The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
dappleshade
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain should enjoy charitable status

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
dappleshade
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,650 times Debate No: 18534
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Tragically, thousands of unfortunate young women in Britain today are forced to wear padded-bras because nature failed to provide them with the beautiful bouncing boobs that most girls take for granted.

There is, of course, a solution: breast enhancement surgery is a safe and widely available operation but, because it is classified as cosmetic surgery, it is not available free of charge on the National Health Service.

The cost of breast enhancements at a private clinic can run into thousands of pounds and this means that many flat-chested young women are unable to afford the operation and have to suffer the shame and indignity of having breasts like two fried eggs until they meet a rich man who is willing to pay for the surgery, which may never happen because most men, given the choice, would opt for a girl with a pair of knockers big enough to be usefully deployed in soapy t!t-wanks and other breast-related sexual antics.

This terrible injustice has gone on too long now and that's why I have just founded The Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain – an organisation that will fund breast enhancements for those eligible: any woman between 18 and 25 years old who cannot fill a C-cup bra, subject to a personal examination with our experienced breast-assessment consultant*.

However, unless the Society achieves charitable status any donations will be subject to tax, thus depriving more women in desperate need of the surgery they deserve, and that's why I am calling for the Charity Commission (1) to duly grant us that status.

Thank you.

* Me: I've fondled hundreds of breasts over the years so I know what I'm doing.

(1) http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...
dappleshade

Con

First of all... hahaaaaaaaaaaa! :D

---

Ahem. To begin then. As a full-breasted, nay, over-endowed woman who is a proud national of Britain herself, I must sadly counter the proposal that the Breast Enhancement Society should be given charitable status.

Let us begin with the unfortunate name of 'Breast Enhancement' society. My opponent sadly considers only the inflation and enlargement of the breasts as enhancement, rather than the perking up of older breasts (which in my view certainly counts as enhancement). This may of course be gender related - apparently, men are less concerned than women about the loss of perkiness (1) - but it unfortunately means that rather a lot of women that may apply for aid will be going, as Pro is concerned perhaps, the wrong way. Failure to assist these women will of course be an act of discrimination, and I am certain no charitable status can be awarded to an organisation proven to have a discriminatory basis. Let us not forget the poor girls who are asymmetrical - in short, to fulfil all the needs of breast improvement, that's going to have to be an awful lot of hands-on work. I mean to say, in this current economic climate, what charity could afford it?

With reference to the above, let us not forget that women's breasts are ultimately getting bigger, not smaller (2). For this reason alone I urge all readers to vote Con, because clearly making breasts bigger is going to become less and less necessary over time and thus donating to such a cause would be wasteful. Indeed, Bravissimo states clearly that already, 60% or more of women have D cup or larger breasts in the UK already.

As mentioned in the same article, having large assets is not always an, uh, asset.

Speaking as a woman, first of all, I have noticed that men talk to your boobs, at least if you wear a low-cut top. This is confusing for women and must surely contribute to migraines and headaches for men worldwide through all that blood rushing to the head. For healthy and safety reasons and for the protection of impressionable young men (and older men, and well, all men), surely breast enlargement should not be supported. (They also throw things down your cleavage for a laugh, and surely no responsible adult can commend the throwing of dangerous projectiles. For the safety of the general public, vote CON.)

Second of all, finding swimming costumes or dresses is a pain because your top and bottom halves don't match. If you are in favour of women being able to wear well-tailored, matching clothing I again urge you to support Con. Third, having big boobs is a ...pain. I mean, really. Even when you're safely tucked into your over-shoulder-boulder-holder (and they really are) that's an awful lot of weight. Which means back pain, and shoulder pain, and a lot of very unhappy women.

Who wants unhappy, grumpy women? If not - vote Con!

Oh, and did I forget - bigger breasts stop being perky quicker. VOTE CON!

Last, but by no means least. This proposed charity appears to be guilty of gender discrimination. I insist that if it were to go ahead it would have to at the least be willing to support she-males in their breast development.

To be truly worth supporting as a charity, however, at least in my opinion, it would need to be renamed 'the Enhancement Society' and would need to prove to be willing to assist men with body enhancements for aesthetic reasons as well. In short, support for male genital cosmetic surgery. It's like this. If women need to have breast implants, why not testicle implants? Penis extensions? Hair replacement therapies? Think of the poor benighted men who can't afford to have these operations done on a daily basis. Since this proposed charity is obviously full of man-haters, misandrists who won't support men's rights to look good for women, I whole-heartedly declare that you should vote CON and be done!


(1) http://www.mynippon.com...
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I am indebted to my opponent for her keen observations on the subject of women's breasts. A it happens, I am, myself,a keen observer of women's breasts - in my capacity as the founder of the Breast Enhancement Society, you understand.

Now, to address my opponent's arguments, I accept that pert breasts are attractive, even on less generously-breasted women, but as my opponent concedes, boobs sag over time but big boobs that have lost their firmness are still more attractive than small breasts that have suffered the same fate, unless of course, as a man, you get turned on by the sight of a cocker spaniel's ears.

My opponent then points out that over 60% of British girls have huge breasts. This is good news, both for them and their male admirers. But what about those poor girls with diminutive bosoms. Don't you think they feel disadvantaged, inadequate and unworthy of a gentleman's attention? As my opponent pointed out, the focus of a potential suitor's attention lies somewhere beneath neck-level: conversation is a secondary consideration, and, sadly for those unfortunate girls without substantial assets with which to draw a man's attention, she will lose out. What a shame, what crying shame.

