• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Boobs are Free Poll

The recent federal court ruling that females can go bare breasted in public was:

  • A great ruling

    Votes: 13 43.3%
  • An okay ruling

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Don't care one way or the other

    Votes: 7 23.3%
  • A poor ruling

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • An atrocious ruling

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Total voters
    30

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I could certainly try. That case was found to be discrimination; refusing services based on the person, and prejudice against their sexuality. An action that also infringed on religious right, what a business can do in regards to religion, etc. Not quite the same as doubletaking when you see a hot girl walk by, or even commenting to your buddies. And yes, intent of action (i.e. "what you would do to her") is way different than "nice legs!" or something of the like.
 

lovesong

:D
Premium Member
While I really do not care one way or another about this law, hell, let people go completely nude for all I care, I honestly don't see the original law as sexists/discriminatory/unfair in any way. The law was just requiring the covering of all sexual organs (not sexy, not sexualized, but sexual, as in used for reproduction). The female breasts play an important role in the reproductive process and are just as important as the genitals; without functioning breasts a baby would die soon after birth. The male chest serves no such functional role.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
While I really do not care one way or another about this law, hell, let people go completely nude for all I care, I honestly don't see the original law as sexists/discriminatory/unfair in any way. The law was just requiring the covering of all sexual organs (not sexy, not sexualized, but sexual, as in used for reproduction).
Breasts are considered secondary sexual characteristics, just like pubic and armpit hair.

slide_25.jpg


The female breasts play an important role in the reproductive process and are just as important as the genitals;


I suggest you familiarize with the "reproductive process."
human%20reproduction%20sequence_zpsqq18abec.png


without functioning breasts a baby would die soon after birth. The male chest serves no such functional role.
Evidently you've never heard of
16835201
;)

.
 
Last edited:
Top