https://al.com/sec/2022/09/two-femal...stigating.html
Printable View
Yeah, wish our coeds would come to the game with just paint.
It?s just some boobs, and the guy bitching about it? It is not like you and your kids should be anywhere near the student section.
According to a previous thread, some of our body painted male fans, who end up on tv too much, are more offensive than this!*** These may be someone's future "sister wives". Hail State!
Couldn't find the uncut versionQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
Damn, some people freak out over anything. They are baby feeders and barely sufficient at that. I think it is funy that they got in and admire their attempt. HeHe !!!!!!!!!!!
That lady was like when they turned to the side, I could see a nipple.... She sounds like 12 year old me looking at Victoria secret magazines desperately trying to find something.
Seriously people, they are just boobs. If guys come to the game without shirts, girls can come to the game without shirts. They are just boobs. Matter of fact, in jurisdictions across the country, women can go topless. It is not a big deal.
People that have an issue with this, are the same people that refuse to discuss sex with their kids and then their wonder why their kid gets pregnant.
"Mommy Milkers" is the preferred nomenclature.**Quote:
Originally Posted by Offshore Dawg
Slightly concerning the previous posters think there is nothing wrong with nudity at a public venue with likely thousands of children present. I don't know why things like this surprise me anymore.
I don't think there's anything wrong with nudity, but if you're body is covered in paint you aren't nude anyway and its not against the law in most places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
The only thing about nudity is there will always be the one person who doesn?t need to get nekkid that will mess the whole deal up.
exposed boobs is not being naked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
Now take exposed boobs and put paint on them. Not naked. Not nude.
I didn't say they were naked. To be clearer it's partial nudity. Even though a few states have legalized it doesn't make it okay and besides I believe Utah is one of the states that even though it's legal it still remains illegal to do so with children present as it's considered lewdness involving a child. Body paint isn't clothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
Salt Lake is a very Liberal city believe or not.
I'm more offended by their armpit hair.
In the heart of Mormon country? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
How do they know they were females? Did a biologist tell them? ****
Haha +Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dawg
He isn't very smart.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
Seeing a nipple (or even 2, gasp!) would probably put you in shock, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgoneyall
From what little you can see on that picture the one on the left is going to have some malnourished babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardoMSU
N E double-K by God I DQuote:
Originally Posted by Leeshouldveflanked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=achROqQBP9g
There's quite a few different ways you're wrong here. Choose your own adventure argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
You want to impose on people's freedom of speech?
Why are you mad about something that happens every single college football game? People go to the game painted up and not wearing shirts all the time. What makes you concerned with this instance?
Why even bring up children? Bodily functions and sex are normal human processes. Studies show that actual sex education helps LOWER teen pregnancy rate. Yet you want to continue like it's "out of sight / out of mind" and then get shocked when 14 y/o Susan and 15 y/o Tommy have an accident.
The previous mayor was openly gay. You get away from Temple Square it is very liberal. It is a large city that is run by Democrats. Only 35% of Salt Lake population is Mormon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extendedcab
You are correct Matt on all accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
Concerning that so many see no issues with this but not surprising. Shows the moral relativism of culture where there is no right or wrong just however I see it.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Abortion legal isn't right. The Dredd Scott case and slavery was wrong even though it was legal for a time. There are moral absolutes, we just hope our laws will reflect that but many times they do not.
HaHa or lol doesn't do that post justice .... that was freaking hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by TheLostDawg
I don't think women should got topless to sporting events. Maybe I'm a prude, or old-fashioned, or just a bad parent. But I don't think women should go topless to sporting events. I don't like nudity in public, and I consider it nudity. But maybe since I don't teach my kids that nudity is okay, my son will wind up pregnant soon (men getting pregnant is a thing now I hear).
I think both ladies in this instance have more like what we'd call blisters and not big uns.
Flat boobs at that. It looks more like chest to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
Why only women? Why not men as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodyshotmypaw
If you don't understand the difference in body parts between men and women, then I can't help you. You should probably start by watching Kindergarten Cop. It does have some basic pointers to get you started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tater
Because mens "boobs" are not object of sexual pleasure as women boobs are!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tater
Just a matter of courtesy. If you want to hang out with your wang out around your kids, whatever. It's still bad form to do it in public generally. Certainly women going topless is less of a faux pas, but in the US it's still mostly considered rude for women to go topless in areas that aren't designated as topless, and even more so if it's in an area with kids. Even in places where topless beaches are common, you still generally see women wearing tops around town.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
ETA: Obviously I personally rebel at society's unreasonable strictures on women and encourage them to free the tatas whenever and wherever, provided the women in question are reasonably attractive.
My My
Kinda of a dumb question.....
Choose your own argument to lose:Quote:
Originally Posted by Extendedcab
1. Women are people. They are not objects. To treat a person as an object is so inherently evil and wicked, you might as well go over to the Middle East where that dogma is taught. Here, Jesus loves people. He loves everyone. No one is an object in His eyes.
2. Women gawk over shirtless guys all the time. Just because something isn't sexual to you, doesn't mean it's not an object of sexual pleasure to someone else.
3. If "object of sexual pleasure" is the standard by which something should be covered up, why does you mom ever show her face? I use that face for my sexual desires all the time. Cover it up.
But really, you should stop posting on the internet. Every post you make contributes to a worse society. Go offline and yell at the sky. It's better for you and everyone else. Thanks n
I mean I understand that women find a well defined chest w/ abs "sexually appealing" as well. Seems you are forgetting that there is more than satisfying the male gaze here. Society shouldn't be built strictly for men and make women as objects. We've progressed the last 200+ years to show that.Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodyshotmypaw
Yep ... kinda like a misdemeanor instead of a felonyQuote:
Originally Posted by Pancho
Y'all think the sexualization of children in this country is happening in a vacuum?Quote:
Originally Posted by R2Dawg