Yeh. Bra-less and hot pants. It was a good look if they weren’t fat. Add in some kinky boots while your at it. Very early 70’s.
What do you mean by the statement “70’s women were whores in general”?
Yes- they did. They looked sensational. Also catch a picture of Carly Simon on the album “Anticipation”.
I was at university in Australiaq in the mid 1960s, and saw some young women going about bra-less then – usually those that had relatively small breasts. I suspect that there have been some women like that going bra-less at every period from the 1920s to now, partly because with some combinations of figure and clothing you really would not notice without getting really close to the woman in question.
My recollection is that the braless movement 
began as part of the feminist movement. Radical feminists claimed that bras were designed by men, not by women, and were thus a product and symbol of paternalist oppression. There were allegedly “bra-burning” demonstrations (I think I’ve seen one iconographic photo that has come to represent a trend that didn’t really exist) that were inspired by the draft card burning demonstrations of a few years earlier. In burning their bras, women were symbolically throwing off the yoke of masculine oppression. I think most of them just decided they were more comfortable that way.
[sniff]
I miss Tube Tops.
You can usually tell if someone is braless if they have more than an A or B cup. I used to do it sometimes in my younger years (D-cups) and in photos I can always tell I wasn’t wearing one and it embarasses me. After age 25 or so I just couldn’t get away with it at all. Bigger boobs are not generally perky and when you walk, even at a sedate pace, they jump around like two piglets fighting in a sack. I’m guessing that’s the big deal - I’ve got to admit it’s pretty distracting.
I went braless during much of high school, but I was about a 34A then. By college, when I got up to a B or so, it got pretty uncomfortable. Now I only go braless at home; I won’t even walk out to the mailbox without either putting on a bra or covering up, since gravity has had its way with me – and not because of my youthful indiscretions; alas, the passage of time does it all by itself. Few of my friends wore bras, either, but I didn’t have any friends who were particularly endowed.
We didn’t really do it to make a political statement, though; we just were more comfortable that way. We claimed the political statement, of course, but it was pure lip service.
Going braless was easier than wearing those micro-minis, though, I can tell you, especially with super-long hair. I remember in high school wearing a micro-mini with my nearly-long-enough-to-sit-on hair, and when I needed to get a drink out of a drinking fountain, I’d have to hold my hair back with one hand and my skirt down with the other and have a friend turn on the fountain for me. Good times, good times!
And I graduated in '71, to date myself.
…but why do guys get all excited about it?
Presumably because:
(1) You can visualise what’s inside the top better;
(2) It’s one less layer of clothing between you and first base;
(3) Hi Opal!
… boobies. That is pretty much all the reason we need. 
I remember that drinking fountain pose in high school.
You were wearing a micro-mini? I imagine that you could have dated someone else instead.
Yeah, this is still something I’ve yet to comprehend about men. I mean intellectually I know it is true, I just can’t understand why. To me, nude bodies are attractive (ok some of them) but not in an OMG GOTTA SEE DROOL kind of way. They can be seductive if they’re posed in the right way, or moving in the right way (like dancing) but just the fact of a boobie being there = woohoo? Nope, doesn’t compute.
Well, it’s really not all that complicated. We could have a long discussion about the need for guys as ancestral environment hunters to have a well-developed visual imagination to predict the path and potential action of prey but … * yawn * So let’s just take it as a given that boys need only an image to feed the rest of a fantasy. That can be a suggestive picture in a skin mag or it can be a bra model in the Sears catalog (c’mon pre-internet guys, I need some back-up here!). Give us a glimpse of the real thing, even the suggestion of a glimpse of the real thing, and we’re on our way. Yeah, we know you got boobies even when they’re bound up, but when they’re unleashed they move around more and are harder for our keen hunter eyes to ignore. And then the prime directive kicks in and we’re all wood and drool again.
I guess that my logical assumption would have been that bra=better because it makes the breasts look perkier and the right shape, while no bra sometimes means pendulous and blobby. Ignorance fought.
So you’re saying that we’re hard-wired for this?
That depends on how much the breasts droop – a certain amount of sag makes them look more natural and breast-like, while bra-supplied perkiness looks artificial. If we men just wanted that perky look, we could all just wear bras ourselves, but in reality it’s what’s inside that counts.
And I can see why women find it so hard to empathise, because there doesn’t seem to ba any equivalent part of the male anatomy that provokes a similar reaction in women.
Wired with, like, German steel. Rocks. Hard, pulsing, wire simply throbbing with animal impulses … is it getting warm in here?
ETA: Giles. The Cleaver Sleeve.
I think you forgot to preface this with: “I’d have to be an idiot to say:”
In answer to the OP: Yes, definitely. Not just in the early '70s. It was a big reason teenage boys (and their dads) were watching “Charlie’s Angels”.