View Full Version : Next time you go thru the checkout at Safeway with your kids, bring blindfolds.
Little-Acorn
05-10-2012, 01:57 PM
....or be ready to do a LOT of hasty explaining.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/time-breastfeeding-cover-sparks-immediate-controversy-151539970.html
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 02:09 PM
Funny, just read that article a few minutes ago. I SO wish I was that kid, she's hot! But on the cover for the world to see? I get it, women need to breastfeed, and sometimes they can't wait for more private places - but that doesn't mean put it on the cover of newsstands all over the world. While necessary, it is still a private "activity" and should be treated as such, whenever possible of course.
MtnBiker
05-10-2012, 02:13 PM
TIME magazine board room ;
"Ok guys, our circulation numbers are in the toilet. How do we increase our numbers?"
"I know, lets do a story on the improving economy."
"No that won't work"
"Ok, how about piece on the success of solar panels"
"No that won't work either"
"I've got it! Let's put a young woman with her 3 year old kid sucking on her tit"
"Yeah, that's it. Great we will sell millions!"
Blindfolds? Really? Because people can't explain to their children what breast feeding is? What sort of parents do these children has exactly?
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 02:28 PM
Blindfolds? Really? Because people can't explain to their children what breast feeding is? What sort of parents do these children has exactly?
PARENTS should decide at what age they think it's ok to have such conversations with their CHILDREN. It need not be displayed to the world in a manner that it's being shoved down people's throats, or to where any child of any age can see it at anytime.
For that fact, why bother having "parental controls" and such for kids on computers. Just let them view anything, and explain to them the things they are seeing, so long as it's natural, right?
MtnBiker
05-10-2012, 02:32 PM
I really don't have a problem with breast feeding. No big deal. However my 3 year old kid eats off of a plate, and I am happy about that.
PARENTS should decide at what age they think it's ok to have such conversations with their CHILDREN. It need not be displayed to the world in a manner that it's being shoved down people's throats, or to where any child of any age can see it at anytime.
For that fact, why bother having "parental controls" and such for kids on computers. Just let them view anything, and explain to them the things they are seeing, so long as it's natural, right?
Okay, in which case you should have a constant blindfold and earmuffs on, cus I mean, what if they ear the word 'war' from the news, or see two men holding hands in the street, before you want to explain these things! How inconsiderate of the news, forcing talk of war down on children before the parent wants to explain it to them.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 02:48 PM
Okay, in which case you should have a constant blindfold and earmuffs on, cus I mean, what if they ear the word 'war' from the news, or see two men holding hands in the street, before you want to explain these things! How inconsiderate of the news, forcing talk of war down on children before the parent wants to explain it to them.
You control the things you can, that's parenting. We explain what we need to, when we need to, and at our pace. Sure, society tosses us a curve ball every now and again, and we deal as parents, but there's certainly no need to just say "Fuck it", and allow anything to be exposed to our kids.
My kid doesn't watch the news generally, nor go on facebook, myspace & a lot of other things. I'll allow him to be exposed to certain things as he gets older and can understand things better.
You avoided my other question - do you also have an issue with parental controls that block out certain "tame" content to our kids? I understand the XXX, but we even block Youtube from our son as of now. You really have a problem with parents trying their best to allow their kids to grow slowly, and only be exposed to what is necessary and unavoidable?
Yes, breastfeeding is natural and necessary - and women are entitled to do so when they have to. But just dropping responsibility and not giving a crap, and saying "this is reality, let them see it" <---- is not good parenting.
You control the things you can, that's parenting. We explain what we need to, when we need to, and at our pace. Sure, society tosses us a curve ball every now and again, and we deal as parents, but there's certainly no need to just say "Fuck it", and allow anything to be exposed to our kids.
My kid doesn't watch the news generally, nor go on facebook, myspace & a lot of other things. I'll allow him to be exposed to certain things as he gets older and can understand things better.
You avoided my other question - do you also have an issue with parental controls that block out certain "tame" content to our kids? I understand the XXX, but we even block Youtube from our son as of now. You really have a problem with parents trying their best to allow their kids to grow slowly, and only be exposed to what is necessary and unavoidable?
Yes, breastfeeding is natural and necessary - and women are entitled to do so when they have to. But just dropping responsibility and not giving a crap, and saying "this is reality, let them see it" <---- is not good parenting.
If your kid is old enough to see a TIME magaizne and understand it, I'm sure he's old enough to see a newspaper on the stand beside it that most weeks will have the words 'war' 'terrorist' 'murder' etc splashed over them, if you don't mind that then why the fuss about one issue of TIME?
As for what they should be able to see, obviously everyone wants the best for their kids, but in relation to the OP personally I think the way my household would be would involve the child being well aware of the human body and natural processes before it will be looking at issues of TIME.
But 4 questions - How old is your kid? At what age didn't you explain to him breast feeding, did he ask or did you decide to tell? If no convo has happened then when do you think you will talk to him about it?
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 03:13 PM
If your kid is old enough to see a TIME magaizne and understand it, I'm sure he's old enough to see a newspaper on the stand beside it that most weeks will have the words 'war' 'terrorist' 'murder' etc splashed over them, if you don't mind that then why the fuss about one issue of TIME?
As for what they should be able to see, obviously everyone wants the best for their kids, but in relation to the OP personally I think the way my household would be would involve the child being well aware of the human body and natural processes before it will be looking at issues of TIME.
But 4 questions - How old is your kid? At what age didn't you explain to him breast feeding, did he ask or did you decide to tell? If no convo has happened then when do you think you will talk to him about it?
Because pictures speak MUCH louder to children, especially if they aren't fluent readers yet! I don't think kids should be exposed to the horrors of the world at an early age either, but most aren't into words as much as they are photos at a young age. And yes, children should be aware of breast feeding to a degree, but I think certain things, especially those dealing with "sexuality", should be taught by the parents. Which leads me to answer your question - my son is about to turn 12. I believe we answered some questions about this topic when he was 8 or 9 or so, and don't even recall how the conversation even started. But he was taught that it was highly personal but a something that millions and millions do with their children, and it's 100% natural. At an age earlier than that, I'm not so sure he would have understood and would likely have just zoned in on the picture and wondered. Regardless, I'm simply of the belief that some things can be naturally exposed as children age - and other things are the responsibility of the parent.
And since you failed to even acknowledge my question 2x now, I gather you don't think parental controls on the internet are such a bad thing, and should be decided by each parent in each case. And that's what we would like to do in public to an extent, is turn on parental controls to protect our children from things they shouldn't be exposed to just yet.
ConHog
05-10-2012, 03:16 PM
Holy shit that boy is WAY too old to be sucking the tit, or WAY too young, whichever way you wanna look at it.
PS I'd suck her tits.
