He shouldn't have. That doesn't stop Costa Rica's 60-minute 10-man play from being ridiculous.

Oh, well, gee. I guess if they only had to play sixty minutes with 10 men instead of sixty-seven, then mirrorball's argument is totally invalid.

Gimme a fucking break.

How is making shit up and seeing if people will believe it unethical when the premise of the column in question is making shit up and seeing if people will believe it?

You're confusing cause and effect.

49 U.S. states disagree with your jurisdiction's laws. That's the problem.

Is your argument that every dollar put toward the TaTa Top (which, yes, is dumb, even if the reason behind its existence is both real and not dumb) would otherwise go toward feeding the poor?

(1) Your first point would be interesting, if larger breast sizes corresponded with higher fertility rates. They don't.

(2) If you don't understand the thrust of this paragraph - namely, using male-created social mores to justify treating the display of biologically parallel parts of women and men differently under…

So they are glorious, but must be hidden away or the woman is guilty of a crime?

w/r/t your last paragraph: I never accused you of being in favor of burlap sacks or called you a slut-shamer. That post was in response to a user named Lokimaru, who was saying that women needed to cover up to protect themselves. Look for yourself.

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.