Posted on 08/20/2010 10:37:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well they are not “required” no, because technically a woman with no breast tissue can have sex, and subsequently have a baby, without them. BUT nobody can deny that they are a part of the female body for 2 reasons and those reasons have to do with sexual arousal and nourishment of a baby. Hence the association with sexual and reproductive.
Radical leftism: Pushing the envelope on every front.
Letting women go topless is matter of equality?
I’m against public topless women for the same reason I’m against miniskirts,thongs, etc. Two reasons:
(1) They look terrible and I don’t want to see it.
(2) They look good and, for my own good, I shouldn’t be seeing it.
“Guys are great,” she said. “They understand this issue, and we get lots of cooperation from males.”
LOL, you beat me to posting this quote, my immediate thought was the same as yours, um, ma’am, did it every occur to you that the cooperation is from the fact they just want to stare at your chest?
Well said. I remember the first time I was at a ‘clothing optional’ beach in Europe, my first thought was, ‘Here’s all the money I have, please, please, please, I beg of all of you, put on some clothes...”
Well said. I remember the first time I was at a ‘clothing optional’ beach in Europe, my first thought was, ‘Here’s all the money I have, please, please, please, I beg of all of you, put on some clothes...”
I remember going to a park in Munich Germany were there were topless sun bathers. There is nothing like walking up to an old and gray naked woman with hairy legs and pits laying on a blanket. You cannot unsee that, no matter how much beer you consume. It’s been 30 years and I still can’t shake it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.