No, my point is not irrelevant at all. As I just pointed out to you, I was addressing exactly what the OP said and was addressing; women’s nipples on TV.

To quote the OP (emphasis mine):

What does that have to do with what I was asking?

The OP said “on TV” - not “on basic cable” or “on this show”. “On TV” would include both basic and premium cable, no?

Ok?

“You were clearly trying to imply that there was no double standard”

Ok? What does facebook have to do with this / my question?

You only specified “on TV”, not “on this show” (in reference to nudity). Cable TV is TV. There is nudity on cable TV.

...are you under the impression that there is no nudity (except this one example) on cable TV...?

There are plenty of women’s nipples on cable TV (which this show is broadcast on).

You were featured on the same show in an episode about your breasts and were not allowed to show them?

Do you spend your time in real life trying to get away from Larry David?

Based on the wording of your original comment, you clearly did not get it.

That’s the point of the show. You know it’s not a documentary, right?

Congratulations.

Are you completely unfamiliar with L.A culture and the things it / the people there are known for?

In other words, you don’t understand the question.

So people should take completely unfounded accusations from ananymous, uninvolved third parties more seriously because people (and sites like jezebel) love spreading rumors and the stories are “detailed”? That’s your criteria for whether or not such rumors should be taken seriously? Is anonymity your criteria for…

So you want people to take completely unfounded accusations from ananymous, uninvolved third parties more seriously because ...why?

It’s not limited to just “stuff like this” - it’s their entire existence.