So the real issue is what, exactly? Women's breasts are evil and must be hidden at all costs?

There are two differences between men's breasts and women's breasts: (1) composition ratio and (2) milk production. Neither of those inherently are sexual.

You said "the most sexual part." Now you're moving your goalpost. I also think your claim that "the majority" believe breasts are primarily a sexual body part is specious and unsupported. Maybe the majority of men believe that, but that's not a majority of people.

If you had Googled "gynecomastia," you'd see that…

Thanks. Tried to fix it, but Kinja/goblins/whatever wouldn't let me edit the post. Hopefully Google's auto-correct and your post will steer people in the right direction.

"Women have fully-formed breasts, and are conventionally seen as visually the most sexual part of a woman's body."

It's a WBC sign, and it's "H8S," not "HAS."

You know, for the kids.

That's why I said "generally, not universally." 2009 was obviously a banner year, between District 9 and Inglorious Basterds.

I get why people are excited for GotG, but August is - generally, not universally - a dumping ground for shitty movies, which makes me hesitant.

So, NADA's correct that the middleman won't go away. But it's possible that an automaker-run team of middlemen could do the job more efficiently.

If this guy were telling women not to wear sequined shirts with plunging necklines and leather miniskirts to court, it would be condescending and sexist, but still understandable. There is a professional dress code, after all, and court attire is a thing that exists.

That's not what this is. This guy is actually…

Exactly what my first thought was.

And the wild shoes! Don't forget the wild shoes!

This reminds me of former Justice McKenna, who felt that wristwatches on men were too effeminate for court. His views on women in the courtroom were, shall we say, less charitable.

They got whipped like a 1920s racehorse is what happened.

I only got like two sentences in before I got a serious case of the terminal NOPES.

I didn't say anything about the United States inventing freedom of speech, or the First Amendment creating freedom of speech (it's obvious that it did not, because it uses the term "the freedom of speech," without elaboration, right there in the text). Excellent straw men, though, and they'll burn nicely.

Of course I…

Those are three rules. Three rules are not "vastly more" than any quantity of rules.

The first one is suspect (seersucker in summer is acceptable many places in the South; tan/taupe suits are not uncommon).

The second is correct (but is far less limiting than "closed-toe pumps with low heels"; no one's saying "black…

If you go to a pride parade and destroy their sound equipment, you will be arrested for whatever appropriate property damage crime applies in that state. You are not impeding their freedom of speech - they still may speak - you only have destroyed a thing that amplifies their speech. That is different than actually…

"Her identity remains unknown."

Um, isn't it pretty obvious who the sunbather is?

Sometimes that's the case, but my point is that this article acts like you have to suffer through your friends' weddings until you finally get your own, and then you never have to do it again. That's a really ludicrous framework.

You do know that people generally don't stop going to their friends' and family's weddings once they're married, right?

"NFL fans would recognize him now; he's been playing in the league for years. His jersey is popular enough that it can be purchased in child sizes."