Possibly "yes" to both at different times. But I don't see how that matters because the point of what I wrote is that it could have been considered by some to be unwanted touching and sexual harassment on the part of the woman.
Regardless of whether you objected or not, do you believe that you are conveying an invitation to be touched by what you wear?
Aside from something that says "kiss me I'm Irish" or something similar, no. And I don't actually expect it then. But I don't see how that matters because the point of what I wrote is that it could have been considered by some to be unwanted touching and sexual harassment on the part of the woman, even though I didn't think of it as such.
Has it ever been your expectation or belief that what you wear should be the determining factor in whether or not people should touch you?
Aside from something that says "kiss me I'm Irish" or something similar, no. And I don't acually expect it then. But I don't see how that matters because the point of what I wrote is that it could have been considered by some to be unwanted touching and sexual harassment on the part of the woman, even though I didn't think of it as such.
I was referring specifically to exposure of genitalia as a prelude to masturbation and an attempt to coerce another to join in this activity.
That wasn't clear to me. I was thinking of "exposing ones self" in a broader context.
There are many befuddling aspects to modern society and the legal system, but this simply is not one of them. What another person wears is not the way we decide whether or not we should touch any part of them.
The point of what I wrote is not about whether or not what another person wears is the way we decide whether or not we should touch any part of them. The point I intended is that what another person wears (or reveals by not wearing) may be considered by some to be sexual harassment.