Missileman
05-10-2012, 03:41 PM
Breastfeeding in public...who cares? Get mom to put one of these crochet caps on the baby's head and start counting the double-takes...:laugh2:
http://oxfordfam.blogspot.com/2010/10/free-boob-beanie-crochet-pattern.html
tailfins
05-10-2012, 03:44 PM
Breastfeeding in public...who cares? Get mom to put one of these crochet caps on the baby's head and start counting the double-takes...:laugh2:
http://oxfordfam.blogspot.com/2010/10/free-boob-beanie-crochet-pattern.html
What annoys me is women that breastfeed in public then complain when men gawk.
Because pictures speak MUCH louder to children, especially if they aren't fluent readers yet! I don't think kids should be exposed to the horrors of the world at an early age either, but most aren't into words as much as they are photos at a young age. And yes, children should be aware of breast feeding to a degree, but I think certain things, especially those dealing with "sexuality", should be taught by the parents. Which leads me to answer your question - my son is about to turn 12. I believe we answered some questions about this topic when he was 8 or 9 or so, and don't even recall how the conversation even started. But he was taught that it was highly personal but a something that millions and millions do with their children, and it's 100% natural. At an age earlier than that, I'm not so sure he would have understood and would likely have just zoned in on the picture and wondered. Regardless, I'm simply of the belief that some things can be naturally exposed as children age - and other things are the responsibility of the parent.
And since you failed to even acknowledge my question 2x now, I gather you don't think parental controls on the internet are such a bad thing, and should be decided by each parent in each case. And that's what we would like to do in public to an extent, is turn on parental controls to protect our children from things they shouldn't be exposed to just yet.
Protecting your child from nature? Silly imo, I know I explained breast feeding to my little brother when he was 5 (I remember specificly that he was five because I was living in England at the time and was on a holiday home) and he seemed to get it, but every kid is different.
And in essence some control is needed - if not shielding from atleast experienced with - but as I've said before in similar discussions, I'm very much of the independent and 'respect the fact that they should be respected' ilk than many on this board would be.
What annoys me is women that breastfeed in public then complain when men gawk.
Why would a man gawk?
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 03:54 PM
Protecting your child from nature? Silly imo, I know I explained breast feeding to my little brother when he was 5 (I remember specificly that he was five because I was living in England at the time and was on a holiday home) and he seemed to get it, but every kid is different.
And in essence some control is needed - if not shielding from atleast experienced with - but as I've said before in similar discussions, I'm very much of the independent and 'respect the fact that they should be respected' ilk than many on this board would be.
I've got no issue at all if your family took a different approach, at an earlier age. That's your right, as a brother, and your entire families right to determine when/how the little fellow learns about certain things. It's also natural to have sex, but we don't teach that to our kids at 5. My point being, each parent should have the right to teach their children themselves on sexual subjects, and at their pace.
tailfins
05-10-2012, 03:55 PM
Why would a man gawk?
Ask ConHog.
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 03:56 PM
I really don't have a problem with breast feeding. No big deal. However my 3 year old kid eats off of a plate, and I am happy about that.
Yeah, that would be my take too. A 3 year old, if given a small pitcher and glass can fill the glass with milk, juice, water.
Don't get me wrong, I chose to breastfeed all my kids for 1 year. The middle one I cut short, he bit. ;)
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 03:56 PM
Ask ConHog.
I'll answer!!! LOL
We gawk because for a lot of men, it's similar to "side boobs" when a woman wears a revealing dress. Partial boobies exposed is the next best thing to entire boobies.
Little-Acorn
05-10-2012, 03:57 PM
Why would a man gawk?
Every heterosexual man knows the answer to that question before it is asked.
Do we have any volunteers to explain it to noir?
I've got no issue at all if your family took a different approach, at an earlier age. That's your right, as a brother, and your entire families right to determine when/how the little fellow learns about certain things. It's also natural to have sex, but we don't teach that to our kids at 5. My point being, each parent should have the right to teach their children themselves on sexual subjects, and at their pace.
Breast feeding isn't a sexual subject.
Every heterosexual man knows the answer to that question before it is asked.
Do we have any volunteers to explain it to noir?
Only if that heterosexual man views a woman as a sexual object.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 04:26 PM
Breast feeding isn't a sexual subject.
Nor are breast exams, so should we have images and videos accessible to such small children, since these exams are natural and not sexual in nature?
Abbey Marie
05-10-2012, 04:27 PM
Breast feeding isn't a sexual subject.
Neither is urinating, but I don't want to see a guy whip it out in front of a young girl.
tailfins
05-10-2012, 04:29 PM
Only if that heterosexual man views a woman as a sexual object.
Well, DUH! And the next item in today's news: The sun will rise tomorrow. A heterosexual man viewing a woman as a sexual object, who would've thunk it? What do you think he's going to view as a sexual object, a potato peeler?
Nor are breast exams, so should we have images and videos accessible to such small children, since these exams are natural and not sexual in nature?
Yes, like, if the news for example was running a story on breast cancer, and (as they tend to do) they have a VT running of a woman in a clinc getting her breast clamped into the scanner thing, what's wrong with a child seeing that?
Well, DUH! And the next item in today's news: The sun will rise tomorrow.
Hint - Some of us don't view woman as objects.
Neither is urinating, but I don't want to see a guy whip it out in front of a young girl.
Well they do have unisex public toilets, I'm guessing not so much in America.
Abbey Marie
05-10-2012, 04:33 PM
Well they do have unisex public toilets, I'm guessing not so much in America.
Not that I've seen. Nor do I want to, especially if there are urinals.
Not that I've seen. Nor do I want to, especially if there are urinals.
Welcome to Europe!
In any case, I'm sure your children will of seen yourself and Mr. Abbey naked countless times, why on earth it would then matter if they say another penis idk.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 05:07 PM
Yes, like, if the news for example was running a story on breast cancer, and (as they tend to do) they have a VT running of a woman in a clinc getting her breast clamped into the scanner thing, what's wrong with a child seeing that?
The UK may be different, but when they have such stories on the news here, they don't show anything, or what they do show is pixelated. In other words, while they felt the topic was newsworthy, they have respect for the fact that they are on public airwaves and children might be watching. You will see very little nudity, if any, on anything short of pay TV. It's certainly not commonplace in any subject here in the States to expose children to nudity in most forms.
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 05:11 PM
Welcome to Europe!
In any case, I'm sure your children will of seen yourself and Mr. Abbey naked countless times, why on earth it would then matter if they say another penis idk.
I won't speak for Mr or Mrs Abbey, but will say my kids haven't seen me naked. There's no reason for that, we always had separate rooms and there was 'our bath' and theirs.
Trigg
05-10-2012, 05:13 PM
Welcome to Europe!
In any case, I'm sure your children will of seen yourself and Mr. Abbey naked countless times, why on earth it would then matter if they say another penis idk.
