San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Naked Women In Fort Collins

Rejoice all you perverts.  Today is the day to celebrate the destruction of public morality in the town of Fort Collins, Colorado.  If you want to see women walking naked on the streets, Fort Collins is the place to be, although it is snowy and cold as I write this, thus making it likely that only Eskimo women will be strolling about au natural today.  But hey, if you like naked Eskimo women let me tell you all about the new freedom available to women in Fort Collins.
A group of ignorant and militant feminists has been attempting to get the permission of their god, also known as civil government, to allow them to walk around topless in Fort Collins.  On Wednesday U.S. District Court Judge Brooke Jackson granted an injunction stopping the enforcement of a city ordinance that "prohibited women from showing their breasts in public," saying it "discriminates and perpetuates the sexualization of female breasts."  Brooke, who is a man, wrote the injunction because he believed that the Fort Collins law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  According to his insane reasoning, since men can go around topless women should be able to do so as well since the Constitution protects the right of women to do all things men do.  Why men do not have the right to bear children was not explained. Why men do not have the right to nurse children in public was not defined.  Why men do not have breasts was not elucidated by the good judge.
What I found most interesting in the judge's decision was his assertion that the female breast is not sexual in any way, shape or form.  I have heard this argument before, usually from nudists who are attempting to justify their immoral behavior.  The argument is made that there is nothing inherently or naturally sexual about women's breasts and that any sexual excitement or stimulation that men experience as a result of seeing, touching or having any type of contact with a woman's breasts is exclusively the result of male perversity and nothing else.  In other words, female breasts are no more sexual in nature than a woman's clipped fingernail or a woman's knee cap.  Anyone who thinks they are is a pervert.  Well call me a pervert!
Now I understand that men have been feminized in this estrogen laced country and are therefore no longer permitted to have distinctively male thoughts or behaviors.  And I understand that we are overrun with an enormous number of male homosexuals who do not see a woman's breasts as erogenous.  And I understand that probably 1 out of every 5 men I see is actually a transvestite who is simply trying to decide if he wants to grow some breasts. And I understand that men have become morally enlightened by virtue of the fact that they have cast off biblical ethics, thus leading them to believe that nudity is right dandy.  But what I don't understand is how any person, male or female, in his right mind could possibly believe or attempt to advance the argument that a woman's breasts are not inherently sexual.  Give me a break. That is absolutely ridiculous and anyone who believes it is an idiot.
Let me ask you a couple of questions, you who believe that breasts are asexual.  If breasts are asexual why have so many pornographers made so much money showing them?  I just read the other day that Playboy magazine is going to once again feature photographs of topless women. Why do you think that is?  Do you truly believe that only sexually perverted men notice women's breasts?  If women truly believe that their breasts are asexual for all men except perverts, why do they spend so much time, money and effort displaying them to men in public?  If women do not believe their breasts are naturally sexual, why do they use them to arouse sexual interest in men?  Come on people, let's admit the rather obvious truth, shall we?  A woman's breasts are not asexual and anyone who believes they are, like good Judge Brooke, is a raving lunatic.
Equally fascinating to me was a comment made by one of the lawyers for the militant feminists after the judge issued his order.  Attorney David Lane said, "Any statute that has the words 'women are prohibited from' is almost certainly unconstitutional."  Davey-boy, do you really believe that?  How about these statutes:
  • Women are prohibited from engaging in combat in war (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from being drafted (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from engaging in mixed martial arts cage matches (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from going into men's bathrooms if they decide to identify as men (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from competing on men's sports teams (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from voting since we all know they are too stupid to understand politics (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from driving since we all know they are terrible drivers (oops, he is right on that one).
  • Women are prohibited from smoking in any location other than their home or enclosed automobile.  There!  At last I found something women don't have a legal or constitutional right to do.  I wonder if Attorney Lane will file suit to overturn the anti-smoking statutes?  I doubt it.  Nobody cares for women that much.

No comments:

Post a Comment