Should bare human female mammary areolae be legal in public?

Post Reply New Topic

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, et seins nus!

But, what happened to her areolae?

Maybe it was cold that day...

I was at a college baseball game early in the season in the mid 1990s. It had been warm but was cooling down as the sun got low in the sky. One undergraduate girl walked by and it was quite clear that she didn't have a bra underneath her t-shirt because of the way the nipples were hard and poking the fabric out.

As she walked by, each section in turn gave her a standing ovation. Well, the males in each section, anyway.

Had it been a male streaker, the ladies would have been greatly disappointed ...

When I was twenty, I had heart surgery. On the day before the surgery, they did a catheterization. I was flat on my back on a table, totally nude, while the best looking nurse I saw in that hospital the whole time I was there was working to slide a tube through my femoral artery from the region immediately next to the groin up to the heart. At no time during the procedure did that nurse look the least bit impressed nor did I hear any ooh's or ah's from her. Definitely no standing ovation for me.

If it's legal for big, fat hairy dudes to walk around shirtless, I can think of no sane reason why female nipples are considered "obscene."

Caught an unfortunate eye-full of man boobs while out for my morning run today. I really didn't need to see some sweaty Jabba the Hut, sans shirt, mowing his lawn, but I managed to survive the encounter.

Man boobs on riding lawn mowers must be a "thing" this year, as I also have had two or three of those encounters. I was surprised at my "ick" reaction because with clothing on all body types are about equal to me. (I basically only care about what is between the ears.)

Uga! Boonowa tweepi, ha, ha. Spasteelia a bunkadunka.

Race a spuce adoobla!

I think that the standard Feminist logic is that nobody sexually objectifies male mammary areolae, which means that they are neither offensive nor disgusting, and may consequently be flaunted in public displays.

Some people sexually objectify female mammary areolae (even when the distance from the actual genital organs is known), which makes them both offensive and disgusting, and necessary to hide from view, except when breastfeeding or participating in a Feminist rally.

The female areolae of other species, though, may be presented with impunity, as the males of their species do not objectify them sexually.

The adoptive mother of Romulus and Remus gets off on two counts



1. She is breastfeeding, and
2. She in non-human.

Beyond that, Feminists and others who share their sensitivities will surely stay the Hell away from art galleries, which are hotbeds of patriarchy, sexual objectification and visual debauchery.

I'm looking forward to the day when Femen shows up to protest a Gauguin exhibit.

Even the fricking Church is okay with depictions of breastfeeding






There's something that I didn't know: virgins have white areolae.