IS THIS PROGRESS?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

A law has recently been passed in British Columbia allowing women to go "topless" in public. This is not limited to beaches etc. They can ride their bikes around downtown Vancouver topless - watch the fender benders increase - or they can shop in a mall topless.

 

Is this progress? Is this necessary? Do you want to see a pair of floppy tits winking at you as you select your groceries for the weekend. I don't!

 

However... if men could go bottomless - well that's a whole other ballgame, isn't it?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest wndrwoman]

No, it's not progress. I think it's a stupid law.

But guys bottomless? Don't think I'd enjoy seeing shriveled up peckers downtown either. Not everybody looks as good as some of you guys!

Tina

[guyinsf]

I don't enjoy looking at women's breasts, but I've always found it strange that men can walk around showing their chests and women can't. It isn't like a breast is a sexual object in and of itself.

[+ deej]

>I don't enjoy looking at women's breasts, but I've always

>found it strange that men can walk around showing their

>chests and women can't. It isn't like a breast is a sexual

>object in and of itself.

 

It is odd. But it's decidedly American. Female breasts are generally sexual objects in the het world. (It's called first base, I think.)

 

Europeans are much more relaxed about it.

 

I'm glad to see things relaxing a bit. It's maybe a sign that our society as a whole is maybe becoming a little more tolerant.

 

When I can kiss my dear good pal Luis on the cheek at the airport (as he flies off to his mother's funeral -- it happened today) without getting dirty stares, I'll know we've really arrived.

 

But yes, I'd say this is a positive step toward general acceptance of varying lifestyles.

 

If the women can flop the tits around, nobody should object to the bare butts in chaps during leather events. Right?

[Rick Munroe]

>If the women can flop the tits around, nobody should object

>to the bare butts in chaps during leather events. Right?

 

You're only supposed to bare your butt at leather events? OOPS I do it more often than that.

 

The thing I find odd about our society is that women can wear really revealing halter tops, or evening gowns with deeply plunging necklines where most of the breast is exposed, but the part they can't ever show is the nipple. But...isn't it the fleshy part of the breast that the str8 guys care about most? You never hear anyone talk about nipple size...it's always the cup size. Shouldn't we really make the women cover the whole tit but let the nipple get some air? :+

[+ deej]

>But...isn't it the fleshy part of the breast that the str8

>guys care about most? You never hear anyone talk about

>nipple size...it's always the cup size.

 

Interesting point. Do we need "cup sizes" for butt cheeks? :+

[bigjake8]

There was a similar law passed here in New York in the early 90's. The law here was passed because a woman sued for the same right as men to walk around the city topless. She had been arrested walking around the NYC Subway topless (Im not making this up).

 

So it is progress, as women should be allowed to do the same things men do. However, there are still social rules, and women walking around topless is generally not acceptable behavior (or safe, I might add).

 

I still only see topless women on gay pride day, and usually its the dykes on bikes crowd> Its not always pretty, but its gets more applause than any bar float featuring the usual go go boys gets :*

 

Jake

http://www.jakesbodyworks.com

[duke37]

>She had been arrested walking around the NYC Subway topless (Im not

>making this up).

 

So what did she order the BMT or just a veggie sub?

:7

 

Nice channeling of Dave Barry there too big guy.

 

Jeff

[guyinsf]

I think the dykes on bikes who are going topless get more applause -- from men and women -- because they are pointing a bright light at the oppression of women with one simple gesture. One sees a woman's breasts in public and thinks "That's not right." We're conditioned to believe this. It's silly and it is discriminatory. Even if many in the audience are turned off sexually by women's breasts, seeing them exposed in this context hits a nerve and reminds people that the parades exist because the LGBT community is still discriminated against. The rest of many parades is largely marketing, whether it be bars, politicians, tv shows, alcohol, etc.

 

A bar float with a lot of cute gay guys gets noticed, but there is absolutely nothing political about seeing some cute guys in tight shorts strut their stuff. This may have raised eyebrows 30 years ago, but when images of men in tight shorts are used in media extensively there isn't anything shocking about it anymore. While Jennifer Lopez can wear a dress that shows ALMOST her entire chest, it is a big deal if a nipple pops out.

[Guest jbart39]

Yuck! BC will look worse than fried egg beach in Provincetown. Can their pussies be next? Though come to think of it, why not use this to assault the Al Quaeda and Bin Laden? They hate women so. What's a good title for a war movie in which a platoon of twats storm an Al Quadea stronghold?

[CT Dick]

>It is odd. But it's decidedly American. Female breasts are

>generally sexual objects in the het world. (It's called

>first base, I think.)

>

To some of us, male pecs are generally sexual objects. I call it first base when I'm there.

 

Dick