~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
LasherDeviance
[–]Loop_Within_A_Loop 76 points77 points78 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
In all fairness, don't have a topless calendar at work. Just don't.
[–]Tralan 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Unless you work from home and don't have clients that are in your home.
But honestly, it's inappropriate for a workplace.
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
No it isn't. I worked at a welding mill. Almost every guy had a playboy or some sorts of topless calendar near their workstation. Nobody gave a shit. Not even the women.
[–]Tralan 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You worked at a welding mill. You probably also eat raw meat 3 times a day and for leisure, challenge silverback gorillas to arm wrestling matches just to watch them cry. I wouldn't challenge your decision to have nudie calendars at work if I was even the whitest of Knights or the flyingest of monkeys.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The view your average redditor has of the working class is truly bizarre.
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Weird thing is that you are still considered working class, if you do manual labour, but make tons of cash. Like everybody is working class, except the top 1%.
[–]urhedsonfire 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
MEN MEN MEN MEN MENLY MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MENLY MEN MEN MEN
[–]CosmicKeys 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icIwKaci3MI
[–]urhedsonfire 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That was not the theme song I was looking for... hell that wasn't even a theme song but it WAS incredibly relevant
[–]LeonidasRex 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No. There's this thing that still exists called blue collar work, and it's still way less politically correct of an environment than a 'normal' work place.
Source: Worked at a refinery. Girlie calendars were not a big deal.
[–]literallyschmiteraly 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's amusingly put, but you are actually supporting the stereotype of working men as violent primitive brutes. I used to know oil riggers when I was young. They were big, and I'm certain they had nudie calendars, but they were gentle, loyal souls.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Only poor men. Their view of the average redditor as the bastion of male civility is completely intact.
It's quite Roman, really. They are the bastions of all that is good, noble and true about the world. Everyone else -- those thick-necked Orcs working the mills, plants and factories of this country -- are primitive barbarians that need to be kept in check.
IF anyone ever wonders why, when so many positions of power are occupied by men, men aren't doing better, this is why: Elite men view lower class men as competition that needs a constant boot on its throat, lest we start getting uppity.
[–]literallyschmiteraly 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think it's very complicated though, class always is. There's fear and admiration there as well.
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Ok not almost everybody had, but 3 or 4 guys did. I exaggerated that part a bit, but the fact that they were there(also, the calendars were mostly outdated and didn't have any practical purpose other than eye candy) suggested that nobody actually gave a shit.
I think it is called a welding mill or a factory, not a native speaker, maybe a welding mill is something different. Basically we welded parts for mining machines.
[–]Kittenclysm 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Can confirm: my dad is a parts fabricator.
[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]literallyschmiteraly 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Manhood Academy spam.
[–]ThePigman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Let me guess, you could tell it was them because every other word was "faggot"!
No I clicked and it took me to the MA video. I always warn people so others can avoid it if they want to.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't these people realize that gay men are gay men?
[–]mywifeisaninja 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What if you work at a topless calendar company?
[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly, never understood that.
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link
I actually do feel feminists have a point about women being unable to go topless in public whereas men can, that's not really fair and it's not comparable to anything remotely pornographic. you could actually make an argument cringes that this is why you need feminism....
I don't agree with feminism, but the fact that this is getting upvoted goes to show that women do need a voice no matter how trivial the issue may seem to others
[–]dakru 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
It's actually quite interesting, when you think about it. In informal situations like the beach, men have more leeway when it comes to not having to wear as much (a woman can't generally go topless, as you mention), but in less casual situations like a school or a workplace, women have more leeway when it comes to not having to wear as much (a man wouldn't be allowed to wear the same low-cut shirt or anything comparable to a revealing dress). And I think they're both valid issues.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yeah you're totally right about that. it's actually ironic that women are typically more revealing but men get to reveal more. unless you're muslim...
[–]newmobsforall 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Something to keep in mind is hat a lot of issues aren't really gendered issues, they've just been made out to be by people with an agenda.
[–]meeeow 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Men don't really have that kinda clothing, because men's bodies are not sexualised in the same way though...
[–]dakru 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Exactly, men not being seen as sexy plays a role.
[–]meeeow 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No. I didn't say men are not sexy. I said men are not sexualised the same way. Difference.
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Except that men have to squish their genitals into tiny bathing suits.
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women can go topless in Germany.
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
Breasts are not "genitals" but they are a secondary sexual trait and they are socially accepted as being inherently sexual, from both men and women. That's the difference. Inert male "breasts", or pectorals, are not viewed in the same sexual way that women's breasts are and have absolutely no role in the reproductive cycle at all. They are no different than abs or back muscles.
I'm all for more women walking around topless but you can't just pretend like breasts and pecs are the same. If you're going to make the argument that women should be allowed to go topless, then the same argument holds for any sexual body part as well(personally, I don't think any human body part should be regarded as obscene in the first place).
