Tuesday, August 28, 2012

It is a political protest so the question is should it be covered by citizen journalists? NSFW

Are they just a bunch of boobs or is there more to this story?
Should topless protest at White House be covered?  
If only for Rule 5 purposes alone, the answer is yes (and no).  Go to the link and look at the pictures and it is self evident which should be covered and which should not!
Some very strong argumentative points in support of her position..
h/t: Althouse

Update:   Jeff Goldstein notes lefties and some conservatives are all excited about a satirical story about Todd Akin and the benefits of breast milk.  I am sure the La Leche League is all over this!  And what about Mayor Bloomberg?  Apparently most leftists and sadly some conservatives do not know what satirical means.  I blame our failed education system!  


  1. MSM guilty of 'Butterface journalism'!

    1. Yes it is. But this is a story that needs to be exposed in part and covered in part.

  2. Female breasts are not inherently sexual. They have been culturally sexualized because of religion telling us they should be covered. Prior to the American occupation of Japan after WW 2, it was common for women to be topless in public in Japan. The Americans brought the Judea-Christian "morals" and forced them upon the Japanese culture. The only reason anyone finds women's breasts erotic is because we're told we're not allowed to see them.

  3. God, that is just plain stupid.


I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.