He said Rule No. 2 is intended to make certain each participant shows up "dressed in a respectful manner." What he says is that each conferee must wear "professional attire."
So if you are jetting out to Kansas to make known your feelings about the ethics of the Sunflower State, forget about wearing "skimpy blouses or plunging necklines."
You're right if you figure that this stricture only applies to the ladies. Sen. Holmes, who apparently fell asleep in 1963 and has not noticed the subsequent changes in our society, says he has observed "provocatively clad" females at the Capitol. And, showing too much while testifying is a distraction, he said, seemingly believing that looking at a comely woman stops male legislators from concentrating on their briefs.
Asked why there are no guidelines to stop male from testifying in Zubaz pants, a tank top and a porkpie hat, Holmes said “It’s one of those things that’s hard to define. Put it out there and let people know we’re really looking for you to be addressing the issue rather than trying to distract or bring eyes to yourself.”
Yes, ladies, every time you put on that one special dress - you know which one! - you only do it because it so bewitches men who, as we all know, have no self-restraint in public, nor should they have any, to Holmes's way of thinking.
Four women senators — two Republicans and two Democrats — said there should be unilateral demands on citizens who wish to testify about public policy in a public hearing dressed as they see fit to appear in public.
“Oh, for crying out loud, what century is this?” - Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat.It was a Republican, Sen. Carolyn McGinn, who pointed out that this might undermine the committee's ability to hear the truth that would come from members of the public who are not able to dress up to the standards of, say, the panelists on "The View."
“I am more interested in what they have to say about the direction our state should go than what they’re wearing that day,” McGinn said.