Categories
boobs misogyny MRA reddit shocked SHOCKED

The Men’s Rights subreddit declares war on topless women, if it can find any

First with the toplessness, then with the pinching

Men’s Rights activists have to stretch a bit to find new things to get mad about. Right now Men’s Rights Redditors are working themselves into a tizzy because a city in Colorado made it legal for women and girls to go topless.

In 2019.

You see, back in those halcyon days before COVID, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado decided that it wasn’t worth the time or the money to defend a city ordinance forbidding women from exposing their boobs in public.

Now, more than two years later some doofus on the Men’s Rights subreddit named Zogins, who only just heard the news, is warning his fellow MRAs that

Women and young girls allowed to go topless in public. Wait for the avalanche of cases against men because they looked.

Radical feminism is a disease, a rot. A group of women fought for the ‘right’ to be topless like men. So now girls aged 11 and over have the ‘right’ to walk about topless.

I can’t even imagine the number of criminal charges against men for being pedophiles and pervs in the near future.

Zogins found the story on a clickbaity trash site that basically plagiarized an NBC News article on the subject from September 2019 and treated it like it was new news in 2022. He never bothered to track the story to its source. Had he bothered to google “Fort Collins Topless” he would have discovered that the city wasn’t overrun with topless women and girls, and that men were not being arrested en masse (or even en one) for looking at them.

Nonetheless, Zogins has convinced a good number of his fellow MRAs that this is somehow a live issue and a sign of invidious discrimination against men. Indeed, his post has 420 upvotes, making it the top (non-stickied) post in the subreddit right now. Its also inspired nearly 300 comments. MRAs love to get worked up about entirely hypothetical problems.

True, quite a few commenters brush off the “news,” saying that they’re not worried about a tsunami of toplessness. Or that they would welcome something like that. “Looks like I’m moving to Colorado,” one commenter writes.

One big worry of the commenters is the possibility of seeing an ugly woman’s possibly ugly boobs.

“The ones who are desperate enough to go topless are not the kind of women us men would want to see go topless,” writesThrowAway640KB. “I mean, some guys are thirsty enough that anything goes, even decades older or hideously ugly. But still.”

Modsarebrainstems adds,

The day that became legal, my apartment caretaker managed to make the front page news in Ottawa. … The caretaker decided to vacuum the halls topless. Imagine Barbie on fat steroids, coked up and an extra 30 years.

Others detail their plans to thwart the hypothetical topless menace.

Gamernator-GX  writes

A bunch of middle-aged, fat, ugly, butch-haircut feminists going topless isn’t my idea of eye candy. I’d look away quickly and say, “Lady, put your guns away. This is California. Open carry is not legal.” If they’re gonna play that entitled liberal game, I will too, by using their own rules against them. I’ll complain like a Karen and say i was offended, sexually harassed, and since nudity was exposed to my children, she’s a syxual pridator. I’d smile as she’s handcuffed and put in the paddy wagon. Then at court, I’ll cry like a 5 year old girl and say, “Then she looked at me, and I feared she was gonna rape me! I escaped with my life! I’ll never get over this trauma!” Since feminists want to be men (while hating men at the same time makes it so much funnier), she’s not given the womans sentence for sexual harrassment of 4 months, she given the men’s sentence of 40 years. Having enough women like her in prison is a guarantee that our nation’s worst offenders will never die in a flood.

These guys sure have vivid imaginations.

Zogins, the OP, reports that he actually has tried to get topless women arrested before. “In my country,” he notes,

[w]omen are not allowed to be topless even on a beach.

Many women ignore this rule and they sunbathe and swim topless. The police do nothing. …

I was on a beach with a young relative and two women sat down next to us and took off their tops. I felt a little uncomfortable because I was with a young boy and we both did not know where to look. I decided to try an experiment. I phoned the police hotline for reporting crimes and told the female police officer who replied of the two women who were breaking the law next to me. I gave her the name of the beach and directions. She started trying to be funny “It’s a very hot day today. I think they are feeling hot.” But I asked her what she was going to do seeing that the law was being broken right next to me. She told me that she would send a police car. None came.

Poor baby.

Still others work themselves into a lather over a hypothetical epidemic of women grabbing men”s chests. “They do anything that they want without repercussions or correction,” complains stupuff.

