If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

The Indecency of Breasts

Yesterday was Boobquake and even though we don’t live in a Muslim nation and hopefully no one in America actually thinks boobs cause earthquakes, breasts are still considered dangerous. Yesterday facebook labeled at least some if not all of the boobquake photos indecent and pulled them from the site.

For those who don’t know what Boobquake is, please check out my examiner article. I am pretty sure that the administrators of facebook weren’t worries that all the photos of partially covered breasts would cause an earthquake under the facebook servers. So why were these photos taken down?

Yes, they obviously were a violation of Sharia Law, but that was the whole point. Breasts aren’t actually dangerous and these breasts were partially covered anyway.

I posted a photo on behave of Dangerous Talk to the boobquake page. This was a photo taken of Dangerous Talk supporter Sachiko McLean. I actually had the choice of posting a fully nude version, but decided that it might be too great a risk if children saw it, there eyes might literally pop out of their sockets. I didn’t want to be responsible for blinding anyone.


I know it sounds silly. I don’t think nude women cause eye balls to pop out of their sockets either. That would make about as much sense as the claim that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes. Still, facebook pulled down many of these boobquake photos including the Dangerous Talk photo. Why?

I know the reason they gave, but it is just unreasonable. They claimed the photos were indecent. What about them makes them indecent? Why are they indecent? What makes something indecent, anyway? They didn’t cause any earthquakes nor did they cause people’s eyes to pop out of their sockets. So what’s the big deal?

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • PRG

    I think it is the law in the U. S. that you can’t show breasts on a website unless it is an adult website. So probably that question should be aimed at the makers of that law. I agree it is silly and makes no sense…most babies have women’s breasts in their face several times a day.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      The law may refer to naked breasts, but not partially clothed breasts. It is a silly law though and it ought to be overturned.

  • 1225truth

    I would be willing to make a large wager that many facebook accounts include photos of people critically injured (or even dead) from a battlefield engagement, soldier or civilian. Facebook never sought to have those photos removed for “indecency”.

    Healthy boobs, in any functional capacity, are life affirming. The contrast of presumably acceptable photos that I call to attention are anything but. Some people claim to have acquired their values and morals from their religion. I never have.

  • http://dogmaticatheist.wordpress.com A-Dizzle

    You could post the fully nude version, it wouldn’t offend me at all.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Those photos on in the Free Them for Freedom section. See the sidebar ——–>

  • http://www.myspace.com/diana_graves Diana

    Why are women’s breast offensive but not men. I’ve seen shirtless men walking on the street with bigger breats than…other women, (cant say myself because mine are…big)

    I feel offened that people are so offened by my breast! They aren’t dirty or hairy or ugly. They’re just another part of me. This is incredibly sexist.

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

    I think those who need to keep breasts covered may well be the ones expressing indecent proclivities.