doctorow at June 26th, 2014 23:00 — #1
willondon at June 26th, 2014 23:11 — #2
So the merkin predates Copernicus, and the tata top is not invented until the age of robotic exploration of the solar system. I have no idea what to make of that.
eksrae at June 26th, 2014 23:18 — #3
Do they make a thong that makes me look taller?
willondon at June 26th, 2014 23:24 — #4
Codpiece sold separately.
hurleyef at June 26th, 2014 23:31 — #5
I'm a little disappointed that it seems to only come in white.
glitch at June 26th, 2014 23:38 — #6
Historically, people who wanted to look like they were topless... simply went topless.
Public nudity simply wasn't that big a thing for most of the human race through most of time. The noteable situations where it was are, by and large, the exceptions.
In contrast, wearing a merkin serves essentially the same purpose as wearing a wig - it stands in for something you physically lack naturally.
steampunkbanana at June 26th, 2014 23:40 — #7
There are plans in the works for an array of human colors.
blendergasket at June 26th, 2014 23:49 — #8
It'd be cool if you could customize it with an image of your own breasts.
hurleyef at June 26th, 2014 23:56 — #9
In that case, I hereby rescind my disappointment. I won't hold it against them if they want to target what will presumably be their largest demographic first.
willondon at June 27th, 2014 00:04 — #10
Kinda getting into Emporer's Clothes territory here, aren't we?
Fifty-fifty then? Since you thought of the basic idea.
skeptic at June 27th, 2014 00:14 — #11
Think of it as coming in "tan lines" - it doesn't have to match exactly, though it would be cool if they had more options...
Not really sure I need to see the matching bottoms, especially the dude version...
l_mariachi at June 27th, 2014 00:17 — #12
Would completely transparent/sheer tops satisfy the letter of the law vis-à-vis boobphobic ordinances?
rattypilgrim at June 27th, 2014 00:42 — #13
Where are the Speedos with the cheesey representation of a penis printed on the front?
bobo at June 27th, 2014 02:14 — #14
Unfortunately, and to be a bit of a stick in the mud, I'd bet that anyone who wears a set of these in an area with existing rules against toplessness for women will likely be cited for something like "public indecency" or "public display of pornographic material" etc... The logic (not that I subscribe to it) being that wearing screenprinted boobs is no different than whipping out a porno mag and showing it to the kiddies (do porn mags still exist in this era of the internet?).
I've said it here before. I'm a straight guy. I like boobs. I just don't get what all the furor is about. I mean if I saw an attractive lady topless on the beach, my first response would be "heh, nice", then maybe "hey, where's that book that I had a few minutes ago", then likely "hmm. I like iced tea" "it's hot on the sand, maybe I should go in the water"... I guess the point is that I like them (boobs), and they're fun etc..., but why is it such a giganto-fucking big deal if someone whips them out in public? They're tits for god's sake, not venomous snakes. "what about the children?" I'd bet that little kids have seen far more boobs, and more recently than most everyone who's not 1) female and/or 2) currently in a relationship. Is is a judeochristian thing? I ask honestly, not being raised in a judeochristian religion.
cowicide at June 27th, 2014 02:39 — #15
bare chested women in public are damaging to the social fabric, while men are able to wear as much or as little above the waist as they choose.
That's the real crime.
jsroberts at June 27th, 2014 04:08 — #16
I was on the beach in the South of France with my family yesterday. Some women did wear tops and some didn't, but the children were fine and didn't really notice. Nobody else paid much attention either and public morality didn't seem to suffer too much that day. It was fairly clear that the women were going topless for their own reasons and not to be looked at. The same applies in Spain, which is more religious. Even teenagers don't seem to act any differently around each other when some of them are girls with no top. This is about swimming/enjoying the beach, not sex. In contrast, the idea of topless women seems to be treated as almost exclusively about sex in the UK and USA and breasts seem to be considered as primarily sexual organs (so even breastfeeding in public is controversial).
While there isn't the restriction for men on top, there's quite a bit of social pressure to cover up the bottom half. I once tried to wear tighter fitting swimming shorts (not speedos) in Kansas in an outdoor public pool because I wanted to swim laps and don't like having board shorts acting like a sea anchor. The dirty looks I got basically meant that I didn't risk it again.
bobtato at June 27th, 2014 05:36 — #17
Why not just make it completely transparent, apart from the aureolas? You'd still need 2 or 3 different shades but it'd be a lot more skin-tone-agnostic.
boundegar at June 27th, 2014 06:46 — #18
That's because female breasts are obscene. Don't you think flat chested women can feed their babies just fine? No, those funbags were made by the Devil to turn righteous men into rutting beasts. Also, they're kind of wall-eyed, aren't they?
walterplinge at June 27th, 2014 07:23 — #19
This looks more like a gag gift than a tool for social justice. Maybe you also want to order some Dick Towels ( http://itsalwayssunny.wikia.com/wiki/Dick_Towel )?
jsroberts at June 27th, 2014 07:54 — #20
One of the main reasons to go topless on the beach would seem to be getting an even suntan rather than making your breasts visible to everyone around you. This seems to fail any function apart from being a political statement (and even as a political statement, it fulfills its purpose better online than on the beach, where most people probably wouldn't get the point).
next page →