SUNDAY WAS GO TOPLESS Day, on which babes the world around were supposed to unite in opposition to silly laws mandating that women cover our breastesses. The organizers have on their site a side-by-side comparison, a Buddha-like male and a silicon babe — both topless — asking why one is allowed to appear in public (the male) while the other (the babe) is not.
In da Doll’s not-so-very-humble opinon (IDDNSVHO), that right there explains the whole thing in a nutsack.
Shell. Nut SHELL, Dolly.
The expression is “in a nut shell.”
So da Doll sort-of has a dog in this fight, since, were moi to expose moi’s magnificent tits in all their effulgent glory, moi would blind all within sight of moi.
So you have to cover up as a matter of public safety?
Right. And to ease the pain, I dress in stuff that shows off what I got, but without actually… bein’ nekkid. But the Go Topless dot org site has that side-by-side up, ‘n’ that ‘splains the whole thing. That guy, while no doubt a pleasant — even jolly — fellow, is surpassingly ugly. And that’s the problem. Lots of young babes — dare I speculate even jailbait — might be found to be a … an aesthetic improvement to the visual environment, the possibility of less-pleasant sights forces the state — the gummint — into the position of an aesthetic judge. A nice pair? Or jiggly man-boobs? Young babe, or withered granny? And some may find either attractive or obscene. Better to err on the side of caution. Less…
So… less … cleavage?