05-16-2008, 11:11 AM
|
#2
|
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
|
^^^^^
Is that Jack Nicholson?
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:14 AM
|
#3
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
^^^^^
Is that Jack Nicholson?
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:15 AM
|
#4
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SWC Baby
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
^^^^^
Is that Jack Nicholson?
|
You can't handle the boobs!!!
__________________
There are two types of people in this world I can't stand: People who stereotype large groups, and Edmontonians.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:16 AM
|
#5
|
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
|
He has a bigger set than his last girlfriend, Lara Flynn Boyle.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:34 AM
|
#6
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Removed by Mod
|
 You could of warned me that there would be pics
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:36 AM
|
#7
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
He has a bigger set than his last girlfriend, Lara Flynn Boyle.
|
ha ha ha, beat me too it
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:47 AM
|
#8
|
|
Not the one...
|
* fap fap fap *
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:55 AM
|
#9
|
|
One of the Nine
|
Jack Nicholson shows the OTHER effects of the Subway diet - bitchtits. Jarrett, you're next, buddy...
Thing is, women think Jack is the tits (no pun intended), so I'd say yes, his jubblies could be said to have "sexual allure".
Get the man a Bro.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 11:58 AM
|
#10
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SWC Baby
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Miikka?
Get the man a Bro.
|
IT'S A MANZIER!!! 
__________________
There are two types of people in this world I can't stand: People who stereotype large groups, and Edmontonians.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 12:26 PM
|
#11
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Now world wide!
|
Bro!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 12:47 PM
|
#12
|
|
Has Towel, Will Travel
|
Gotta agree with the judges on this one ... there's nothing sexy about moobs.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 01:10 PM
|
#13
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
|
Boy, this day couldn't get any better for fat teenage criminals.
What's next? The Court of Queen's Bench rules that Oreos aren't protected by the Charter?
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 01:13 PM
|
#14
|
|
One of the Nine
|
Is that a moob sprout growing on Nicholson's right side (just to the right of the sub)?
As I see it, moobs are unsightly and as such SHOULD be considered private parts. Who's complaining if the Atkinson's sets of the world are free to see? Not me.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 01:16 PM
|
#15
|
|
Norm!
|
Jack -"Does that side boob turn you on? Well it shouldn't because its my side boob"
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 01:18 PM
|
#16
|
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
|
Three senior judges grappled with the question of whether male breasts could be regarded as having any sexual allure.
|
I suspect that once the female contingent on CP registers for this thread, we will learn that the British could have had the answer without wasting valuable taxpayer dollars.
I would like to say that I look forward to some women's rights group suing to allow women to bear their boobs on an equality rights charge, but we all know that the women we want to see and the women we will see aren't the same group. 
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 01:28 PM
|
#17
|
|
One of the Nine
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
we all know that the women we want to see and the women we will see aren't the same group
|
Sad but true.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 02:32 PM
|
#18
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: @robdashjamieson
|
Makes you wonder what is the critera to be considered a private part. Obviously, the moob should have failed before taking the test, but what makes a private part private in the eyes of the court?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 02:32 PM
|
#19
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
[/i]
I would like to say that I look forward to some women's rights group suing to allow women to bear their boobs on an equality rights charge, but we all know that the women we want to see and the women we will see aren't the same group. |
Been done. 1991. Ontario. Young lady by the name of Gwen Jacobs took her shirt off and walked home topless on a hot day. She was charged, and convicted of public indency. She appealed the conviction, and won. In 1996, The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a woman's breasts are not sexual organs and that Ms. Jacobs committed no crime in baring hers.
Some people say that Canadian women have had the legal right to go topless since 1991. So far as I know though - its only Ontario women who have the right.
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2008, 02:35 PM
|
#20
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SWC Baby
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by annasuave
Been done. 1991. Ontario. Young lady by the name of Gwen Jacobs took her shirt off and walked home topless on a hot day. She was charged, and convicted of public indency. She appealed the conviction, and won. In 1996, The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a woman's breasts are not sexual organs and that Ms. Jacobs committed no crime in baring hers.
Some people say that Canadian women have had the legal right to go topless since 1991. So far as I know though - its only Ontario women who have the right.
|
It's allowed, but it's sort of an unwritten law not to. What sane women would want to walk down Macleod trail with her titties flopping around for all to see?
__________________
There are two types of people in this world I can't stand: People who stereotype large groups, and Edmontonians.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 PM.
|
|
Court of Appeal: Moobs are not private parts
