Toribash
although he does have point that it would certainly attract a lot of attention, and that religious people would dissaprove.
Ecophilosophical communism... whatever the hell that is... or Psychosolcialism...
Religious people have adjusted to social evolution numerous times before.
He does have a good point in regards to public safety (accidents and whatnot).
But I don't think it would be that bad. I don't think it will even be very popular. It's just the principle that seems unfair.
Last edited by Odlov; May 1, 2010 at 10:42 PM.
lol i know what all of u are thinking...exactly...
''i hope this goes on for a while''
hanz0:Very well done. These annoy me much less than the default smilies we've got right now.
guys dont have boobs.
or atleast guys pecs arent related to anything sexual.
women on the other hand, do HAVE boobs. and i dunno about you, or the american judicial system, but boobs relate to something a little more sexual...

i dont see how they plan on getting it passed... or how it relates to religion
girls have boobs, guys dont.
-=Art is never finished, only abandoned=-
The physical differences aren't what matter here. It's psychological.

Men put more emphasis on physical characteristics than women do. And that's the way things are now as they are.

Put it also this way, what would cause more crime to happen? If no one was allowed to be topless, and a guy exposes himself topless, are girls going to rage and kill him? If a girl exposes herself topless, are guys going to be more inclined to rape her? Sorry ladies, equal rights or not, the point is public safety. It's for your own protection.

If they're going to hold a demonstration though, a better one would be to have ripped guys wearing bras. Maybe throw in girls in bras too. The irony is much more powerful.
Last edited by FNugget; May 2, 2010 at 12:22 AM.
Originally Posted by BenDover View Post
guys dont have boobs.
or atleast guys pecs arent related to anything sexual.
women on the other hand, do HAVE boobs. and i dunno about you, or the american judicial system, but boobs relate to something a little more sexual...


1. Feeding infants doesn't qualify as "something sexual" - breasts are not sexual organs. Men have breasts too, only without mammary glands in them.

2. Other than that, men are also attracted to female faces, legs, hands, and form in general - and we go about our day just fine.
Exactly what Odlov said. The woman has the mammary gland for the breast feeding like the feeding from the umbilical cord.
Though I can see how this marching could be a distraction.
ANythin happen to them?
Custombelt | I'm back after 5 years! ;)


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

PM me if your selling items, buying anything and everything!
Originally Posted by 80884 View Post
i dont think this is a very powerful equality movement...

To be honest I have to agree. Altogether, I have no problem with a bunch of topless women walking around. Even so, its not likely that just because a few chicks go walking with their melons out, that anything important will happen. I honestly cannot see society accepting nudity as an everyday, natural, normal thing.