knightly the Sneptaur

Can confirm, letting the girls free after a long day is a special kind of relief that doesn’t have a direct equivalent for guys.

Take the feeling of stripping out of a suit where the slacks are tight enough to flatten your junk and the tie makes it hard to breathe, then bump up the sense of relief by 20% or so for a well-fitting sports bra, a full 50% for a push-up with underwire, and straight-up triple it to compare to a corset.

That does sound amazing, I’m envious. =3

It’s not just that though, the relief from compression is an added bonus on top.

The truth is that breasts are just more enjoyably sensitive than ballsacks. Even when I shave them smooth, the feeling of a soft fabric against them is still less than half as enjoyable as on my tits.

Granted, I’m sure that my experience isn’t necessarily universal and there are ways in which balls are more sensitive. I’d rather get kicked in the chest than in the crotch, for example.

Hard agree on the stigma against free titties, though. I’m lucky enough to live in a state where bare chests are legal and I’m looking forward to going hiking topless this spring.

Nope.

I’m an enby, so I can confirm that sleeping with a bare chest is better when you have tits than without them.

For the nut-havers out there, sleeping bare-tittied is kinda like having your balls shaved hairless and tucked into a perfectly-fitted silk bag before bed. It really does feel that much nicer.

Enby here with the rare perspective which can confirm that men will never understand this peak.

Sorry guys, but as awesome as it feels to go to bed free-balling, that satisfaction really doesn’t compare to having a warm, soft blanket tucked up around your bare tits (especially after they’ve been bound up in a bra all day).

Sleeping in clothing is just weird to me to begin with, but if I had to wear one article of underwear to bed then I’d take briefs or even nut-hugging boyshorts before I wore anything tighter around my tits than a loose nightgown.

Now that “Anti-woke” ideology has been revealed as a psyop by the Epstein files, I’m very curious to see if Trey Stone and Matt Parker will choose to reckon with their own contributions or if they’ll double-down.

I don’t like South Park because of that smug, sanctimonious tone either, but my housemates love it and regularly leave re-runs playing for background noise as they go about their day, so allow me to offer that same criticism from someone that has seen every episode multiple times and can offer something “real” to back it up:

The long arc of the South Park plot follows Trey and Parker’s political development from bitter, unknown California Republicans with sarcastic, nihilist tendencies to disillusioned Big Hollywood Conservatives with sarcastic, nihilistic tendencies being forced to reckon with the fact that their past attempts at satire have either had no impact or have actually reinforced the perceived social ills they pretend to mock.

Al Gore’s portrayal in S22E06 “Time to get Cereal” exemplifies this, even after he is proven to have been right about ManBearPig all along, this later appearance shows him as still being a huge weenie that cares more about being acknowledged as having been right than wanting to actually solve the problem. Having belatedly acknowledged the existential threat, Trey and Parker still can’t bring themselves to issue a call to action, and everything goes back to normal after they kick the can a little further down the road.

Thus, the smug, sanctimonious tone has been a constant throughout, as if they still imagine that the greatest sin is caring about things. They’re so heavy-handed about it that they lampoon this aspect of their own show in Kyle’s “Don’t you see,” and “Y’know, I’ve learned something today” closing monologues. Even when he’s telling a real political truth, like in the banned S16E06 where the text of the monologue is an admission that terrorism works and the subtext is a refusal to acknowledge their own contributions to post-9/11 anti-muslim discrimination in America, Jesus (representing mainstream American Christianity) gives falsely-sincere advice to the gingers (who represent all minority groups facing irrational discrimination) that they just need to get as violent as the most aggressive extremists so that people will respect them. Which is itself a smug, sanctimonious, and sarcastic way of suggesting that they can never be respected as people, only either seen as lesser or feared as an enemy.