These young airheads are campaigning for the right to go topless in public. Women like them march in "slutwalks" to normalize dressing like streetwalkers. Both campaigns advance an ongoing satanist objective of turning nature on its head. By flouting natural heterosexual reactions and standards, they undermine marriage and gender. Tom Bothwell shows the absurdity of their argument woman should go bare chested if men can.
By Tom Bothwell
For several days now, the top story on yahoo.ca has been about women going topless in public: "Rally in support of women's right to go topless takes place in Waterloo, Ont."
The protest in question was organized by the Mohamed sisters who, while biking topless a little over a week ago, were stopped by a male police officer and told that the law requires them to cover up.
The officer was in error. Women going topless in public has been 'legal' in Ontario ever since 1996 when Gwen Jacob, who had been charged with indecency for doing just that, was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The judge ruled that baring one's breasts was not a sexual act or indecent and that it did not exceed the 'community standard of tolerance'.
The legalization of public toplessness was, of course, largely a feminist goal and was argued for on the grounds of 'equality'. If men are allowed to go shirtless in public outdoor spaces, then women should be permitted to go topless as well!
After all, any other arrangement would be a form of discrimination and a manifestation of patriarchal oppression, or so the argument ran.
The basic problem with this line of reasoning is the fact that men and women may be equal, but they are not the same.
Specifically, a woman's breasts are a private and intimate part of her anatomy in a way that a man's chest is not.
If you were to accidentally touch a shirtless man's chest in a casual way, it is no big deal.
Now, try touching a woman's naked breasts under similar conditions and see what happens. You're likely to be charged with assault. The woman would experience the contact as a type of violation.
Similarly, one can ask: how many of these topless women who were protesting with their signs saying "they're just boobs" would appreciate passers-by taking photographs of their breasts and putting them up on the internet for all the world to see?
How many of them would consider that sort of exposure 'exploitation'? They want to have their cake and eat it too - a very common problem amongst special interest groups in our degenerate age.
None of the domestic media outlets reporting on this story have released uncensored footage of the protest. Might it be that they dare not take the risk of legal entanglements? By contrast, filming a shirtless man or positing his photo on flikr would be a non-event. The double standards are numerous.