Europe is VERY different in this respect than America is. My sister has lived in Finland for the better part of 15 yrs and I KNOW for a fact she has become MUCH more liberal in her comfort with naken adults and children.
Over here in America, not so much. You don't understand our reasons and we are blown away by yours. It's just how it is.
As far as the breastfeeding part of the thread.
I nursed all 4 of my kids. In private when I could. I've nursed on planes, in restaurants and at the mall. ALWAYS with a blanken thrown over myself or sitting in a quiet corner. It is a natural thing to do, but it is also a PRIVATE thing.
I don't think a woman needs to whip out a boob to feed a child with nothing covering her. It makes other people uncomfortable and just isn't necessary, especially now since MOST malls have quiet rooms where women can go.
I won't speak for Mr or Mrs Abbey, but will say my kids haven't seen me naked. There's no reason for that, we always had separate rooms and there was 'our bath' and theirs.
Fair enough, though I'd consider that to be a minority position.
Trigg
05-10-2012, 05:36 PM
Fair enough, though I'd consider that to be a minority position.
I wouldn't bet on that, Europe is much more liberal in this aspect than the US is.
As a group, we're a bunch of prudes :salute:
Europe is VERY different in this respect than America is. My sister has lived in Finland for the better part of 15 yrs and I KNOW for a fact she has become MUCH more liberal in her comfort with naken adults and children.
Over here in America, not so much. You don't understand our reasons and we are blown away by yours. It's just how it is.
While the idea may be lost in translation, the general concenus earlier in this thread that a breast feeding woman was something to gawk at, that's a sign of a real problem in the objectification of woman and their bodies IMO.
As far as the breastfeeding part of the thread.
I nursed all 4 of my kids. In private when I could. I've nursed on planes, in restaurants and at the mall. ALWAYS with a blanken thrown over myself or sitting in a quiet corner. It is a natural thing to do, but it is also a PRIVATE thing.
I don't think a woman needs to whip out a boob to feed a child with nothing covering her. It makes other people uncomfortable and just isn't necessary, especially now since MOST malls have quiet rooms where women can go.
True, but, the exact same logic would be used by a Muslim man who believed that woman should be covered at all times, and only (for example) having bare arms/legs in private.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 05:45 PM
Fair enough, though I'd consider that to be a minority position.
I ain't sharing my wiener anywhere around my son. As a parent, as he was growing, I had little choice in return, but as he's getting older, it no longer happens.
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 05:46 PM
I wouldn't bet on that, Europe is much more liberal in this aspect than the US is.
As a group, we're a bunch of prudes :salute:
Glad to be prudes!
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 05:46 PM
While the idea may be lost in translation, the general concenus earlier in this thread that a breast feeding woman was something to gawk at, that's a sign of a real problem in the objectification of woman and their bodies IMO.
Not speaking for others, but my primary point earlier was that some things should be kept private whenever possible, and when not, should still be done in a respectful manner to others.
I wouldn't bet on that, Europe is much more liberal in this aspect than the US is.
As a group, we're a bunch of prudes :salute:
Pffff, y'all need to loosen up =p
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 05:49 PM
While the idea may be lost in translation, the general concenus earlier in this thread that a breast feeding woman was something to gawk at, that's a sign of a real problem in the objectification of woman and their bodies IMO.
True, but, the exact same logic would be used by a Muslim man who believed that woman should be covered at all times, and only (for example) having bare arms/legs in private.
Using generalizations, which are wrong, but alas. The stereotypical Muslim man believing women should be covered head-to-toe is doing it out of control of the woman. The 'prudish' American women are doing it for themselves and what they think, rightly or wrongly, to be best for the children. Their husbands aren't telling them to not feed the children, out of fear of exciting Jim.
Not speaking for others, but my primary point earlier was that some things should be kept private whenever possible, and when not, should still be done in a respectful manner to others.
Are you an American talking about breast feeding?
Or an Arab talking about covering woman's bodies?
Both arguments are identical and (imo) identically flawed.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 05:53 PM
Are you an American talking about breast feeding?
Or an Arab talking about covering woman's bodies?
Both arguments are identical and (imo) identically flawed.
American of course - and your point wouldn't work anyway, as they are NOT the same thing. Maybe rooted in the same, to an extent, but expecting decency by covering up is TOTALLY different than being forced to cover ones entire body out of fear.
Using generalizations, which are wrong, but alas. The stereotypical Muslim man believing women should be covered head-to-toe is doing it out of control of the woman. The 'prudish' American women are doing it for themselves and what they think, rightly or wrongly, to be best for the children. Their husbands aren't telling them to not feed the children, out of fear of exciting Jim.
But the 'non prudish' woman are made to feel as if they are bringing the gawking upon themselves.
Trigg
05-10-2012, 05:54 PM
While the idea may be lost in translation, the general concenus earlier in this thread that a breast feeding woman was something to gawk at, that's a sign of a real problem in the objectification of woman and their bodies IMO.
Well some of the men on this forum are simply little boys in a man's body. What can I say??? I think it's sick to gawk as a nursing woman.
.
I don't think a woman needs to whip out a boob to feed a child with nothing covering her. It makes other people uncomfortable and just isn't necessary, especially now since MOST malls have quiet rooms where women can go.
True, but, the exact same logic would be used by a Muslim man who believed that woman should be covered at all times, and only (for example) having bare arms/legs in private
That's a hell of a leap to make IMHO. Look I've been in family places when women sat down in full view of everyone and plunked out a boob. It makes people uncomfortable, kids pointed and everyone else tried to look anywhere but there. As it happends I was also nursing at the time and I went to a quiet room that was provided for just that reason and nursed my son.
Yes, they have a right to feed their child and I will always support that. But, why not throw a blanket over the child or wear clothing that is made for discreet nursing?
American of course - and your point wouldn't work anyway, as they are NOT the same thing. Maybe rooted in the same, to an extent, but expecting decency by covering up is TOTALLY different than being forced to cover ones entire body out of fear.
The concepts are different but the argument is totally the same. Re-read your post imagining it was instead a Muslim responding to a post about whether or not woman should be able to show their legs in public.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 06:01 PM
The concepts are different but the argument is totally the same. Re-read your post imagining it was instead a Muslim responding to a post about whether or not woman should be able to show their legs in public.
Muslim men force this on women, not allowing them to do things. What I'm speaking about applies to ALL, that simply people have a little respect for others and do things privately. I understand the leap you're trying to make, but it's too far of a leap. We're not trying to stomp on women's rights, just seeking a balance in decency and respect. Even men fully respect and understand why women breastfeed and how important it is - and you see that even Trigg, a Mom, understands how society might not want it being a part of a daily routine for all to see. But it's not the same as what Muslims do, not even if you stretch it.
