Sadly, Chelsey is a perfect example of one of the worst deficiencies of the American educational systems. My sons were never taught about the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments. So, the average American really has no idea that the Bill of Rights only applies to government action, and in some instances only to federal conduct. However, as has recently happened in a California school they will learn about Islam and the prophet as part of their history program.

Of course, I suspect most of their teachers are equally ignorant, but then so is our "constitutional law professor" President.

Is it too impolitic these days to point out that men and women are biologically different and have different physical indicia of sexual maturity? Or that, to a greater or lesser degree, our sociocultural notions of propriety flow from our local and tribal mating patterns? A bare breasted woman does not equal a bare-chested man -- indeed, note the different nomenclature (chest does not equal breasts). Of course, this sort of thinking makes me a misogynistic crackpot. But, as I am reasonably straight, I kind of like the fact that women aren't men.

As far as I know, no one dropped dead when Janet Jackson had her faked "wardrobe malfunction."

I hera there is a sickness going around, called titbola, that is potentially deadly. it can cause male victims to stare uncontrollably and have erections lasting longer than four hours, while causing female victims to seethe with jealous rage. therefore, Instagram may be utilizing a decency quarantine to prevent the spread of this sickness.

Curiously, gay men seem to have a natural immunity. (Patrick and Charles, you lucky bastards!)

"As far as I know, no one dropped dead when Janet Jackson had her faked "wardrobe malfunction.""

No but causing your employer to get a half million dollar fine is pretty powerful.

My take is you can't have it both ways, either showing it means something or it means nothing. Shouldn't have it mean nothing when I want and be harassment if someone looks.

Well, women can show their arms, their thighs, their knees, their shoulders,m, their hips, their legs, their ankles, and their toes at work, but men cannot. They can wear translucent fabrics which give a good visibility of their underwear( if they are wearing any) at work and while travelling and all this without getting charged with public indecency. So the day women get all covered up like men at work(and lose the choice in life to be homemakers and live off a mans money), I'll support their nipples being displayed.

She doesn't really care if it's pulled down or left up, either way she gets attention.

Joe J. No but causing your employer to get a half million dollar fine is pretty powerful.

That caused the network to pay half a million dollar fine? If Janet Jackson had a shred of decency, she should have paid it herself.

A shred of decency could have covered her nipple!

Believing that women must be covered up is a mental illness.

If Chelsea was a real man, like Vlad, she could ride a horse without a helmet.

I was just reading this article too..

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation

Willing to put your money where your mouth is on this one, Amy? I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours!

redrajesh,
You must work somewhere that still requires a suit and tie or something. I work a desk job (I'm a unix sysadmin) but I wear shorts, a t-shirt and sneakers basically every day.

For the longest time our company had no dress policy at all. Then, for a time, it was simply, "no bunny slippers[*]". Now it's essentially (I can't seem to find the exact wording anymore, if we even have a written one) that as long as you don't have your private parts hanging out, and aren't wearing something that most would find offensive... then it's ok.

[*]One sysadmin was seen wearing said slippers in a data center after a long night fixing something, and some visitors of higher-ups noticed.

Our company dress code is "don't embarrass us."

It kind really just boils down to hiring people with common sense. Though, I've found that sense is far from common and wisdom is seldom conventional.

@lobster

Wanting women to be uncovered, and women adopting a "wise foreign policy" when in public, are both sensible! One might consider flashing one's girly bits at strange men and expecting it to pass without a potentially unwanted reaction or unintended consequences might be considered terminal stupidity. Though, I confess, I don't know what the DSM for that condition is. Sure, there are events and venues with lower standards of modesty, or in which a little frivolous titillation is to be expected -- and as a red-blooded man I can't deny full enjoyment -- but the social expectation that the indicia of ones sexual maturity be covered? Lest one wish to don rain boots to walk down the sidewalk and step over the hairy rutting bottoms of men who have mounted unwitting ladies who forgot their clothing on the way out the door -- perhaps a social standard or two is in order.

If the issue had anything to do with sexual maturity, hairy chests would have to remain covered.

She should really be better than Putin; not only ride that horse bare-breasted; but, ride the horse bare-backed. Get rid of the saddle!

"If a man posts a photo of his nipples, it's ok, but not a woman? Are we in 1825?"

While social libertarians have been defeating social conservatives in some areas and in some states (e.g. same-sex marriage in many states; legalization of pot in Colorado & Washington), and while upper-body female nudity is allowed in some situations (e.g. there are some nude beaches; during Seattle's Fremont Fair Solstice Parade, bicyclists -- of either sex -- are allowed to ride completely nude), I think it will be quite some time (and probably never in some states) before women are allowed to go bare-chested in all situations where men can.

David: Is it too impolitic these days to point out that men and women are biologically different

Pointing it out is one thing. Using it as a basis to deny women something men are allowed to do is another.

Tits.

We had this one cousin, bright kid, smart, always happy, good grades, a bright future ahead.

Then one day he saw a Female Nipple.

It was only a minute or so, but the damage was done. He was never the same. Started failing at school. Depression. Eventually madness. Now he wanders the streets, homeless, just mumbles crazily to himself.

Such a tragedy.

We need to prevent more such tragedies ... this is why I believe we should fund Nipple Sight Rehabilitation programs for people who have seen nipples ... perhaps with the right care and attention and treatment, we can save more future victims from the devastating effects of seeing a female nipple.

@David "One might consider flashing one's girly bits at strange men and expecting it to pass without a potentially unwanted reaction or unintended consequences might be considered terminal stupidity"

I recall being on a beach in France where there were I'd guess at least 100 topless women, some very attractive ... there were no 'unintended consequences', armageddon was not unleashed, the men behaved themselves, and there was a general sense of civility, everyone was more well-behaved than I've ever seen on any beach elsewhere. If nipples are so devastatingly harmful to reveal, then how is this possible? Nudist camps seem to be amongst the safest, most peaceful places. Countries where women are most expected to be 'covered up' seem to be the countries most embroiled in conflict, barbarism, and hate.

I don't think that's a coincidence either; I think if women regularly walked topless, I think it would promote a greater sense of peace and love, and men would probably feel more like staying here than going off to fight wars. Call me a hippy, whatever.

@"perhaps a social standard or two is in order"

The concept of a 'standard' presupposes a value judgment - i.e. something needs to be objectively 'good' or 'bad' before you can use the word 'standard' ... you can't just claim something a 'standard' without specifying objectively why it it is specifically harmful.

@"Is it too impolitic these days to point out that men and women are biologically different"

This is called a 'non sequitur': 'Men and women are biologically different, therefore women should be forbidden from showing their own natural human body in public' (??) - the conclusion does not follow from the premises. There's a missing 'coherent argument' inbetween there.

I don't believe anyone could die from the sight of one nipple but I've certainly been revived by the sight of two.

ba-da-BOOMP!.