintentionally injurious, and very probably unjust.