Muslim men force this on women, not allowing them to do things. What I'm speaking about applies to ALL, that simply people have a little respect for others and do things privately. I understand the leap you're trying to make, but it's too far of a leap. We're not trying to stomp on women's rights, just seeking a balance in decency and respect. Even men fully respect and understand why women breastfeed and how important it is - and you see that even Trigg, a Mom, understands how society might not want it being a part of a daily routine for all to see. But it's not the same as what Muslims do, not even if you stretch it.
Makys, you consider it too big a leap, I disagree.
As far as Trigg goes, that's grand, she did what she was comfortable with, however, if he was comfortable with doing it more publicly she should of been able to without the prevailing attitude of negativity that there seems to be around this topic.
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 06:09 PM
But the 'non prudish' woman are made to feel as if they are bringing the gawking upon themselves.
Nope, they are made to feel that others feel they are over the top, sort of how you're trying to make the average American woman feel.
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 06:12 PM
Makys, you consider it too big a leap, I disagree.
As far as Trigg goes, that's grand, she did what she was comfortable with, however, if he was comfortable with doing it more publicly she should of been able to without the prevailing attitude of negativity that there seems to be around this topic.
and see, here we have discussions, many thinking TIME did it for publicity reasons, many expressing their distention. That's the way it works here. We often disagree. Women will continue to nurse school aged kids, others will continue to say inappropriate. The beat goes on.
Nope, they are made to feel that others feel they are over the top, sort of how you're trying to make the average American woman feel.
In what way am I making the average American woman feel over the top?
and see, here we have discussions, many thinking TIME did it for publicity reasons, many expressing their distention. That's the way it works here. We often disagree. Women will continue to nurse school aged kids, others will continue to say inappropriate. The beat goes on.
"that's the way it works here" as apose to where?
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 06:34 PM
"that's the way it works here" as apose to where?
I meant dissension. Well you seemed to feel it was wrong, that many disagree. I do mean beyond this board.
Little-Acorn
05-10-2012, 06:58 PM
Every heterosexual man knows the answer to that question before it is asked.
Do we have any volunteers to explain it to noir?
Only if that heterosexual man views a woman as a sexual object.
So any man who finds a woman attractive, views her as a "sexual object"?
What a weird and twisted outlook you have on man/woman relations. Where do you get it?
Abbey Marie
05-10-2012, 07:01 PM
I won't speak for Mr or Mrs Abbey, but will say my kids haven't seen me naked. There's no reason for that, we always had separate rooms and there was 'our bath' and theirs.
Same here. No reason for it. There's a reason God made bathrobes and doors with locks.
ConHog
05-10-2012, 07:02 PM
Fair enough, though I'd consider that to be a minority position.
I never seen my parents naked, nor have my kids seen their parents naked.
jimnyc
05-10-2012, 07:24 PM
I never seen my parents naked, nor have my kids seen their parents naked.
For the record, I have never seen Con's parents naked before either.
So any man who finds a woman attractive, views her as a "sexual object"?
What a weird and twisted outlook you have on man/woman relations. Where do you get it?
Not at all!
We're talking about gawking at a woman who's breast feeding a baby. Do you think it's appropriate to gawk at a woman because you find her attractive?
Same here. No reason for it. There's a reason God made bathrobes and doors with locks.
Really? I thought he made everyone naked, and was then all perplexed as to why Eve was ashamed of he naked body?
I never seen my parents naked, nor have my kids seen their parents naked.
For the record, I have never seen Con's parents naked before either.
Genuinely bizarre IMO, though I've only ever seen two friends parents naked
Kathianne
05-10-2012, 08:46 PM
Really? I thought he made everyone naked, and was then all perplexed as to why Eve was ashamed of he naked body?
Genuinely bizarre IMO, though I've only ever seen two friends parents naked
I think it sucks that you think we're bizarre. Me? You.
OTOH if you just stated you thought fine for kids to see their parents in whatever state, I'd say, your opinion. But you aren't as tolerant.
I think it sucks that you think we're bizarre. Me? You.
OTOH if you just stated you thought fine for kids to see their parents in whatever state, I'd say, your opinion. But you aren't as tolerant.
Bizarre is a notion of interest, not some intolerent attack as you seem to have taken it.
PostmodernProphet
05-10-2012, 10:05 PM
In what way am I making the average American woman feel over the top?
I'm not sure I can resist taking advantage of this obvious set up......first you insist you wouldn't look at a woman breastfeeding, now you admit you want to feel over her top?......
SassyLady
05-11-2012, 12:25 AM
Yes, breastfeeding is natural and should be encouraged. Urinating is also natural. Do I want to explain to my children/grandchildren that both are natural and why doing one of them in public is acceptable and the other isn't? No.
I breastfed my daughter and believe it or not I found ways to do it in private because I found it was easier on me. I wasn't as nervous in private and therefore my flow was stronger when I wasn't nervous.
logroller
05-11-2012, 04:53 AM
No wonder none of my friends and family had my x-mas card up...breastfeeding pics are a no go in public. I'm embarrassed now. I just thought of it as, you know, bonding time....father and son bonding time was perhaps a little over the top.:laugh2:
darin
05-11-2012, 05:21 AM
Blindfolds? Really? Because people can't explain to their children what breast feeding is? What sort of parents do these children has exactly?
I'm with you. Troubling to me how our society works so hard to shield kids from even SIMPLE biology. Now, the problem I have is the women who feed their kids that way for much too long. Honestly, i think women who do that are mentally damaged. They are doing it for THEIR good - to comfort the mom's issues; NOT for the sake of the kid.
But yeah, the woman on the cover? She IS hot.
:D
DragonStryk72
05-11-2012, 05:25 AM
Blindfolds? Really? Because people can't explain to their children what breast feeding is? What sort of parents do these children has exactly?
Actually, it's more about the age of the kid being breastfed on the cover. The kid is at least 3, maybe 4 years old, by which point he should already be off the tit. Breastfeeding is fine, but you're supposed to be weaned off of it when you become able to start eating solids.
logroller
05-11-2012, 05:56 AM
Well, DUH! And the next item in today's news: The sun will rise tomorrow. A heterosexual man viewing a woman as a sexual object, who would've thunk it? What do you think he's going to view as a sexual object, a potato peeler?
A potato peeler... Oolala.
Breastmilk has a lot of vitamins and antibodies in it. In developed nations, the diet and dietary supplements, inoculations etc have replaced the need for breastfeeding very long, if at al arguably. But whatever; my parents friends had a daughter they breast fed to five. She turned out well oh see and happy. She joined the peace corps and now the army as she pursues an education to be a medical doctor. (ironically, she was the first girl I'd played 'you show me yours...' with; guess I shoulda played doctor) So I don't think it matters, other than personal preference. I certainly see no reason to see it as being in poor taste. It is natural, and no less offensive than the plethora fart jokes I hear on a weekly basis on shows targeted for impressionable aged children.