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
my point is that they are natural and I feel the more they are covered up the more sexualised they become. the reason why a man's chest probably isn't made as big a deal of is because it's more normal to see it bare, so although some people do find good pecs attractive because it's normalised less of a fuss is kicked up about it
[–]ExpendableOne 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not like there's a shortage of breasts, especially given the internet, so you can't really say that they are just sexualized because they are covered up(ignoring that women typically also wear bras for support/comfort or that men's chest are typically hidden just as much) or because people don't see enough of them. By this definition, women's feet which are more often than not covered, would also be universally accepted as sexual and sandals would be deemed obscene/inappropriate for sexual reasons. It really doesn't make any sense to say that breasts are sexual just because they are covered up for being sexual. It's circular logic. You might be able to say that it creates a greater sense of excitement, or taboo, because they are hidden(the same way you might be able to say about pectorals) but not that it affects their sexual nature.
As far as what is or isn't natural, well, I think you're barking up the wrong tree there. I mean, technically every single part of our bodies are natural... dicks, balls, vaginas and asses are all natural and are still expected to be covered because they are considered obscene, innapropriate or sexualy explicit. Not to mention that, as far as "fake" goes, breasts are pretty much at the top for esthetical surgeries or artificial enhancements.
Even if every woman you knew was topless everyday and everywhere, and this was the way of life, their breasts would still be considered inherently sexual and there would still be a major difference between the way breasts and male pectorals are perceived... this is something that is consistent throughout human history/cultures.
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But breasts aren't involved in sex. They're a secondary sex trait, but so are beards, and body hair, and Adam's apples.
Women's breasts are only involved in reproduction in that they feed babies. They are not actually involved in sex whatsoever. They aren't inherently sexual at all (as all the topless tribes will tell you). As a very bisexual lady, let me tell ya, breasts and a nice set of pecs are very much the same when it comes to sexual attraction power.
[–]ExpendableOne 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Again, you're playing semantics with what is or isn't sexual. The fact that breasts aren't used in the act of penetration is completely irrelevant. You are letting your own misconceptions(you really don't know the topless women in some tribes don't sexualized breasts, simply that people are okay with breasts out in the open either way), your own perceptions and your own sexual preferences affect the way you see the issue. Also, please stop comparing the sexual nature of breasts to body hair, it really makes you sound like a complete idiot.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I mostly agree.
This isn't really why you need feminism, this is why you need a stronger sense of equal protection before the law.
Men can go topless, so women should go topless. It won't be the end of the world. There aren't that many places where men can go topless, anyway. People will still be able to make rules regarding their own private homes, so if you don't want topless women at your parties (hey, there's no accounting for taste), you can still throw them out.
Breasts used to be distracting, maybe, before porn was everywhere. They aren't anymore, they're just attractive. That's no more distracting that having girls with pretty faces walking around, and nobody suggests that we put women in hijabs to prevent car accidents.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd say if women were allowed to have them out in general they'd be less distracting. when something is often covered up then suddenly isn't, more people are going to pay it attention
[–]Eulabeia -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
women being unable to go topless in public whereas men can
I'm not familiar with the laws in every state but in a lot of them it is legal for women to be topless in public.
And if we're going to talk about just general discouragement, ironically enough it would seem like it mostly women would complain about another woman's exposed breasts. Like those feminists in the UK trying to ban those nudie mags.
[–]MockingDead -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Men can't go pantsless, so I'd say it's ok women can't go topless.
I don't like when women say, "Why don't they show men's genitals, they show women's breasts!", and I don't like this, either.
Dicks are not the equivalent to tits, not in any way, shape or form.
[–]EnlightMen 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Touching a mans chest or hitting or tapping it is not considered a sexual harassment..When it becomes the same for women! I'd agree with you!
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Breasts are not genitals. Women can't go pantsless either.
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You're getting hung up on the word "genital", and completely missing the point of the counter-argument.
No, I'm not. The point of the argument is to try to equate boobs with genitals, just because people think they're sexy. Boobs are a secondary sex characteristic. A more accurate comparison would be beards, body hair, Adam's apples.
Actually, a more accurate comparison would be about hair in a lot of Muslim communities. Hair a pretty attractive attribute, so women have to cover it, but somehow men often don't.
Shirtless men are sexy, too (given that they're attractive--and remember, there are plenty of people who bitch about fat women being topless at demonstrations, so no, not all boobs are attractive to everyone). It's very straight-male-centric to say that women shouldn't be shirtless just because straight men think boobs are hot. It's just a taboo. The same taboo has been overturned before, back when women's legs were too sexy to be seen even in pants, much less shorts or short skirts.
No one can go pantsless. That's equality. But men can go shirtless. Even fat men, whose also have boobs. Hell, a woman could walk around with pasties over her nipples, but somehow, nipples (which both genders have) are illegal for women to show in a lot of places. That is straight up discrimination.
[–]ExpendableOne -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
An adam's apple isn't used in the reproduction process, it isn't used to nurture a baby and it isn't universally sexualized by men and women. In this manner it is no different than a lower muscle mass or less hair growth.
