In Amy Johnson’s June 3 column on threats to women’s safety, she provided some statistics to back some of her points. Well done, Amy. I had complained about a lack of scientific support behind some of her (and others in popular media) claims about gender issues. So here’s to acknowledging her efforts along that line.

I noticed one opportunity she missed, though. So I will complain again about Amy’s ideas on the issue of women’s dress and male sexual assault.

Male sexual assault is bad. Agreed. But she seems to put all of the burden on males to simply stop viewing females as sexual objects (with some training) while setting females free to dress as they wish (perhaps also with some training… from clothing labels such as Pornstar).

If you’re a conscious person, you will realize that this is a night-and-day change in perspective. It used to be seen as a two-sided issue: Gentlemen, train you eyes and thoughts. Ladies, train your wardrobe.

If you’re especially alert, you’ll also wonder if it is rooted only in wishful thinking. I do wish it were true. I wish I could train myself to stop viewing less clad women as sex objects. But all I can manage is to stop viewing less clad women… sometimes. Among men I know (is it only we Christians?) this topic evokes knowing commiseration. A current book on the topic speaks volumes with its title, “Every Man’s Battle.”

So I return to asking Amy for something solid to back her vision: Science? Scholarship? Why in the world should we, especially men, believe in this one-sided vision? Indeed, young men can be taught to treat women with dignity and respect. The ’50s come to mind. And young women can be taught to dress the part.

Night and day difference.

Torger Helgeland, Auburn