Next time a woman touches your chest or anything you didn’t give permission for, call them out. Make them feel scummy for taking license with your body because you’re a man.

Either we all follow the rules or no one does.

Somehow I doubt that women are regularly grabbing this guy’s chest. Or is there really an epidemic of chest-groping going on that I’m not aware of?

A few commenters think this whole thread is as dumb as I think it is.

“This is honestly one of the stupidest posts ive ever seen on here,” complains Skydiver860, “and is an example of posts on here that give people the wrong idea and think we are the bad people.”

Skydiver860, I certainly appreciate you calling out this post. But there are posts as dumb as this up pretty much every day on the Men’s Rights subreddit. If you don’t believe me, just watch.

Follow me on Mastodon.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.

86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
.45
.45
2 years ago

“bare-chested baristas who dip their nips into the coffee”

I know I’m late to the party, but that is an interesting fetish. I suppose I would go to such a place if it existed, just to say I tried it, but I’m afraid I have to throw my hat in the ring as a guy who is more into legs than boobs.

This is not to say I don’t enjoy being a tall guy with a good vantage point to look down from, but if we are going to pull the whole “This tells men that this woman is prime genetic material to breed with” argument, I’d say the ability to flee predators and travel by foot is far more important in a primitive environment than giant breasts. (Since, as mentioned by others, cup size is not actually related to overall milk production.)

Therefore, since I am attracted to them and they serve a evolutionary advantage, by your definition Squack, legs are sex organs.

Anyway, cops will be rendered instantly helpless when confronted by the power of bwebs? Right, so those protests with topless or outright naked women like Pussy Riot in Russia must have gone a bit differently than the news reports suggest…

Fred B-C
2 years ago

@.45: There are some times where a wrong-cow just can’t stop giving wrong-milk. I didn’t even think of the point that cops empirically are quite good at hitting nude women.

I wonder if Squack’s mind will be blown by the existence of men who are far more focused on the posterior than the anterior…

Seth S
Seth S
2 years ago

@Squack

They are sex organs in that they attract men – whether or not they are erogenous zones is actually besides the point.

By this same lack of logic, sh*t would be honey because they both attract flies; yet for some reason I have a STRONG preference which one I’d rather have on my toast.

Come on, man, you can’t be this obtuse. Sex isn’t their primary function. It’s even OPTIONAL.

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth S
Squack
Squack
2 years ago

I can’t even debate any of your points further, for I have been censored by the moderator.

@Seth S

Flies must really buzz around your head, then, and not because it’s full of honey.

Fred B-C
2 years ago

@Squack: Dang. I was hoping for more lolcow-ery. Oh well.

But that too should be telling to you. Because if you came into this conversation with some humility, saying something like “While I recognize that the readership here will probably disagree with me and I acknowledge there’s some civil liberties concerns, can I say that this worries me? I wonder if it’ll lead to more women being harassed, more fights, etc. and I wonder if bad actors will abuse it”, you may have lasted past moderation enough to be able to express your ideas. Some people would still have been impatient with you, because, well, you’re talking about other peoples’ bodies and what they get to do with them, but you will be astonished at how patient a lot of people will be with you when your tone changes.

Your ideas are routinely fundamentally really bad. But you also ensure that, whatever their merits, they’re just not going to be heard very often. Whether that’s because a mod restricts you or because people just tune out, if you think these issues are important, it’s incumbent upon you to be patient.

Something that dawned on me at some point in my adulthood (not that I’ve ever been known to be a very cantankerous or anger-prone person) was: You get to be nice an unlimited number of times. You get to be an asshole once. Once you’ve pulled the trigger on being aggressive and confrontational, it takes a long time to get that temperature down.

You may find that people will take you more seriously if you, say, write a post, then go do something else for an hour, then check on the post again, catch if you’re being aggressive see if you can rewrite it, and then maybe (gasp!) even do some basic fact-checking. If you say something that’s trivially easy to disprove, like breast size being meaningfully correlated with milk (something that I can forgive you naively thinking but which evolutionary theory should have made you skeptical of – sexual selection practically by definition makes organisms have properties that are ostentatious beyond functionality), it undermines any good argument you have because it makes it look like your opinions are not well-founded enough to be worth investigating. So if you make any claim to fact, and you’re not an expert in the field, check it!