It also doesn't really matter than some find men's chest sexy, the same way they would find abs or back muscles sexy(which kind of reaffirms my point more than yours), there's still a fundamental difference between the way breasts are viewed, by both men and women.
It also really doesn't matter that not everyone appreciates or likes breasts, especially on older people. A lot of people don't like to see saggy vaginas or decrepit dicks, a lot of people also feel very offended by the sight of dicks and, in some cases, vaginas. The same "taboo" that applies to breasts, applies to penises, testicles and vaginas. You make the differentiation based on petty semantics and your own predispositions on the matter.
Nipples(which are inert in men) are physically different to women's and viewed differently as well. It doesn't really matter that we, as a society, have managed to bend the rules as much as possible to see more breasts. This is a cognitive dissonance in of itself that is actually pretty irrelevant to the matter at hand. At the end of the day, they are still breasts and they are still sexual in nature(if not inherently sexual).
It isn't discrimination to legally expect women to hide breasts in public, the same way anyone else would be expected to hide any other sexual part of their body, because laws are built on social predispositions and, even if we didn't live in a world where breasts were universally sexualized, we still live in a society that does actively sexualize breasts. The male and female bodies are also physically different and it isn't discrimination to recognize those physical differences and sexual traits. Either people accept sexual traits, and breasts are okay in public just like any other sexual trait/organ, or they don't and nothing none of them are acceptable being displayed in public but, either way, it's not discrimination to stay consistent within either of these predispositions.
By your definition, men should also be free to walk around with their balls out. After all, they are only protruding gonads whose only function is to produce sperm long before the act itself, they aren't really used in the act itself and they aren't even sexualized by everyone, yet are still considered obscene, offensive and sexual in nature. Is that discrimination as well?
The fact is, either people are willing to accept human sexuality, and the human body, in a mature way or they're not. Either accept it all or accept none of it, there's no middle ground. Pretending like breasts aren't sexual traits, and playing semantics to get more women topless in public, might make a lot of men, and some women, happy but it doesn't actually solve the base issue at hand.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
men can go pantsless, they just choose not too.
[–]MockingDead 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Last time I checked removing one's pants and underwear leads quickly to jail time.
[–]iongantas -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
BUT if feminists regard going topless as an acceptable and ok thing, they can't also legitimately complain about topless calendars.
they are both different contexts as one is sexual and the other is a right to be able to expose your natural body
[+]Pecanpig -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link
Name 5 situations where men can go topless but women can't.
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
street, beach, park, club and in sports across the board, eg boxing
[+]Pecanpig -18 points-17 points-16 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
street
Only in certain specific situations.
beach
Women are allowed to be topless on most beaches that I've seen, or at least nobody has stopped them or gotten the police to step in. (which is the definition of "allowed" that I'm using right now)
club
Nope.
in sports across the board, eg boxing
Nope, although I'd say boxing is one of the few where it's allowed.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What country do you live in? This doesn't sound like the America I know and love. I wish that it did, but it doesn't.
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Where exactly do you live? and I live in BC.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
when you say nope are you agreeing or disagreeing? plus female boxers fight with sports bras on
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I do believe one female MMA fighter was a few ounces overweight at the weigh in and took off her bra to be in that class, and was not punished for it.
[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seems like it would easy to have a standard outfit for weighing in, and that known weight is subtracted.
Meh, oh well.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
fair enough, but there is a potential argument asking as to why should she have to have a bra on in the first place? I know in this case it would be for protection, but I doubt sports bras offer that much protection and it'd be more about the fact they'd earn more money due to sponsorship
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
but I doubt sports bras offer that much protection and it'd be more about the fact they'd earn more money due to sponsorship
Even so, why is that problematic? I think it would be pretty naive to say professional sporting leagues' number one care is the integrity of the sport or safety.
I don't think I can make the same case for sport as I would other things, but by covering them up it does imply that something that is 100% human and natural is something that shouldn't be seen by others
Urination is 100% human and natural, though. I'm not sure we can simplify it to that degree.
If we want to say that women's breasts shouldn't be sexual and it's appropriate for them to be seen in public, fine. If we want to say they are sexual and it's inappropriate for them to be seen in public even in digital/photograph form, fine.
I think the bigger issue here is the inconsistency in wanting women's bare breasts to be considered sexual and not sexual on the woman's terms, and not the observer's. It strikes me as thought policing.
[+]Pecanpig -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
Disagreeing.
And female boxers where sports bra's as a necessity of both physical safety and to at least try and keep some professionalism in women's boxing, even if two sweaty topless women fighting sounds like a really good idea.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
yh but the point a feminist would make is why should a woman fighting bare chest the same way a man does be seen as unprofessional?
anyway I don't think you know what you're talking about, if women were allowed to go bare chested in the street and on beaches without fear of the law feminists wouldn't complain about it
He is mostly right on this part.
Feminists would be talking out of their depth if they thought any trained martial artist (or swimmer, or any other athlete where a comparable male would go topless) would want to perform without a top on.
