Meh. Breasts are sexually relevant, but so are lips and tongues and fingers and whatever else turns you on. Does the fact that someone has a shoe fetish mean I shouldn't wear shoes? Oh, but wait, someone else has a bare foot thing...It's absurd. Breasts are judged as sex objects that should be covered, in women, but not in men. That makes little sense.

And as always, changing laws to ALLOW freedom doesn't mean EVERYONE has to display themselves.

Yeah, but what I meant was that you don't put the penis inside the boobs to make a baby. The boobs don't really produce a baby, they just sustain babies after birth. In that way, they're not sexual. Yeah, boobs are fun to play with, they're beautiful and soft and so plump and amazing, but they don't have any sexual biological purpose.

There was a documentary on sex-change operations, and they were even allowed to film the surgery for a man becoming a woman. It was interesting to see that at a certain point of plumpness, her before-totally-fine exposed nipple had to be blurred out.
I wondered what the discussion backstage must have been. They were in danger of being fined by the FCC if they picked the wrong stage, but what an interesting explanation of this issue.

I see a future of stretch lines.

I think that they are covered because it's something that men would judge a woman's attractiveness on. Were the prunes that make all these absurd rules let to have their way, we'd hide all of our bodies and just wear name tags.

As much as I applaud what these people are trying to do, was anyone able to tear their eyes away from the pics or Suebe's link long enough to notice that this is a Raelian group?

I commented on that, yeah.

I don't get my moobs out in public. i don't mind who does but I think that what is under y clothes is mine and I only share it with people I want to share it with.

I wouldn't. I'd start a boobie revolution. Bring back the bra burning, move somewhere sunny and let my beautiful breasts be bare.

I just thought of something. If women can show their breasts in public, than I will assume that girls under 18 can as well. However, here in CA, having pictures of a young girls nuaghty parts (which include breasts) is considered to be child pornography. So, if I were to have pictures of my girlfriend exercising her rights in new york, could I be pressed with charges of child pornography?

Depends. If it has *significant* artistic value, than you're exempt. If it's clearly just porn, then you're not.

It would depend on how arsey the judge was. You can now no longer get photgraphs of babies developed if they show the childs private parts in a lot of places round here. One or two won't process them if they have a childs nipple in them.

Funnily enough they are ahappy enough to develop adult nipples as long as they are not what they class as "pornographic".

quick! Get it going! I'm bored! Not to mention that I'd love to see hustler go out of business.

Great idea! Why don't you start with posting pics right here!

/just kidding

//unless you'd actually be willing to.

did I do right?

Back in ancient Greece, breasts were commonly displayed with little or no sexual associations.

In Victorian England ankles were always covered for fear of causing sexual impropriety.

Men just want to see what women won't show us.

If women went round topless all the time and always wore gloves the pages of Plime (and most of the internet) would be filled with men saying how much they like fingers.

More than a few of the stories with the photos deal with eating disorders.

Now I'm confused if it's SFW or not

They made a TV movie like that a long time ago.
This girl would do anything for and with this guy except take off her gloves. It drove him crazy. Finally, in the end, he married her so she would take them off.

I've known a lot of Muslim women and most of them wear head scarves.

It does create a sense of allure, and although there are plenty of women who let their hair blow free in the breeze I always wanna know what's under the scarf.