Yes, breastfeeding is natural and should be encouraged. Urinating is also natural. Do I want to explain to my children/grandchildren that both are natural and why doing one of them in public is acceptable and the other isn't? No.
I breastfed my daughter and believe it or not I found ways to do it in private because I found it was easier on me. I wasn't as nervous in private and therefore my flow was stronger when I wasn't nervous.
Why wouldn't you want to explain that to them if they asked?
And that's fine, whatever made you feel more comfortable, however; if someone's perfectly comfortable doing it in public they shouldn't be made to feel like they are making a show of themselves, or that they are something for men to gawk at.
PostmodernProphet
05-11-2012, 06:54 AM
She joined the peace corps
do you blame the breast feeding?.....
Actually, it's more about the age of the kid being breastfed on the cover. The kid is at least 3, maybe 4 years old, by which point he should already be off the tit. Breastfeeding is fine, but you're supposed to be weaned off of it when you become able to start eating solids.
Whiles that's true, we're several pages into the discussion before the kids age has been brought up as the real problem, like, would the posters who are against the TIME cover be fine with it if the child was 12 months not 36?
tailfins
05-11-2012, 07:09 AM
Whiles that's true, we're several pages into the discussion before the kids age has been brought up as the real problem, like, would the posters who are against the TIME cover be fine with it if the child was 12 months not 36?
Imagine the kid in 4th or 5th grade and this magazine is in his school library. I can just hear him being called "mamma's boy" or worse.
logroller
05-11-2012, 07:15 AM
do you blame the breast feeding?.....
Her family is strange. Her dad was a green beret stationed in Germany training troops in winter survival. He wanted to buy a VW beetle and decided to ride his bike to the factory to pick it up; using the shortest route took him through east Germany. He made it fine, but can you imagine, a us special forces officer nonchalantly traveling through east Germany during the height of the cold war. Some people march to the beat of their own drum...
Imagine the kid in 4th or 5th grade and this magazine is in his school library. I can just hear him being called "mamma's boy" or worse.
Sad but true, people are terribly intolerant of other lifestyles, but that's a problem, not a source for a solution.
logroller
05-11-2012, 07:18 AM
Imagine the kid in 4th or 5th grade and this magazine is in his school library. I can just hear him being called "mamma's boy" or worse.
I've known of several kids who I'd call tittiebabies that were weaned much earlier than 3 years-- not sure there's a correlation there is all.
Trigg
05-11-2012, 07:29 AM
Whiles that's true, we're several pages into the discussion before the kids age has been brought up as the real problem, like, would the posters who are against the TIME cover be fine with it if the child was 12 months not 36?
I would venture to say that NO, people would not have a problem with the TIME cover if the child was not so old.
It purposfully provocative and over the top. I've seen many magazine covers that show nursing mothers, the difference is they were nursing babies. Not children standing on chairs that were half the size of the mother.
Nukeman
05-11-2012, 07:42 AM
I wonder why TIME didn't show the other brother who is 5 going on 6 breastfeeding She claims she still feed both of them!!! Now if you were to go to a "questionable" website and puposefully look for buys suckling their mothers I would think they would get you for child porn, yet here we have a national publication showing that!!! hmmmm.....
I wonder why TIME didn't show the other brother who is 5 going on 6 breastfeeding She claims she still feed both of them!!! Now if you were to go to a "questionable" website and puposefully look for buys suckling their mothers I would think they would get you for child porn, yet here we have a national publication showing that!!! hmmmm.....
Too right, next time i see a woman breast feeding her child i'm gonna call her out for incest.
Nukeman
05-11-2012, 08:31 AM
Too right, next time i see a woman breast feeding her child i'm gonna call her out for incest.You know darn good and well that is not my intent!!! you're better than that Noir!! My point being that TIME did this for shock value only, they could care less about breast feeding.. I have NO problem with breast feeding in public, I do however have a problem with a 5 year old coming over to mom and liftting her shirt to get a little snack...
Do you honestly not see the difference in te 2???
You know darn good and well that is not my intent!!! you're better than that Noir!! My point being that TIME did this for shock value only, they could care less about breast feeding.. I have NO problem with breast feeding in public, I do however have a problem with a 5 year old coming over to mom and liftting her shirt to get a little snack...
Do you honestly not see the difference in te 2???
I know, i was being sarcastic, in any sense what you have a problem with is not her problem. You should look to eastern countries, there is is very common to breast feed past a year, until the tikes are 3/4 years old in many cases, different culture, different way of being, and in no sense wrong.
Her case is a very rare one for a western woman, and as such it is notable/attention grabbing, but to pour shame on her or her children for their choices is wrong.
Nukeman
05-11-2012, 09:13 AM
I know, i was being sarcastic, in any sense what you have a problem with is not her problem. You should look to eastern countries, there is is very common to breast feed past a year, until the tikes are 3/4 years old in many cases, different culture, different way of being, and in no sense wrong.
Her case is a very rare one for a western woman, and as such it is notable/attention grabbing, but to pour shame on her or her children for their choices is wrong.Not a matter of "shame" but a matter of discretion, if she wants to feed a 5 year old by all means do so, most public places here in the US have rooms set aside for breast feeding and if NOT available use a little discretion, especially if what you're doing is OUT OF THE NORM.. Just saying!!!
tailfins
05-11-2012, 09:17 AM
I've known of several kids who I'd call tittiebabies that were weaned much earlier than 3 years-- not sure there's a correlation there is all.
The kid is old enough to be identifiable. This in no "Gerber Baby" likeness. That could lead to other kids holding up the magazine and asking things like "Is it still good?" I'm annoyed that the magazine cover sets the kid up for future ridicule.
Not a matter of "shame" but a matter of discretion, if she wants to feed a 5 year old by all means do so, most public places here in the US have rooms set aside for breast feeding and if NOT available use a little discretion, especially if what you're doing is OUT OF THE NORM.. Just saying!!!
Looking at the TIME cover, you'd see much more of her breasts of she was wearing a bikini, especially given how flat chested she is, if that's not discreet enough...
The kid is old enough to be identifiable. This in no "Gerber Baby" likeness. That could lead to other kids holding up the magazine and asking things like "Is it still good?" I'm annoyed that the magazine cover sets the kid up for future ridicule.
Again, this is the problem, but not the source of a solution.
jimnyc
05-11-2012, 10:13 AM
Why wouldn't you want to explain that to them if they asked?
And that's fine, whatever made you feel more comfortable, however; if someone's perfectly comfortable doing it in public they shouldn't be made to feel like they are making a show of themselves, or that they are something for men to gawk at.
Then they should be discreet, use a blankie or special shirts they make. Don't whip it out for just anyone to see - and certainly don't whip it out on a magazine cover for a kid who's old enough to play baseball to be on her tit.