Those sports bars do more than just prevent flopping, they streamline. It may only come down to your movements being a few fractions of a second faster, but given the level professional athletes perform on, that can be enough.
[–]meeeow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not a question of want, as much as it about it not being acceptable even if that was the case.
[+]Pecanpig -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Because like it or not boobs are considered highly sexual, similar to genitals. You can either go out naked or not, and no exceptions should be made for women in this regard.
lolololololololololololololololol
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
so should men cover up their backs, chest, arms or legs because some women get turned on by it? also if bare breasted women were more common men would act more normal around them and it'd be less of a big deal
so should men cover up their backs, chest, arms or legs because some women get turned on by it?
no, but if the vast majority of women got extremely turned on by male chests then that would be a different story.
also if bare breasted women were more common men would act more normal around them and it'd be less of a big deal
Why do you say that?
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Legs and ankles used to be considered highly sexual, and yet shorts are allowed.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
There is less grounds for this. There is ample evidence that fully, constantly inflated breasts evolved as a strong sexual attractor (very little of the tissues is actually mammary gland). Legs and ankles are, at best, secondary traits.
Still, 'being attracted to' and 'distracted by' are two entirely different things. In high school, before boys have the development to ignore such distractions, it might make sense to treat them as one in the same. An adult man should be able to be attracted to someone/something without being overly distracted by it, though.
[–]InfinitelyThirsting1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Our long, luscious locks of hair being only on our heads is another strong sexual attractor. But most of the modern world thinks forcing women to cover their hair is ridiculous.
Agreed about the distinction. No one's saying let people be shirtless in class or at work. But if it's okay for a man to be shirtless without comment in a given scenario, the same should go for a woman in that context. Or at least in a bra. But no, ladies need whole shirts at all times.
It's a minor issue, but it's still a legitimate one.
[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
what about my long luscious locks of hair?
Agreed about the distinction. No one's saying let people be shirtless in class or at work. But if it's okay for a man to be shirtless without comment in a given scenario, the same should go for a woman in that context.
but that's exactly what they are saying, that women should be allowed to go topless anywhere they want.
And what about sexy male chests? Straight men can keep insisting they're not sexual, but they're wrong.
but that's exactly what they are saying
They who? I only know of people who protest the places where it's legal for men to go topless but illegal for women.
What evidence do you have to suggest that the male ribcage and chest muscles were developed purely to look sexy to the opposite gender?
I've never seen anyone who supports female topless rights be so specific.
[–]InfinitelyThirsting2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Here, here, here--like, literally I have never once heard anyone talk about toplessness without bringing up the inequality issue, whether it's that it is illegal or that a lot of people still think it's illegal when it isn't and frivolous arrests are made.
[–]Pecanpig0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
First link: "Go Topless: Women’s Constitutional Right" stopped reading.
Second link: Wikipedia? stopped reading.
Third link: To much irony for me. Woman makes statement about sexualization of breasts while using sexualization of breasts to get her point across.
hether it's that it is illegal or that a lot of people still think it's illegal when it isn't and frivolous arrests are made.
Now this is a more important issue.
No wonder you haven't heard of anything, if you won't read a damned article.
When the title says some random bullshit then what incentive do I have to continue reading for anything other than potential lulz?
What /u/EatsTinyBaldBavies said..good god that's a horrible name.
[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I checked, couldn't find anything good.
[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dailymotion, I should have guessed.
Really? I've seen naked female boxing porn. It's not really my thing, but it's not all that rare.
Maybe my already existing Google search parameters fucked with things, oh well.
Do we honestly want to pretend that women have no legitimate issues?
Just because an injustice is small, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get around to it eventually.
[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, but we also don't pretend that non-issues are issues.
I'll add it to the list at number 9001.
[–]bobojojo12 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
to be fair it looks like he is whacking off
[–]perfectsquared 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
This is retarded. Do you want your female coworkers having a 365-dongs a year calender?
Why would we care?
[–]perfectsquared 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Would you really enjoy working in a place where you were subjected to looking at cocks every time you went to see a coworker? I'm a CNA so I see plenty of old man dick at work, but I still wouldn't want there to be any more penises just hanging on the wall.
[–]Ding_batman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Personally I wouldn't care. Though they still might get in trouble. Why, you may ask? Because I work in a school, I will answer.
[–]drgfromoregon 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Be fair, most people with mental retardation have enough social skills to know topless calenders in the workplace are a foolish idea at best.
They're actually usually pretty normal, socially speaking.
For me it comes down to this. If it is art, there really shouldn't be too many issues (depending on the workplace, in mine for instance, it would never be acceptable). If the objective of the calendar is to sexually stimulate, then it is not appropriate for most work places.
[–]Mytecacc 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
That's not hypocrisy, they are two separate arguments.The movement to normalize toplessness aims to dexsexualise and normalize it, the calendar does the reverse.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You can normalize toplessness, but you'll never sexualize it.
