A friend of mine said something like this when he saw the feminists topless-protest, "They could work on raising the intellectual level of women, instead of running around naked. Running naked like that isn't helping anything. I understand their point, but 'doing something instead of nothing' is a very low standard. They could just as well protest objectification by running around looking dirty and ugly."

As usual, this perspective is entirely male-centric, and being such, completely misses the point altogether by not accurately understanding the position of the female activists.

The point of going naked is not to force people to accept or confront the reality of the naked human body. Just like public displays of homosexual relationships and identity are not to force people to accept the existence of homosexuals. It is to demonstrate that despite all the opposition to the reality (nudity, homosexuality), the women are going to continue to be nude IF THEY WANT TO and the gays are going to continue to be openly gay IF THEY WANT TO.

And here is the important part:

They are going to do so whether others disagree with this position or not. Because it is their right to do so and that is what they are essentially protesting. Their right to do as they please regardless of the objections they face from society.

Because if males can bare their breasts in public and face no opposition from the norm, under the subjective morality, women have the exact same rights. And if heterosexuals can display their affections for one another in public, again, homosexuals have the exact same rights. The only reason these rights have been historically denied to them is because politicians and religious groups have substituted their personal value judgements for the process of law and denied them these rights.

Naked women are not forbidden because of any justifiable jurisprudence. They are forbidden because of religious doctrines which state that the nakedness of women is sinful. Homosexuality is also not forbidden because of any justifiable jurisprudence. It is forbidden because of religious doctrines which state that homosexuality is a sin.

The Western society--where the feminists protester are--which touts its separation of church and state as one of its finest features, such corruptions of their rule of law are seems intolerable and need to change. That is what the women are protesting for when they bare it all for the cause. They are not protesting to socially program bigots into accepting their point of view. They are protesting to prevent bigots from denying them their point of view.

Women look forward to the day when they won't have to go naked in order to preserve their rights to do so, because such rights will be a given and protected. Just like not all women wanted to work outside the home or own property, but are now grateful for the rights to do so if they wished.

They are not there yet when it comes to nudity. So the struggle continues.

If I have daughters, I'm rather indifferent on this. If women want to protest topless, then so be it, I'm fine with it. Would I want my daughters to do it? No, I'd say it wasn't necessary and that it's better to use your brain than your body in protesting anything. Would I get angry at them or disown for doing it? No, I'd just say "Whatever, do what you think you need to do, but be careful men will always be perverts regardless."

I'd just think, "Why give men the satisfaction of seeing you topless?" Because even if you don't want them to be sexually aroused by it, they still will be--unless they are homosexual. A woman's nudity in public is more a man's pleasurable viewing gain than it is for a woman to feel free of not wearing clothing. Men are just simply more visually aroused than women are.

If I am a woman, I definitely would be grossed out if men walked around without pants and had their penis dangling here and there and everywhere. The bottom line is ... I don't want to see anybody's junk.

I pity the penis and its needs, by the way.