Then they should be discreet, use a blankie or special shirts they make. Don't whip it out for just anyone to see - and certainly don't whip it out on a magazine cover for a kid who's old enough to play baseball to be on her tit.
Looking at the TIME picture, exactly how much of her breast and nipple can you see, compared to, say, a woman in a bikini top?
tailfins
05-11-2012, 11:02 AM
Looking at the TIME picture, exactly how much of her breast and nipple can you see, compared to, say, a woman in a bikini top?
Women in bikini tops get gawked at. Don't put out the welcome mat then complain when people wipe their feet.
logroller
05-11-2012, 11:08 AM
The kid is old enough to be identifiable. This in no "Gerber Baby" likeness. That could lead to other kids holding up the magazine and asking things like "Is it still good?" I'm annoyed that the magazine cover sets the kid up for future ridicule.
is it still good? You bet; I like tits in my mouth. Admittedly not my moms anymore; but i wouldn't ridicule a kid for it. You an ass man or something? ...hater:laugh:
jimnyc
05-11-2012, 11:12 AM
Looking at the TIME picture, exactly how much of her breast and nipple can you see, compared to, say, a woman in a bikini top?
Like stated already, women in bikini tops only do so in certain places AND they are gawked at AND they don't have a mouth attached to the end of their breast. :)
logroller
05-11-2012, 11:19 AM
Like stated already, women in bikini tops only do so in certain places AND they are gawked at AND they don't have a mouth attached to the end of their breast. :)
.....yet.:lol:
Abbey Marie
05-11-2012, 12:15 PM
Noir, you can't have it both ways. Either women's breasts are sex objects, or they aren't. You seem to regularly argue for a very sexually-open society. One might argue that porn and soft-core mags, etc., are exactly what made public breast feeding seem so discomfiting in the first place. I would argue that in the "old days", it was seen as perfectly natural because the mass-production of sexualized images of women didn't exist.
Noir, you can't have it both ways. Either women's breasts are sex objects, or they aren't. You seem to regularly argue for a very sexually-open society. One might argue that porn and soft-core mags, etc., are exactly what made public breast feeding seem so discomfiting in the first place. I would argue that in the "old days", it was seen as perfectly natural because the mass-production of sexualized images of women didn't exist.
Depending on the context a mouth can be a sex object, however, we dont look at every mouth we see and think of it that way. It's the same with breasts, they, and the woman who have them, are not sex objects. You can be sexually open without sexual using everything.
ConHog
05-11-2012, 12:42 PM
Depending on the context a mouth can be a sex object, however, we dont look at every mouth we see and think of it that way. It's the same with breasts, they, and the woman who have them, are not sex objects. You can be sexually open without sexual using everything.
YOU might not , but I often see mouths that I think would make some fine dick suckers
:coffee:
hey, where is Gabby anyway?
:laugh2:
jimnyc
05-11-2012, 12:50 PM
YOU might not , but I often see mouths that I think would make some fine dick suckers
:coffee:
hey, where is Gabby anyway?
:laugh2:
You do realize some very nice gals post here, no? And while you and I would get along just fine at the bar with some whiskey, I don't think the gutter is quite as accepted by the ladies here!
Oh, and any chance you had at Gabby probably just got shot to hell by inferring she was a "dick sucker" :lol: :laugh2:
Like stated already, women in bikini tops only do so in certain places AND they are gawked at AND they don't have a mouth attached to the end of their breast. :)By certain places you mean...outside?
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 10:58 AM
By certain places you mean...outside?
Beaches, backyards, rooftops... At least here in the US, women don't purposely show off their bikini's or walk around like that exposing EVERYONE to their bodies. They tend to be a little discreet and do so when in appropriate areas. Sure, you'll find some that don't give a crap, but that's the minority.
It's very easy for a woman to wear a bikini, then wear shorts and a top over it, and then strip down to the bikini when appropriate. Just as a woman breastfeeding, can have a blanket or appropriate shirt, and "strip down" and breastfeed when appropriate.
Noir, no matter how long you stay at this and no matter what you say - the US is different than the UK. Folks here tend to be a little more discreet and "respectful" of others, and society in general. I understand that the UK is different, and I'm certainly not poking fingers or claiming things should be different, but this is just the way it is here in the US. And you won't convince a single soul that the way we are is "shaming" women or odd or different or disrespectful to women.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 11:16 AM
Let me ask you this, Noir...
I know its quite common in some areas over there to be topless on the beaches. Not just nude beaches, but regular beaches, and loads of women go topless.
Why don't these women do so on public streets, in court, supermarkets? Why do they reserve this activity for the beaches (primarily)?
Beaches, backyards, rooftops... At least here in the US, women don't purposely show off their bikini's or walk around like that exposing EVERYONE to their bodies. They tend to be a little discreet and do so when in appropriate areas. Sure, you'll find some that don't give a crap, but that's the minority.
It's very easy for a woman to wear a bikini, then wear shorts and a top over it, and then strip down to the bikini when appropriate. Just as a woman breastfeeding, can have a blanket or appropriate shirt, and "strip down" and breastfeed when appropriate.
Noir, no matter how long you stay at this and no matter what you say - the US is different than the UK. Folks here tend to be a little more discreet and "respectful" of others, and society in general. I understand that the UK is different, and I'm certainly not poking fingers or claiming things should be different, but this is just the way it is here in the US. And you won't convince a single soul that the way we are is "shaming" women or odd or different or disrespectful to women.
Well I certainly am pointing fingers and saying if that is the zeitgeist of the US then it should change. When you say woman in the US are more "respectful" of others, you can't not infer that breast feeding openly is thus "disrespectful" that is shaming, much as you may deny it. Also my point in posting isn't to change anyones mind, it's to present my mind.
Let me ask you this, Noir...
I know its quite common in some areas over there to be topless on the beaches. Not just nude beaches, but regular beaches, and loads of women go topless.
Why don't these women do so on public streets, in court, supermarkets? Why do they reserve this activity for the beaches (primarily)?
Thats a bloody good question, why do we feel compelled to cover ourselves? The answer obviously lies somewhere is the social structure of our brains, we have for centuries been taught by religions and such that our naked body's are sin/shameful, whereas now I guess allot of it is to do with the over sexualization of a naked body.
Anyways I'm sure the answer is a very complex one and so one I cant answer, but it is a very interesting question.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 11:26 AM
Well I certainly am pointing fingers and saying if that is the zeitgeist of the US then it should change. When you say woman in the US are more "respectful" of others, you can't not infer that breast feeding openly is thus "disrespectful" that is shaming, much as you may deny it. Also my point in posting isn't to change anyones mind, it's to present my mind.