Human female breasts evolved as a sexual attractor toward men. No other field denies this, only gender studies. You don't find zoologists or biologists or even sociologists pretending otherwise -- they know what mammary structures look like in most animals, and they know that ours are nothing like that. They don't inflate only when lactating (ours simply expand, and not even that much). They don't consist almost entirely of mammary and muscle tissue, but of fat meant to fill the empty spaces out.
You're wasting your time if you ever expect men not to be attracted to female breasts.
And really, you have no right. You have no right to dictate what it is about you than men find attractive -- that is the purview of those men themselves.
In short, on that part, grow the fuck up. If you don't accept men as men, then you simply hate us. Wanting us to be something else is hating us.
[–]Batman5991 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I once read somewhere that women developed breasts because we fuck face to face. Other primates (like baboons) usually fuck doggy, that's why the ass is usually attractive (female baboon ass). Since we fuck face to face women evolved to have an "ass" on the front.
If that really is the case boobs are indeed a sexual attractor.
[–]Mytecacc -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Toplessness for women is normalised in parts of Africa, then on the other hand, if you are in the country in Morocco a topless man is seen as sexualized and even an open shirt will make people aroused, before in the west it was a bear ankle.
Lads mags. aren't male sexuality, its an advertising gimmick to make people feel turned on and then associate it with a product.
They aren't arguing against men liking breasts anyway, they are arguing about them being commidified.
[–]bobojojo12 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is a bad post because it says that all people of a gender are the same. Different women will have different opinions on toplessness. We cant complain about women thinking we are all bad if we think they all think this way
It looks like the same woman to me.
[–]cryptobomb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Those two situations have nothing to do with each other.
[–]AceyJuan 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
There's a world of difference between nudity and sexual imagery. I think women should be allowed to walk around topless. I think topless calendars are presumably sexual, and don't belong at work.
So... I agree with the straw Feminist on this one.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So, women shouldn't be allowed romance novels, then?
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
There is a difference between a woman being casually topless in public and media fantasies of women. There are entirely different mindsets behind them, and different consequences.
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
The cognitive dissonance still applies... not just because on the one hand you have feminists trying to celebrate the female body while, on the other, hide it but because you have one issue being about shaming and vilifying male heterosexuality and one issue being about women wanting to express their sexuality uninhibitedly. It's like having a naked woman in a women's magazine and say "That's okay!", "That's innocent!", "That's just the human body!", and then having that same naked woman presented in the same way in a men's magazine and then having people say "That's disgusting", "That's obscene!" or "That's objectifying!", despite the fact that it is none of those things.
[–]KRosen333 -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
...
Do you have a problem with pornography DemonicBitch?
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
My opinions on porn are kind of complicated, and not especially influenced by my feminism.
[–]KRosen333 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
It appeared as though you were defending the straw feminist in the comic - I am curious about your opinion (if only to disagree of course :p) - if that is a sensitive topic, I understand of course (though I assume you are a grown adult :p).
PM would be suitable as well, if that isn't something you want on the open reddits.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
I am defending the straw feminist in the comic, because the two issues are very different. Even assuming the same person would be concerned about both things, it wouldn't make them a hypocrite.
I don't have a problem sharing my opinions on porn publicly, but I'd have to write a book to cover it all because there are just so many different kinds and so many different ways to look at it. Since this is a subreddit about gender issues, I guess the most relevant thing I can say is that some of it is pretty exploitative and...um... disturbing. But, from an ideological standpoint, I approve of much of the porn found on the internet because it shows a diverse array of real women with real flaws. Some of the high budget stuff, though, does the same thing that the mainstream media does, which is to portray a false image of women.
[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Some of the high budget stuff, though, does the same thing that the mainstream media does, which is to portray a false image of women.
While I understand that concern, isn't that their prerogative? I mean, there are plenty of movies, books, and porn films where men are portrayed falsely (whether physically or emotionally) but sometimes women or gay men indulge in those fantasies because they're just fun fantasies. I don't see a problem with a straight man having fantasy material, either. I think the real issue is the social shaming that occurs to men and women who don't live up to fantasy standards. I don't think we need to get rid of the fantasy, though.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Like I told KR, I'm not so much worried about the violence. The folks that would take that seriously are more than likely mentally disturbed, and would do it regardless of any media portrayal. Its when its not quite as black and white that it bothers me, like the rape porns that show men molesting sleeping or too drunk women. Those ideas are still far too normalized in society for me to feel that people will just understand why it's wrong in reality versus a fantasy.
[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've heard that those ideas are normalized in society, but I'm not so sure I believe it. Don't get me wrong - I know it happens. But every college attending person I know has had to take a class that drilled into their head "RAPING UNCONSCIOUS PEOPLE IS NOT OKAY". Any time I hear about someone getting raped while blacked out/asleep, everyone within earshot is almost salivating to rip the perpetrator's throat out.
I have a hard time seeing where this is "normalized behavior" except in the fucked up headspaces of the rapists themselves.
[–]KRosen333 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
the two issues are very different. Even assuming the same person would be concerned about both things, it wouldn't make them a hypocrite.