One of the few times I’ve repeated a pseudoscientific boner like that, specifically the idea that the beard keeps growing after death, a friend corrected me on it, and while he’s not the most reliable and sometimes a little aggressive, I took it very poorly and didn’t properly admit that, oops, I was wrong. That stuck with me, and it reminded me to double-check things I thought I learned. Doing that helps you keep up to date on things, like, say, the fact that the Dunning-Kruger effect is now being seriously contested, something I see smart people still using even though it’s now firmly provisional at best.

If any of this actually matters to you and isn’t a chance to just try to show off how smart you are to a bunch of people who aren’t impressed, give it a try. Just a thought.

Last edited 2 years ago by Fred B-C
Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
2 years ago

Men are visual creatures

Oh please. That old chestnut. I’ve seen too many men’s unaesthetic dwelling places to believe it.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 years ago

@Alan I’m a strong verbs and irregular past participles kind of person myself.

.

@Our current infant troll Squack, you do seem to have very limited horizons – no wonder you keep tripping over them. Fred B-C has offered you some really good advice, consider taking it (at the very least, you could become a better-informed and more interesting troll – at best there’s always the possibility of becoming a real boy, Pinocchio :-s)

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
2 years ago

Makroth to Squack:

Your sexual fantasies about boobs in coffee do not represent reality.

Frankly, they don’t even represent the barista fetish porn art I’ve seen on the seedier parts of Twitter.

contrapangloss
2 years ago

Seeing as his “oh noes the moderation” post went through fine, I’m guessing his elegant and eloquent rebuttal used some of the limited censored verbiage.

I could be wrong. I mean, I know I’m wrong on the elegant and eloquent front because, well… Squack.

contrapangloss
2 years ago

Squack:

What I’m saying is “have you tried making your points without being insulting?”

Because getting caught by the auto-mod while being even a reasonable facsimile of not-very-rude is pretty rare. It can happen with some technical language, but it’s rare.

Getting stuck with delayed posts/full mod for “Wordpress decided I’m a whole new poster who needs first time approval” is more common, but would have affected even the “yikes, moderation” post.

Last edited 2 years ago by contrapangloss
Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

Men are visual creatures

Then how come I keep walking into the bloody coffee table?

Cyborgette
Cyborgette
2 years ago

What… what the hell even did I miss.

“bare-chested baristas who dip their nips into the coffee”

What. Ouch. @Squack you do realize nipples are very pain sensitive and hot coffee hurts, right? And that service jobs are shitty enough without adding the pain of nipples scalded by hot coffee? Seriously dude what is wrong with you.

Anyway there are plenty of cultures in warmer climates where everyone walks around naked or almost naked. And it’s not a big deal because sexuality is about context. In a culture where nudity is not sexualized, people being nude around each other isn’t sexual assault.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

If police officers are easily duped into giving a free pass to women if they flash their boobs, then isn’t that an argument for the police force to consist only of straight women? (An absurd argument, because the underlying premise is absurd).

It’s so telling when someone argues that breasts and genitals are weapons used to control the other gender. Asking men not to sexually harass women is apparently equivalent to weakening them and taking away their guns. (How else are they going to silence women and keep them out of male-dominated spaces such as jobs and public sidewalks?) Telling women it’s OK to be topless means they’re obviously going to use their breasts to harass men, and extort various perks and advantages that properly belong only to men. Because that’s what Squack would do if given the chance. He’s so blinkered and self-centered, he can’t conceive that other people have functional moral compasses. He’s assuming the rest of the world is as self-serving and venal as he is.

Flies must really buzz around your head, then, and not because it’s full of honey.

Since you don’t understand that hot coffee is hot, you should probably avoid trying to give out burns.

Last edited 2 years ago by Buttercup Q. Skullpants
LouCPurr
LouCPurr
2 years ago

So Tucker Carlson has a documentary called The End Of Men coming out and the trailer is hilarious

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
2 years ago

@LouCPurr

I was indeed not prepared. What did I even watch.

Francis
Francis
2 years ago

@ squawk if you are still reading

I am a nude model and have been for many years now lots of people have seen my boobs some of these men are married and one is even my neigbour and yet no violence or even awkwardness

.45
.45
2 years ago

@ Alan Robertshaw

Don’t lie, you walked into the coffee table because you were dumbstruck by its totally exposed body. ;D

@ LouCPurr

Ah, Tucker Carlson, my favorite Fox host, soon to be the only Fox host the way he keeps going. Best described as an adult version of that kid on the playground that hides behind the biggest kids yelling “Fight, fight!”

