PSA:

Straw men.

I suppose women should all meekly hide their bodies so the men aren't aroused too much.

I'm going to say this once: the idea that women need to behave, dress, or act a certain way by virtue of the fact that they are women is the entire problem. If you concede that the way things are is unchangeable, you might as well…

Nope. Male and female asses are treated the same.

You're calling it "gibberish" because you don't have the wherewithal to reply substantively. As you've repeatedly demonstrated.

"Is it REALLY that big of a deal" is not an argument against equal treatment, first of all. Secondly, it is a big deal because it is symptomatic of male control of female bodies. The…

"i'm at work i don't have time for this shit. you're telling me breasts aren't sexual? do you have any clue how a guy's mind works?"

Translation: I give up; I can't tell the difference between inherent and societally-constructed things; all men are raving boob-fiends who can't control themselves, and that's something…

No, I'm not. For someone who basically concedes substantive points by omission and then throws another spaghetti strand at the wall instead, you're very condescending about the suitability of others' arguments. I continually attempt to steer this discussion toward the actual issue, but you're intent on avoiding it…

The entire point is that society should not be sexualizing girl boobs to the point of requiring them to stay covered in public. The purpose of the body normalization movement described in the article is to change that societal outlook. Therefore, all you're saying is "the thing against which this movement arrays…

(1) Actually, breasts serve ONE major function for women: feeding babies. Many women don't have sensitivity in their breasts, and the sexual enjoyment is wholly their partner's. Yes, pleasing someone you're with is pleasurable, but it doesn't mean female breasts have a universally sexual function for women. It is…

I've always been partial to "mitties," but I think the 2012 election gave that word some other, far more disturbing potential meanings.

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.

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.