This is technically correct - and I would agree with you - but the problem IMO is the perception issue - if you don't explain to people why having a topless calendar is bad in your opinion, it doesn't actually change anything. That is what I get out of it anyways. Without our higher context (that is, you and I know better), it appears on the surface as a hypocritical stance. But I digress, now I am genuinely curious about your stance on pornography - this topic has been coming up more and more (I suppose that Ellen Page feminists AMA had something to do with it).
I guess the most relevant thing I can say is that some of it is pretty exploitative and...um... disturbing.
Example? This is what I am curious about; many feminist positions are that all pornography is exploitative.
The biggest difference is that the primary point of pornography is to objectify people - you are supposed to get your rocks or socks off, not sit there and wonder what the actors' favorite color is (mine is green btw (right now anyways - I'm weird like that) ;p)
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, not all feminists are sex positive, and at the same time, not all are sex negative. I fall somewhere in the middle, personally. For example, I have some issues with rape porn. Now this does make me a hypocrite, because I enjoy porn with rapey themes, but I think it helps to contribute to a certain mind set (you can call it rape culture if you want, but I don't like the term, myself) that normalizes, and even encourages, non-consensual dominance.
It's really murky water, though, because then you get into issues with BDSM and violent fantasies that most people accept as being okay--including many feminists. If any other feminists in the sub want to step in and explain this better, I'd encourage you to do so so that I'm not taken as speaking for all feminists, because I know there's a lot of disagreement about it. I find it pretty confusing, and I don't really have a solid stance on it. Most of my thoughts on it revolve around how it affects kids and couples, not women specifically.
For example, I have some issues with rape porn. Now this does make me a hypocrite, because I enjoy porn with rapey themes, but I think it helps to contribute to a certain mind set (you can call it rape culture if you want, but I don't like the term, myself) that normalizes, and even encourages, non-consensual dominance.
Do you feel the same way about video game violence?
I'm not trying to be an ass, but it seems like a similar parallel to me. I enjoy shooting things in video games. I also enjoy shooting guns at shooting ranges. I would never, however, shoot another human being unless my life was in imminent danger.
Similarly, I love sexual fantasies with violent themes (even simulated non-con). Sometimes I like to act those out with a consenting partner. But never in a million years would I be okay with raping someone else or getting raped.
I just want to know where the line is drawn with media "normalizing" a certain mindset. Do you really think people lose their moral compass in some way after engaging in a simulated fantasy of a taboo behavior?
[–]KRosen333 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Lol this is extremely hypocritical. No offense, I am glad you do not run the porn industry - <3 no hate intended - I know more than one gal who has a rape fetish (which always seems to surprise the hell out of me actually...)
Most of my thoughts on it revolve around how it affects kids and couples, not women specifically.
Kids should not be exposed to hardcore pornography, and couples should be consenting adults.
but I think it helps to contribute to a certain mind set (you can call it rape culture if you want, but I don't like the term, myself)
What mindset? <-- this is the important question, so please answer this one :p
Lol this is extremely hypocritical
Like I said, I'm fully aware. I should clarify that I enjoyed it in the past, not the present as I abstain when in a relationship. Anyway, no offense taken.
What mindset?
The mindset that women are meant to be used and controlled. Mind you, when I talk about this, I don't just mean violent rape. In fact, I think that's so obtusely wrong that it probably doesn't affect most people all that much. It's the ones where the girl is sleeping, or gets too drunk and passes out, or the ones showing underage girls (or at least that's the "storyline"). There are relatively normal people out there who genuinely think those things are okay, and I think seeing those things in porn probably reinforces the idea to them.
[–]KRosen333 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The mindset that women are meant to be used and controlled.
AHHH I KNEW YOU WERE GONNA PULL THAT ONE!
Who really has this mindset? Who in their right mind?
I find this 'straw man' to be damn near mythical.
It's the ones where the girl is sleeping, or gets too drunk and passes out, or the ones showing underage girls (or at least that's the "storyline"). There are relatively normal people out there who genuinely think those things are okay, and I think seeing those things in porn probably reinforces the idea to them.
This is like the one woman (from jezebel maybe?) who tried to say rape jokes reinforce rape - I reject your argument on the grounds that reasonable human beings can see the difference between something fictional and something in reality.
Remember, a lot of those things exist because they are a fetish. Not because people want to normalize them, but because it turns them on.
Likewise, I find it interesting (and I apologize in advance for ... well, trying to analyze you - I don't intend ill meaning) that you use the word "abstain" - as in, it is something you want, but something you refuse to oblige for your own reasons.
I have a hypothetical for you:
If I told you that dominant women turn me on, would that make me hypocritical, in your opinion, since I am a Mens Rights Movement Advocate and reject feminism for its female supremacy ways (in my opinion, which you know I am willing to back up :p (and again, I don't want to focus on what I think of feminism, but rather if you think those two things can be reconciled))?
