Puddle, you criticize me as a woman on a very low income "because I want cheap fashionable clothes."
Where do you get that the point is fashionable clothes. I need any clothes. I probably spend less than £100 a year on clothes. I live in £3 leggings and charity shop tops.
I also spend less than a 100 pound on my clothing. I buy it all from charity shops. I can't afford the luxury of new. That does not give me the right to demand cheap clothes.
You say "I could buy less fashionable a year out of season clothes but want this now." If you think you can get £5 tops more cheaply a year later you've never shopped in bottom rung clothes shops.
As I explained, I buy my clothes from charity shops, are they not bottom rung? That's where clothes that are out of season go to die. 
I at no point implied that people could just buy out of season clothes from expensive stores. So how exactly did you get that idea? Did I also say they could just swap to cake if bread was bit too expensive? The fact that I am poor does not make me less acountable for my actions.
Comparing my need for clothing to a man's "need" for sex is crap. Clothing is as necessary as food, and a certain standard of clothing is key to getting job interviews or work generally. I need far less clothing now I don't go to an office.My take on this is that places like the Indian subcontinent are going through an accelerated version of our own Industrial Revolution. Conditions are crap but they'll improve. In the meantime our custom is feeding people, providing work. We have only a very imperfect world. We can only do what's in our power. My own immediate poverty means my choices are limited. It also, however, means that I consume far less than average.
The way conditions will improve is ONLY thorugh the women being paid more. In order to do this people have to pay more for their clothes. This is basic, obvious economics. This is exactly why we buy our clothes abroad and don't make them here because we cannot force people to work at near slave wages.
I am not comparing your need for clothes to a man's need for sex. I am comparing the need for clothes that are brand new and "fast fashion" to a man's need for sex. Neither are necessary. I made this all abundantly clear in my last post.
If we can't be expected to buy clothes from charity shops because we are poor, then we really don't want sweat shops to end. Because once the do the cheap clothes will dry up. You're basically saying that poor women from other countries should continue to suffer so we can have cheap clothes. It will not work both ways. People need to support their local charity shops until the "bottom rung" shops realise that we want more from our clothes. Clothes prices will go up but they will still be cheaper than other options.
Also, I don't believe for a second that cheap stores are being propped up by impoverished women buying work wear. They are being propped up by parents who have enough money to spend on letting their children fill up baskets of crap with unicorns and PawPatrol.