No, it's not breastfeeding that is disrespectful, it would be doing it in front of others, when you can be more discreet, that makes it disrespectful. If I am in a restaurant with 5 children, and the lady in the booth next to us whips out her bare breast for all the children to see without hesitation, that can be disrespectful. If she tosses a small blanket over her shoulder, or has a breastfeeding shirt - no problem. You WANT it to be about shaming, but it's not, and never was. It's simply about respect for others around you.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 11:30 AM
Thats a bloody good question, why do we feel compelled to cover ourselves? The answer obviously lies somewhere is the social structure of our brains, we have for centuries been taught by religions and such that our naked body's are sin/shameful, whereas now I guess allot of it is to do with the over specialization of a naked body.
Anyways I'm sure the answer is a very complex one and do on I cat answer, but it is a very interesting question.
But there's no difference, not much in theory anyway, between that and what you guys do over there. Women are being semi discreet by going topless on the beach. Why are you shaming them into thinking it's not somehow ok to do so on public roads and downtown, and in stores and in front of children? It's cool to do so in a manner AND in a particular place, where people CAN avoid with children if they like - but it's either against the law or frowned upon in settings where children may be, or where others aren't in a state of being disrobed. I know you'll say it's different, but it's really not that different. The major difference is that breastfeeding Mom's don't have a choice, but they do have a choice to carry a blanket with them, wear appropriate shirts or utilize areas a bit more discreet.
logroller
05-13-2012, 11:33 AM
No, it's not breastfeeding that is disrespectful, it would be doing it in front of others, when you can be more discreet, that makes it disrespectful. If I am in a restaurant with 5 children, and the lady in the booth next to us whips out her bare breast for all the children to see without hesitation, that can be disrespectful. If she tosses a small blanket over her shoulder, or has a breastfeeding shirt - no problem. You WANT it to be about shaming, but it's not, and never was. It's simply about respect for others around you.
I'll tell you what disturbs me in an eating establishment: straw slurping! Very disrespectful IMO. Odd that doesn't make the cover of magazines though; it's far more prevalent.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 11:35 AM
The answer obviously lies somewhere is the social structure of our brains, we have for centuries been taught by religions and such that our naked body's are sin/shameful, whereas now I guess allot of it is to do with the over sexualization of a naked body.
Btw, if it was shameful and/or considered sinful - then why is it so prevalent on beaches, dirty mags, porn, internet, in privacy of ones home, etc...? I'm of the belief that it's more of a humility/respect thing and less to do with shaming - cause if it were those things, the other places I point out wouldn't be skyrocketing with the nakedness. I think people just think "there is a time and a place"...
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 11:37 AM
I'll tell you what disturbs me in an eating establishment: straw slurping! Very disrespectful IMO. Odd that doesn't make the cover of magazines though; it's far more prevalent.
Or eating with your mouth open, loud talking, cell phones, shitty tipping, people who won't wipe their mouths, fat people who order 50lbs of food with a diet SODA. Yep, I'd rather see boobies myself! :)
But there's no difference, not much in theory anyway, between that and what you guys do over there. Women are being semi discreet by going topless on the beach. Why are you shaming them into thinking it's not somehow ok to do so on public roads and downtown, and in stores and in front of children? It's cool to do so in a manner AND in a particular place, where people CAN avoid with children if they like - but it's either against the law or frowned upon in settings where children may be, or where others aren't in a state of being disrobed. I know you'll say it's different, but it's really not that different. The major difference is that breastfeeding Mom's don't have a choice, but they do have a choice to carry a blanket with them, wear appropriate shirts or utilize areas a bit more discreet.
I fear you've got me all wrong, lol, if a woman wants to walk down a street topples, etc, ( bizarrely just like a man can) she should be able to imo. So the whole 'why are you shaming woman' thing doesn't really stick.
Btw, if it was shameful and/or considered sinful - then why is it so prevalent on beaches, dirty mags, porn, internet, in privacy of ones home, etc...? I'm of the belief that it's more of a humility/respect thing and less to do with shaming - cause if it were those things, the other places I point out wouldn't be skyrocketing with the nakedness. I think people just think "there is a time and a place"...
It's so prevalent on beeches because that's one of the few places you can be topless etc legally, try and walk downtown and you'll be charged with public indecency. (only if you're a woman, being a topless man is decent, being a toppless woman is legally indecent.)
logroller
05-13-2012, 11:56 AM
It's so prevalent on beeches because that's one of the few places you can be topless etc legally, try and walk downtown and you'll be charged with public indecency. (only if you're a woman, being a topless man is decent, being a toppless woman is legally indecent.)
In a restauraunt though, a man would have to have a shirt on due to health codes.
In a restauraunt though, a man would have to have a shirt on due to health codes.
No, you can be topless, just not fully nude.
logroller
05-13-2012, 12:07 PM
No, you can be topless, just not fully nude.
I don't think so: no shirt, no shoes, no service. That's not just a company's policy, it's health code. Atleast here in the states, most counties have health codes which require patrons to wear shirts. Of course, indecency laws would require pants.
I don't think so: no shirt, no shoes, no service. That's not just a company's policy, it's health code. Atleast here in the states, most counties have health codes which require patrons to wear shirts. Of course, indecency laws would require pants.
You're forced to wear shoes? What do they think people are going to do with their feet exactly?
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 12:19 PM
I fear you've got me all wrong, lol, if a woman wants to walk down a street topples, etc, ( bizarrely just like a man can) she should be able to imo. So the whole 'why are you shaming woman' thing doesn't really stick.
I didn't mean YOU in particular, although I did word it that way. I was trying to point out that even in the UK, women's boobies are treated differently as well. Acceptable to bare them on the beach and unacceptable to do while out jogging in the city, or in a restaurant.
logroller
05-13-2012, 12:19 PM
You're forced to wear shoes? What do they think people are going to do with their feet exactly?
I stand corrected. It appears there is no widespread health code; it's merely the establishment's prerogative. To answer your question as to why; I'm guessing it's liability. Say some guy steps on a small piece of broken whatever and hurts himself... You understand.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 12:21 PM
It's so prevalent on beeches because that's one of the few places you can be topless etc legally, try and walk downtown and you'll be charged with public indecency. (only if you're a woman, being a topless man is decent, being a toppless woman is legally indecent.)
No doubt, but WHY is it illegal then? Would you think that law is shaming or shameful to women? It's really not much different than the breastfeeding discussion - some places it is appropriate to bare them, and in others it is considered indecent, unacceptable or disrespectful.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 12:22 PM
You're forced to wear shoes? What do they think people are going to do with their feet exactly?
The US is much different in that respect. Any "decent" establishment requires that ALL patrons have shoes and shirts on, as Log pointed out. No tank tops is a policy at a lot of places too! Imagine that, people don't always want to see others armpits while they eat either! :laugh:
I didn't mean YOU in particular, although I did word it that way. I was trying to point out that even in the UK, women's boobies are treated differently as well. Acceptable to bare them on the beach and unacceptable to do while out jogging in the city, or in a restaurant.