[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No I wouldn't find that hypocritical, as there is a difference between an ideology and personal preference. Like I said, I don't have a very strong opinion on the subject from a feminist perspective, so arguing with me about it is a pretty fruitless task. Kind of like fighting smoke. Both sides of the argument from feminists make sense to me, so I can't really argue for or against any position very effectively in good faith.
[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No I wouldn't find that hypocritical, as there is a difference between an ideology and personal preference.
If it isn't hypocritical in that instance, why do you consider it hypocritical in yours? To the point that you can't reconcile that with your personal choices?
[–]LasherDeviance[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But, from an ideological standpoint, I approve of much of the porn found on the internet because it shows a diverse array of real women with real flaws.
So men are supposed to accept women with "real flaws" in their pornographic entertainment... But do women who like porn accept the same? Like fat guys with little dicks? No. Porn is fantasy, give it a rest.
[–]MockingDead -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
So if I wave my dick around in public is free speech, but if you look at dicks, it's perverse?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
What?
[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
just trying to parse out your feelings on the matter. If displaying sexual organs is free speech, can I walk naked about the streets?
[–]Eulabeia 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She thinks it should be okay for her to show her tits but not any other girls that she thinks are prettier and she is jealous of. Because uh...those aren't real women and, uh...unrealistic standards of beauty and such. Yeah.
[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wait, Women aren't real? I thought sexism was the province of men?
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Breasts are not a sexual organ. They are a secondary sex characteristic with the function of feeding children. AFAIK, no one (at least in the US) is trying to say that it should be legal to walk around completely naked. But if they are, it should apply to either both or neither sex.
Edit: By the way, you were the one that brought up free speech, not me. I'm not even sure what you're talking about there.
All a secondary sexual characteristic means, is that something isn't a sex organ, that it isn't involved in the production or trasnmission of semen, the production of eggs, the bearing of children or the collection of sperm.
But in humans, there is amply evidence that breasts serve as a direct sexual attractor. Human breasts are fully inflated at all times past puberty -- that doesn't happen in other animals, even other primates. Also, contrary to other mammalian species, very little of the breast is made up of the mammary gland or supporting tissues.
You know nothing about actual human sexuality. You only know what your gender studies teachers taught you.
Breasts are not a sexual organ. They are a secondary sex characteristic with the function of feeding children.
You're getting stuck on petty semantics, and really missing the point. They are still a sexual physical characteristic, they are still part of the reproductive process and they are still sexualized by both men and women universally. If you're going to make the argument for breasts, then you have to make the same argument for penises, testicles and vaginas. Calling it a sexual organ doesn't make any difference, and penetration here isn't the only factor.
[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
They are a secondary sex characteristic with the function of feeding children and attracting a mate
I agree that it should either/or, but if we allow public nudity, why not images of nudity?
[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Feminists don't like admitting this. They want to pretend that there are no differences between human breasts and non-human breasts.
But Morris was right: it is no coincidence that breast cleavage so perfectly mimics the crack of the ass, which serves as the primary sexual attractor of other species. We walk upright. Our asses aren't eight inches below each others faces, the way they are in other mammalian species.
You know what does rest just below our faces, though?
[–]LasherDeviance1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Hence the cognitive dissonance! I agree as well.
No one (outside of the fringe) is trying to make porn or sexual images illegal... but they're not appropriate for the workplace. And, again, it's not about nudity, but being topless.
[–]LasherDeviance2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm sorry, but the only difference between toplessness and nudity is the inclusion of pants/skirts.
[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So, you'd have no problem with a topless calendar, then?
[–]JLTeabag0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The problem is not images of nudity, it's images that are supposed to be sexual. I don't have a problem with either, but they are different things.
[–]MockingDead2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If we are splitting hairs like this, then:
Artistic Nudes should be ok. Car Calenders should not. if the owner of said calendar suffers from the linked affliction.
But people can fap to artistic nudes and a rare few can fap to cars. So where is the line?
We can do this forever. If we have to make a special rule for every damned picture, life is going to get pretty tedious.
I have no problems with companies deciding for themselves what pics to allow.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And.. no. None of this 'it's different!' crap from feminists.
It's almost never actually different, that's just BS you say. You hate that men like looking at women, so you want to punish us for it. That's all this conflating of nudie calenders with legitimate discrimination is. Shit like this is why I stopped taking you people seriously.
[–]sortofheathery 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Personally, I don't think the problem feminists have is that men like looking at women. It's that things like nudie calenders sale an unrealistic image of women. It's a standard women unfairly feel they have to compete with - and similarly that it's all they're worth (when her looks go away so does her value to society). In that sense it's not actually cognitive dissonance. The real natural imperfect female form is embraced while the photo-shopped paid-for "perfected" female body form is rejected.
[–]Always_Doubtful 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think its bull and its just a feminist using a word like usually that has a definition that's not official but tailored towards them.
Actual definition:
uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate (as an employee or student)
[–]TwirlySocrates 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe I don't know the right people, but I don't think I know anyone, feminist or otherwise, who would say both those things.
