There is a movement afoot to liberate female breasts and it goes by the name “Free the Nipples.” Apparently, our breasts want out. Out of our clothing, that is. That’s right. There is a spectre haunting America -- of clothes -- and women have nothing to lose but their shirts. So whadaya say? Knockers of the world, unite! Out with yesterday’s bra-burners (they’re so last century, anyway) and in with the Nipple Warriors!

Let’s face it, our girls just can't take the oppression and discrimination anymore: the frustrating bra shopping, the annual breast exams, the painful mammograms, the perpetual fear of nip slip, and let’s not forget, the fondling. Our girls go through so much. And so do we. Who hasn’t rushed home after a long day being strapped and trapped in a Maidenform, to rip off her bra and let it all hang out?

But, apparently, it’s not enough that our breasts are unrestrained in the privacy of our own homes. The nipple liberators have set their sights on the public square. They are determined to make the days of hiding in secrecy behind latex, spandex, and Playtex on Main Street U.S.A. a thing of the past.

Turns out, these bare-chested ladies have already successfully challenged a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance prohibiting public toplessness! They must have quite the war chest because, after spending over $300,000 defending the ordinance and losing at the 10th Circuit, the city of Fort Collins decided it could not afford to continue to defend the law and threw in the towel. So much for all of that pot tax revenue…

In what I’m sure was a titillating opinion, the 10th Circuit found the ordinance to be discriminatory because it “reinforce[s] negative stereotypes depicting women’s breasts, but not men’s breasts, as sex objects.” Well, um, yeah. Ask any guy. Even if he’s an ass man or a leg guy, #BreastsMatter. Even the hottest bare male chest doesn’t evoke the same response from women as bare female chests do for most men. It’s just the way it is.

But not for contemporary women. Tit for tat, they want equal treatment for their bosoms and the right to bare them in public, just like guys do. Loyal members of the Nip Brigade believe their breasts are just as sexually innocuous as male breasts. And let me tell you, men all over America are laughing all the way to the free peep shows on every public street.

One can only wonder -- with the mentally ill and drug-addicted using the public streets as their bedrooms and bathrooms where they can be seen defecating and at times fornicating -- will a gaggle of topless girls walking by be safe? Will the topless ever be invulnerable? Will they bear any culpability for their partial nudity? If a man happens to ogle a lovely set because, well, they are right out there for public display, is that grounds for a #metoo lynching? Will he lose his job because of it? Go to jail? Pay a fine? With half the population being women, even putting blinders on men to keep out the view wouldn’t be sufficient because, at any point in time, there could be an intentional wardrobe malfunction in oncoming foot traffic that you cannot help but see.

This is why civilized societies have evolved to wear clothes. We conduct ourselves one way in public and another in the privacy of our own homes. There is a sort of silent social contract among the general population that we will comport ourselves in ways that don’t distract us from our everyday responsibilities while out in public. We leave the rest for the boudoir and loo.

It’s “udderly” ridiculous to argue that public nudity is a natural state that we should embrace. We are not animals. We think, feel, reason, create, and build in ways that animals cannot. Although we are members of the animal kingdom, we function, or at least should function, according to a higher order of consciousness. We are aware of our nudity and its connection to our sexuality, and possess the free will to cover up, in ways that animals cannot. And all civilized societies have some sort of garment that covers, if nothing else, our naughty bits.

But the Nip Chicks want us to devolve to a Hobbesian state of nature probably because it’s more, uh, natural, but I don’t imagine they’ve really thought this through. If we went back to our animal ways, the first thing to get thrown out the window is #metoo. In a state of nature, the males don’t ask permission, they just have at it. Even if a female isn’t “in the mood,” the male often overpowers the female and forces himself on her. There is no consent, there are no sex contracts, saying “no” falls on deaf ears, as do rape whistles, rape kits, pussy hats, and cries for help. Forget the protection of the criminal justice system. Females get knocked up against their will because that’s what their genetic programming is all about. They can’t get abortions. They can’t pick a gender. They often don’t get to pick a mate. They don’t get to choose a career over their offspring. They can’t sew shirts to cover their nipples, even if they wanted to. Basically, in a state of nature, human females would be slaves to their DNA. On a positive note, this could just send the entire progressive agenda a’tumbling.

Maybe the Nipple Warriors should re-think the idea of prancing around the public square in their birthday suits. It doesn’t make us more liberated or cool like the Europeans. It doesn’t make us more comfortable with our bodies and sexuality. Frankly, walking around with our boobs or johnsons flailing about isn’t all that comfortable and leaves us feeling more vulnerable than not.

The public square has to accommodate the majority of people and take into account various viewpoints. Can nudity be accommodated in other ways? Sure. You can be naked in your own homes, you can join clubs, camps, pools, and beaches where you can bop around in the buff. Just keep it off the streets, please.

Call me and my girls prudish, puritanical. Whatevs. But sanctioning partial public nudity is just one pair of panties away from permitting total nudity in the public sphere.

With all of the chest beating, Fort Collins didn’t have the stomach to continue the fight for the majority of its residents. But they should have. The 10th Circuit ruling affects Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. It’s hard to see how the majorities in those conservative and religious states will be content to abide by such a ruling. But there may be some good news on the horizon. According to NBC, New Hampshire is now in the crosshairs of the hooter tooters and the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a challenge to New Hampshire’s ban on public toplessness.

If the high court takes the case, I’m fairly confident it will uphold the right of the states and localities to regulate attire in public places, including a requirement that women cover their bosoms. The question the Court will have to address is whether there is a legitimate state interest in regulating this activity and a rational connection between the regulation and the purposes for the regulation. I don’t foresee the majority of justices, including some of the progressive females, finding anything but that it is constitutional for localities and states to regulate their backyards in accordance with community standards, including requiring women cover up in public.

We’ll just have to stay abreast of where things go from here.