As for his new trailer, I have to admit I was disappointed when I finally saw it. Short little cuts of random shirtless guys flailing around, so vague as to be next to meaningless. My first thought was “The Barrett .50 cal is so overrated. It is useful for the military, but for civilians it is a heavy and expensive rifle that shows off someone’s ammosexual peen at $4 a shot.”

So, I’m gonna quote someone else on the subject matter:

I am sitting here next to my gay husband living my gay life reading a gay novel as research for my new gay book…and yet I am not and will never be as gay as whatever is haunting Tucker Carlson’s fantasies. https://t.co/wU05PVIrfG
— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC)

Last edited 2 years ago by .45
Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ .45

Well it does have nice legs.

I think the main issue is it has a glass top, but my brain can’t recognise that extends beyond the frame. I’d definitely fail that Piaget baby test.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 years ago

Maybe that table needs a little … protection

https://www.instructables.com/How-to-Baby-Proof-Sharp-Corners-on-the-CHEAP/
🙂

Some Chick
Some Chick
2 years ago

I have nothing to add except you haven’t had to cover your thighs in decades.
Obvious troll is obvious. And I really wish trolls would just stop this nonsense. You aren’t making people angry. You’re making some impressionable kid think there are a lot of people who actually think this way. Just stop. You’re literally making the planet worse.

GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
2 years ago

I think men should keep their shirts on in public, no matter what the weather is, because I have seen a LOT of unattractive manboobs. Also, sometimes there’s a young buff guy with fabulous pecs and abs walking around and it’s very distracting. They should be more modest, cover up, and damn the inconvenience for them! (/s)

@Fred: I suppose our latest troll-boy is too young to remember the magnum opus of Sir Mix-A-Lot.

@Alan: When I typed that, I thought “I wonder if someone…” and you came through for me. Thank you, my friend. And please consider a different coffee table. And I say unto you that declining is also fun:

amātor
amātoris
amātorī
amātorem
amātore

@.45: Large boobs are in fact counterproductive if you need to flee predators quickly, particularly before the invention of bras. Therefore they’re evolutionarily bad, and the optimal configuration would be long, strong legs, sturdy feet, strong arms to carry the babies around as you roam the savanna, an ability to climb trees to get out of the way of a wildebeest stampede.

So the most sexually attractive women would have substantial thighs and butt, small breasts, muscular biceps and upper backs, and an ability to gain and hold onto weight through famine (so as not to die or become infertile). That’s what evo-psych ought to predict as the sexiest due to survival of the fittest.

Fred B-C
2 years ago

@GSS: Yeah, he… actually might be. *sigh*

Also.. BUT MUH MODULES! SEXUAL SIGNALING! BREASTS HELP WOMEN FLOAT! PICKING BERRIES NOT RUNNING!

On a forum whose topic I won’t mention here, when we had this evopsych fuckery (and to be fair we may both be being a little dismissive) be used (this was when the evopsych explanations of rape were making the rounds among people who don’t know what the naturalistic fallacy is), someone pointed out that the very existence both of male and female traits that point to sexual selection and signaling very, very deeply falsifies that rape had to be a substantial explanation for adaptation. But evopsych really likes cherry-picking their data.

Viscaria
Viscaria
2 years ago

I sort of guessed after a while that we were witnessing this guy’s breast-related sexual fantasies that he wanted to a) enjoy but also b) get mad at women for. How dare we make him imagine sexy things about magical coffeeboobs!!

Anyways, it’s been legal here for women to be topless since the ’90s, and I have yet to see a topless barista of any gender. But, you know, I’m sure they’re just waiting for their moment.

.45
.45
2 years ago

@ GSS ex-noob

Sounds like you are describing an athletic woman with some extra padding. I approve.

Disclaimer: However, I do not disapprove of other builds, nor do I assume my preferences represent the totality or even majority of cis men. Furthermore, my preferences are not a blanket statement, meaning I am not only attracted to the above, blah blah blah.

Gerald Fnord
Gerald Fnord
2 years ago

Sounds like we’ve found the core audience for Kaloopy, whose main point is displaying dancing women who, largely through judicious editing, never quite show their nipples or areolae.