[–]draykow 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Might want to have included "possible nsfw," browsing on my phone with some higher ups nearby,
This cartoon has a credibility problem -- the woman is far too attractive to be a feminist.
I've seen attractive feminist women before. And they still generally hate the fact that men like looking at attractive women.
They seem to want men to find women attractive for the same reasons that women find men attractive -- for their accomplishments and social dominance. They cannot stand the fact that men find women attractive for the reasons we actually find women attractive -- being pretty and offering us emotional support.
It's ridiculous. Men and women are instinctively looking for very different things in a mate. Feminists hate that. It goes against their blank-slate fantasies.
[–]UDT22 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Spot on!
[–]TorontoMike -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
it does not even have to be a topless calender , any calender that has a woman in it is considered 'objectifying women' -- Snap on tools gave out some calenders where the women were completely covered in overall and in pit crew uniforms and a woman objected to them as harassment. mean while I bet a feminist would proudly put them up as a rosy the riveter " we can do it ! "
So it does not matter what it really is , it only matters what the feminist thinks it is
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They don't care if women get objectified. They care that men are staring at pretty women, because feminists hate, hate, hate the notion that men like looking at pretty women.
Just look at Myteacc 'OMG, how dare men find breasts attractive!' up there, or DemonBitch 'I can't say why I hate porn, I just do, god dammit!'.
They hate male sexuality. They hate that men are visually focused. They want to dictate for us what we find attractive.
[–]Mytecacc 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Report.
(nonsense)
[–]LasherDeviance[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
A buddy sent me this. Tell me your thoughts!
[–]IameAuhSomme -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
You can't tell me what to do!
[–]TryToMakeSongsHappen 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
'Cause Mama didn't raise, Mama didn't raise
[–]IameAuhSomme 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Mamaaa...just killed a man...
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
You know I just realized that Bohemian Rhapsody and Killer Queen are about violent women.
[–]IameAuhSomme 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Music is not a strong point of mine.
[–]Wildbeastman27 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Mamma I just killed a man. I put a gun against his head, pulled the trigger now he's dead.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Upon rereading the following lyrics, this is implied, but not from the line you just wrote, as it's "Mama...just killed a man".
[–]Wildbeastman27 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Ya man, I know those aren't the correct lyrics, but by saying the song was about a violent women you implied that you only knew the one line of the song. Just trying to save you from saying that in real life, you know, in front of people.
As I said elsewhere, music is not a strong point of mine. It's been forever since I've heard that song let alone read the lyrics. I saw the next few ines and felt pretty foolish.
I assumed that it was about the impossible position many lower-class men are put in: Submit to society's low designation of you, and be viewed as unmanly. Or rebel, and be treated as a criminal, never to escape the repercussions of that rebellion.
[+]Pecanpig -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What really gets them going is when you call them an attention whore, and add the word literally just to mess with them.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seeing another woman naked is the highest form of insult a woman can suffer!
Why is the naked female form so terrible? They won't say, and go to great lengths to declare it's awesomeness in every other circumstance. But the moment a man lays eyes on a naked woman, suddenly it's a war crime.
I really think that some feminists believe that the only thing standing between her and a horde of rape-dicks, is men not getting horny.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Loop_Within_A_Loop 76 points77 points78 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tralan 20 points21 points22 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tralan 18 points19 points20 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]urhedsonfire 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]urhedsonfire 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LeonidasRex 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]literallyschmiteraly 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]literallyschmiteraly 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kittenclysm 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]literallyschmiteraly 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThePigman 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]literallyschmiteraly 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mywifeisaninja 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points (67 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakru 16 points17 points18 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]newmobsforall 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]meeeow 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakru 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]meeeow 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BalllsackTBaghard 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eulabeia -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead -5 points-4 points-3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]EnlightMen 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Pecanpig -9 points-8 points-7 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[+]Pecanpig -18 points-17 points-16 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Pecanpig -8 points-7 points-6 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]meeeow 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Pecanpig -8 points-7 points-6 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]InfinitelyThirsting1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobojojo12 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]perfectsquared 9 points10 points11 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]perfectsquared 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ding_batman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]drgfromoregon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ding_batman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mytecacc 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Batman5991 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mytecacc -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobojojo12 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cryptobomb 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AceyJuan 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRosen333 -3 points-2 points-1 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRosen333 0 points1 point2 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRosen333 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRosen333 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]KRosen333 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KRosen3331 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LasherDeviance[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead -1 points0 points1 point (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eulabeia 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted]4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LasherDeviance1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LasherDeviance2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JLTeabag0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MockingDead2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sortofheathery 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Always_Doubtful 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TwirlySocrates 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]draykow 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThePigman 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]UDT22 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TorontoMike -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mytecacc 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LasherDeviance[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]IameAuhSomme -2 points-1 points0 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]TryToMakeSongsHappen 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]IameAuhSomme 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]IameAuhSomme 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wildbeastman27 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wildbeastman27 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Pecanpig -13 points-12 points-11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link