Breasts = Evil

Remove all ads!

Makes one wonder, since English names are often associated with the person's profession... I wonder what a wank(er) was back in the 1200s?

 

I had a guy in my class few years back with the name Dick de Cock. He never wished to go to England.

A friend of mine is an artistic painter who wanted to create an online gallery. He lives at number 69, so when he asked me, out of the blue, what I was thinking of when I would hear the name Studio 69, I thought it was a catch question.

See what happens when you ask someone what he thinks of when he hears "A matured woman with a mackerel". Most often they get a frowny smirk on their face.

 

Well, on Wednesday this week (ooh, that's tomorrow!) there is going to be a parade down the main street of Auckland featuring topless porn stars riding motorcycles. The parade is called "Boobs on Bikes" and it will pass right by my office window.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0003C5A2-4402-14E8-9B9783027AF1010E

 

If sexuality is concerned, many USAmericans are a bunch of dumbasses.

No offense guys, but its true.


@Harbourboy


lucky bastard, get a cam, film it and load it up on you tube ^^

 

I've heard of a guy named Harry Dick, and someone being paged named Mike Hunt, but the way the woman said it was rather embarassing...

 

No joke what's wrong with that?

 

Could it be that, when you say it quickly, it kind of sounds like...

"My **nt"

 

That should unteach you muting the initial "h".

 

Is he a relative of Peter Gozinya?

 

I think this does go back to my earlier point in this thread where the breast on the cover would draw attention away from the article inside. They see the breast, think about the breast in a sexual manner, when this is not the intention. Once sexual thoughts enter the picture the serious point goes bye bye--as we've witnessed here...

 

A funny thought came to me after seeing the magazine cover.

If those complainers can only think of breasts in a sexual way when they see one, then they must be thinking the baby is performing a sexual action in the picture. If so, they're bloody perverts and deserve to be jailed and beaten regularly with a wet rubber chicken.



@Abomination:

[ August 25, 2006, 14:53: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

 

Then whoever owns the breast is performing a sexual act upon the child... Every woman who breast feeds should be locked away, how dare they shove a sexual organ into the face of a baby!

 

Even in my country such photos could be found in daily newspapers pages about health or parenting. I've seen more than that in an educational program in the morning on TV. And i've always thought Muslims were much more fanatical but it seems there are competitors.

 

It is very strange how these things are viewed in America. I just returned here after 3 years in the UK and am truely embarrased about reactions like this. I, a red-blooded American sex-fiend, found nothing sexual in this magazine cover whatsoever.

 

Since when can you put a baby in jail?

 

The fact is, most of America doesn't feel that way. A few wackos here and there do, likely the same percentage as in the EU, but here they think, "I know, we're all being stupid idiots, LETS BE VOCAL ABOUT IT!!" because that's what we teach people here, to stand up for their individuality and what they think is right.
...
It doesn't always turn out well.

As for the US being the largest producer of porn in the world, do you know how BIG the US is? Do you? If you want to compare porn produced in the EU to something, compare it to a state or collection of states of equivalent size or population, like California, or Texas. Now California being the most porn-producing nation in the world I could believe, but not New England, and not the 'Four Corners' (4 states that share a corner).

 

Bit late, but:

Wow, you wouldn't last two minutes in Germany. Their TV magazines show FAR more than that.

 

"In the opinion of the police, given the standards of decency observed in this day and age, a female being topless in a parade on a weekday in Queen St will not in itself constitute an indecent act. However, what actions the female performs while topless may bring the behaviour to a point which is sufficient to warrant the intervention and sanction of the law,"

Can't help but agree with the NZ policemen

Anyway, if a baby suckling on a breast is insulting, what about a baby suckling on something else? I mean, we are talking about a mechanical substitute for a sex organ, hence a sex toy. Oh my... the people who complained should actually be happy it was only a breast.

 

Heh, well, it's not like they should always immediately arrest people for not being clothed. However, there's always something so fundamentally ****ing tiring about people who just want to unzip it.