Sorry to start off with a nitpick, but the first panel reads “Chargies”. Not sure if that was deliberate or not.
The main problem with this idea is that it’s highly biased against some things that men cannot change about themselves. Some people physically cannot become mister Hunka Hulka Burning Caramel, so charging overweight people for being shirtless when there’s nothing inherently indecent about a man’s upper body would be highly discriminatory.
But that doesn’t stop the idea of a poor sap being cuffed and slammed against a police car for being shirtless and ugly from making me laugh way too hard just because there’s no one around to give me a weird look for it.
@DTIBA: Ha hahhah ahah haha! Try being a woman for a day. Our bodies get analyzed, scrutinized, criticized, harassed, and policed in every way imaginable.
Also, I think Bug looks rather fetching in his Courtesy Muumuu.
(The first panel has a couple of things wrong with it. It should read: “I think indecent exposure chargEs should BE levied against more dudes.”)
Technically though, there is no part of the human body that is “inherently indecent”. Society has dictated what is considered indecent; I.E. some societies say women topless is fine, while others say showing ankle is indecent. So, since this is a strictly societal thing, society can decide if they consider the above mentioned things indecent.
I feel like there’s a Walmart joke here somewhere… but that’s probably too easy. There is definitely a need for a new standard. The crime here isn’t necessarily “indecency” as much as it is: “nobody wants to see that.” Maybe it could run on a points system like speeding tickets… if you get too many points, you have to wear the muumuu?
Yesterday you wanted to eat bags of snickers in private. Today you want enfore fines on chubby guys who eat bags of snickers in private. Why do you hate yourself? Why do you want to give yourself fines?
Sorry to start off with a nitpick, but the first panel reads “Chargies”. Not sure if that was deliberate or not.
The main problem with this idea is that it’s highly biased against some things that men cannot change about themselves. Some people physically cannot become mister Hunka Hulka Burning Caramel, so charging overweight people for being shirtless when there’s nothing inherently indecent about a man’s upper body would be highly discriminatory.
But that doesn’t stop the idea of a poor sap being cuffed and slammed against a police car for being shirtless and ugly from making me laugh way too hard just because there’s no one around to give me a weird look for it.
@DTIBA: Ha hahhah ahah haha! Try being a woman for a day. Our bodies get analyzed, scrutinized, criticized, harassed, and policed in every way imaginable.
Also, I think Bug looks rather fetching in his Courtesy Muumuu.
(The first panel has a couple of things wrong with it. It should read: “I think indecent exposure chargEs should BE levied against more dudes.”)
Technically though, there is no part of the human body that is “inherently indecent”. Society has dictated what is considered indecent; I.E. some societies say women topless is fine, while others say showing ankle is indecent. So, since this is a strictly societal thing, society can decide if they consider the above mentioned things indecent.
Well, don’t make that argument in front of anyone who bows before a cross.
No worries. Typos have been fixed.
To continue nitpicking the first panel should there not be a ‘be’ between ‘shoukd’ And levied’..charges should be levied.
I feel like there’s a Walmart joke here somewhere… but that’s probably too easy. There is definitely a need for a new standard. The crime here isn’t necessarily “indecency” as much as it is: “nobody wants to see that.” Maybe it could run on a points system like speeding tickets… if you get too many points, you have to wear the muumuu?
Yesterday you wanted to eat bags of snickers in private. Today you want enfore fines on chubby guys who eat bags of snickers in private. Why do you hate yourself? Why do you want to give yourself fines?