To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
@44, I don’t understand how this is a display of female sexuality when there’s nothing sexually gratifying in it for the woman.
#52 nailed it.
Accusing someone of being “sex-negative” has really become the progressive dude’s version of crying “femi-nazi,” hasn’t it?
The actual sex-negatives in this post are the guys who view these girls as bad porn because they don’t look like the 16-year-olds they jerk off to. They’re the ones with the sexual issues. I’m sure they’re also disgusted by pubic hair. Yet none of you “sex-positives” ever take issue with them. Which is why I don’t take you seriously.
“there’s nothing sexually gratifying in it for the woman.”
And you know that how? Because you make assumptions about how all women should behave and think? Maybe she’s getting wet and lovely in that very picture? Maybe she gets her jollies from this? How do you know? Define ‘sexual gratification’, does it have to involve another person and can’t be auto-erotic?
American feminists = American fundamentalists. Same coin, different sides.
@53 And who said feminists don’t have a sense of humor?
@52/53: You don’t know that they aren’t exhibitionists. Many people get off on people looking at them and thinking they’re hot.
” Many people get off on people looking at them and thinking they’re hot.”
That’s not a problem for Seattle feminists. Which of course is why they have a problem with women like this.
To me this is just such a cowardly way to protest. If they were wearing clothes and holding whatever sign they’re holding, people might actually come up and try to argue with them about whatever issue it is they’re protesting, and it might be too confrontational for them. So instead they wear cute little pink panties and make nudity their whole focal point so that that’s all anyone cares about. I mean, look at the comments on this thread. Has anyone asked “No, really, what are they protesting?” No, because no one gives a shit. All they can talk about is their bodies.
Aren’t they protesting feminists having too much fur?