My opponent then wrote "For health and safety reasons and for the protection of impressionable young men (and older men, and well, all men), surely breast enlargement should not be supported." I should like to point out that enlarged breasts can be adequately supported with bras with reinforced straps.

My opponent then stated that "(Men) also throw things down (large breasted women's) cleavage for a laugh," I presume this is a custom peculiar to Chesterfield, as I have not witnessed it elsewhere in England. I have duly made a mental note to visit that locale at the earliest possible opportunity.

Finally. my opponent draws our attention to various other good causes, such as the need to enlarge the size of gentleman's 'appendages'. Perhaps my opponent should found a charity to address this perceived problem, but,, in the meantime, I humbly reassert that the Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain should enjoy charitable status.

Thank you.
dappleshade

Con

I would like to thank Pro for the arguments made, and will endeavor to counter them as follows.

Sagging breasts happens to us all - except to those of us with very small breasts (1) (2). Contrary to my opponent's claims, small breasts don't sag. Gravity will affect those with heavier breasts, leaving the smaller breasts behind.

The poor girls with diminutive bosoms certainly may not feel disadvantaged, since again, contrary to my opponent's claims the focus of a potential suitor's attention often lies between thigh and lower back level. (For proof of this, all one needs do is type into Google, 'breasts or butt - the great debate'.) These girls may not necessarily be as disadvantaged as my opponent states, as they may be possessed of other assets. Moreover, the mention of suitors leads me to make a specific and essential rebuttal.

My opponent has stated that the Breast Enhancement Society should be a charitable cause, that any potential donations should not be subject to tax deductions. Consider this carefully. If the Breast Enhancement Society should no longer have it's donations be subject to tax, this inevitably means that a larger amount of tax will need to be paid to cover the lost income. Every man (and woman) in the UK will, in short, be paying whatever fraction of a penny in the pound for breasts that they personally may not get to handle. That's right. Who in their right mind would willingly consent to pay extra taxes to support the development of breasts so some lucky husband or boyfriend might enjoy them, smiling smugly all the while because some other buggers had to pay for them?

The situation becomes even more untenable when one considers that the enlargement of breasts can be achieved without surgery in many cases through the means mentioned in the sources of my previous round. Use of the contraceptive pill is one, and since that is free in this country the Breast Enhancement Society would not be required to fund this. An alternative is pregnancy. My opponent contends that a young lady with small breasts would be neglected because she would not meet a 'a rich man who is willing to pay for the surgery.' Now, marriage often, though not always, involves children. In support of my flat-chested sisters, a prudent rich man would choose to marry a flat-chested woman, knowing full well that over the years her breasts would enlarge through child-rearing to be full, whereas a larger-breasted woman would enlarge even more through child-rearing to be heavy enough to begin to sag. A sensible long-term investment, as opposed to the man who trades in for a younger model which proves to be more costly to start up with than the last.

(Child-rearing is of course obscenely expensive, but a poorer man may at least consider the investment a deferral of costs over a long-term period. In any case, I stand by the idea that he who gets to play, should get to pay.)

My opponent concedes the proposed Society's failures to cover enhancement by reduction. I contend that this means the Society's name is misleading. Merely submitting a request for charitable status would result in a long, costly, bureaucratic process before ultimately the request was denied anyway due to the fallacious name. My opponent also concedes that a prevelance of grumpy, ill-dressed women will result from the actions of his proposed charity.

In an attempt to mislead, my opponent attempts to contend that the dangers to impressionable young men result from lack of adequate support to large breasts that may or may not cause damage and mayhem in passing. This of course can be resolved by supportive bras. The dangers that cannot be resolved relate to men becoming distracted and getting rushes of blood to the head and occasionally walking into things.

As for the launching of missiles, this has happened to me on a handful of separate occasions in a number of pubs across England. I contend that it remains a danger to the public.

Finally, my opponent neglects the blatant disregard for males that this Society entails. Even setting aside the need for enhancement of other parts of the anatomy and focusing on 'breasts', I note that the name 'Breast Enhancement Society' does not involve 'Female' or 'Woman' in it's name. For this to be a fair description it should surely assist both aging women and men seeking transexual implants. Since the proposed set up of the Society neglects to address these needs, I contend that the Breast Enhancement Society is misleading, man-hating, unnecessary and above all a cunning ploy to foist breast enlargement costs on an unwitting public for the benefit of a greedy few. In short - vote CON!

(1) http://www.antibra.com...
(2) http://www.007b.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
It gets worse. Whilst looking for other sites to concur, I found this one http://thingssmartpeopleknow.wordpress.com....

I have only done three out of five. I swear that the woman at the end is using her fists and not her boobs, but still.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Cleavage catch! Now that sound like more fun down the pub than dominoes or darts!
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I never knew UK could help make a man grow an excellent sense of humor...I'm going to travel there some day and try to freshen myself in its waters of all that American impurity:)
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
A large breasted Brit took this challenge. This may be the greatest debate of all time.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
"Indeed, Bravissimo states clearly that already, 60% or more of women have D cup or larger breasts in the UK already." Holy Crap!! I need to move to the UK.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I'm not sure a society named "The Breast Enhancement Society" can prosper at all with that sort of a name...
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Looks like you'll want to restart this one.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Let's just say, these were modeled after my hands.

http://www.google.com...
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
What's your email address?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
brian_egglestondappleshadeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I like breasts as much as the next teenager, but ultimately had to give it to Con. imho, small breasts can be equally, if not more sexy than large ones.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
brian_egglestondappleshadeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: this was a funny, entertaining debate. I think ultimately, Con's case was stronger ie. discriminating against males who want to get the surgery went unrefuted, and small breasts don't sag, etc.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestondappleshadeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Absolutely hilarious arguments from both sides.