Yeah I know, but it's not as bad in the UK as it is in the US, and it's not as bad in the US as it is in some middle eastern country etc. just because the UK doesn't have it right doesn't mean the US isn't more wrong, if ya know what I mean.
No doubt, but WHY is it illegal then? Would you think that law is shaming or shameful to women? It's really not much different than the breastfeeding discussion - some places it is appropriate to bare them, and in others it is considered indecent, unacceptable or disrespectful.
I has no idea why it is illegal, but it's certainly shaming.
As for it being appropriate and respectful to you, again we're back to the comparative strict Muslim example. If you are offenended by a woman's bare breast in public, sucks to be you. If a Muslim is offended by a woman's bare arms in public, sucks to be him, but it does not matter if that woman is disrespecting you, or him, or both, because in a free society you are not protected from not being offended by others.
If a woman choses to bare her arms, and a Muslim tells you that's disrespectful to him, you would tell him that it's her free choice to have bare arms. It's the same when it comes to bare chests.
The US is much different in that respect. Any "decent" establishment requires that ALL patrons have shoes and shirts on, as Log pointed out. No tank tops is a policy at a lot of places too! Imagine that, people don't always want to see others armpits while they eat either! :laugh:
There is a difference between having the eatery set its own rules, and the eatery have rules forced upon it, log was referring to the latter before realizing it was in error, thus my comments.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 01:31 PM
I has no idea why it is illegal, but it's certainly shaming.
As for it being appropriate and respectful to you, again we're back to the comparative strict Muslim example. If you are offenended by a woman's bare breast in public, sucks to be you. If a Muslim is offended by a woman's bare arms in public, sucks to be him, but it does not matter if that woman is disrespecting you, or him, or both, because in a free society you are not protected from not being offended by others.
If a woman choses to bare her arms, and a Muslim tells you that's disrespectful to him, you would tell him that it's her free choice to have bare arms. It's the same when it comes to bare chests.
So a woman can't bare her boobs while jogging in downtown London, and you believe it to be shaming them, since society is deeming it unlawful. So to be fair, one must also assume you think it should be no problem for a man to walk around in public with his wiener on display for all to see?
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 01:36 PM
There is a difference between having the eatery set its own rules, and the eatery have rules forced upon it, log was referring to the latter before realizing it was in error, thus my comments.
Yes, legally speaking, restaurants can allow customers to be barefoot and even without shirts. Places such as that don't exactly thrive as not as many people want to eat at an establishment where the guy next to you has black soles on his feet from walking barefoot, and hairy armpits looking at you while you eat. Other than shitty burger joints and some beach front places, you won't find many successful restaurants that allow it.
So a woman can't bare her boobs while jogging in downtown London, and you believe it to be shaming them, since society is deeming it unlawful. So to be fair, one must also assume you think it should be no problem for a man to walk around in public with his wiener on display for all to see?
I would be quite happy to live in a society that does not make criminals of people for being naked, yes.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 01:50 PM
I would be quite happy to live in a society that does not make criminals of people for being naked, yes.
Other than children, I wouldn't mind seeing boobies all over the place. But I have to draw the line at the sausage fest! I'm NOT an equal opportunity nudist! :lol:
Yes, legally speaking, restaurants can allow customers to be barefoot and even without shirts. Places such as that don't exactly thrive as not as many people want to eat at an establishment where the guy next to you has black soles on his feet from walking barefoot, and hairy armpits looking at you while you eat. Other than shitty burger joints and some beach front places, you won't find many successful restaurants that allow it.
Well, I would suggest you don't look at people's arm puts while you eat regardless of whether or not they are wearing a top.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 01:54 PM
Well, I would suggest you don't look at people's arm puts while you eat regardless of whether or not they are wearing a top.
If you're in a restaurant, and the gal a few tables away is an 18yr old blonde beauty with 38DD boobs - DON'T tell me you can't help but notice! Same thing with what I call filthy things, sometimes you just can't help but notice.
If you're in a restaurant, and the gal a few tables away is an 18yr old blonde beauty with 38DD boobs - DON'T tell me you can't help but notice! Same thing with what I call filthy things, sometimes you just can't help but notice.
If you cant help but juice thats you're problem, not theirs.
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 02:13 PM
If you cant help but juice thats you're problem, not theirs.
So if a guy is sitting at a table, in a restaurant, wearing short shorts, and his nuts are hanging out - yes, it's a problem for me... No offense, buddy, but if you feel it's appropriate for a set of balls to be hanging out, or someone's sweaty armpits - then we just disagree! LOL
So if a guy is sitting at a table, in a restaurant, wearing short shorts, and his nuts are hanging out - yes, it's a problem for me... No offense, buddy, but if you feel it's appropriate for a set of balls to be hanging out, or someone's sweaty armpits - then we just disagree! LOL
...why would you even be looking? I mean, you're talking about looking at the inner thigh of some guy who is sat at a table atleast a meter away from you (assuming they're at the next table and the line of sight from your eyes to their inner thigh isn't covered).
In any case, it's all just a human body and nothing you should be disgusted by, I mean, what I'd the woman on the table next to you is, in your opinion, a heinously ugly woman, heinous enough to attract your attention, and put you off your food, should the establishment then require only non-ugly people may dine? Is it her fault that you are out off by her visage?
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 02:37 PM
...why would you even be looking? I mean, you're talking about looking at the inner thigh of some guy who is sat at a table atleast a meter away from you (assuming they're at the next table and the line of sight from your eyes to their inner thigh isn't covered).
In any case, it's all just a human body and nothing you should be disgusted by, I mean, what I'd the woman on the table next to you has, in your opinion, a heinously ugly woman, heinous enough to attract your attention, and put you off your food, should the establishment then require only non-ugly people may dine? Is it her fault that you are out off by her visage?
One can't control ugly, but they can control keeping their things that sag in their pants or shirts!
Last I saw was about 2 years ago at one of my sons baseball games. There was a guy there on a sit up lounge type chair, had to be in late 70's early 80's. He had on a pair of shirts that were probably 3 sizes too large for him. His family jewels were not only visible, but dangling in the wind like a set of wind chimes. Now, I certainly did not go out of my way to find them, but everyone in the general area couldn't help but giggle and try to further refrain from looking in his direction.
We're human, we're curious by nature. There's nothing wrong with gazing around a restaurant and being aware of your surroundings and who else is dining with you. That's why I don't wear things where my jewels are on display!
It's like the chaps over your way who think it's cool to wear the skimpiest pair of speedos, and nothing else, to the beach or pool. Here, you'd get laughed at, or people would point and say "He must be European". :lol:
tailfins
05-13-2012, 03:18 PM
If you cant help but juice thats you're problem, not theirs.
There's a phrase I grew up with: "It pays to advertize." I don't see how any man can be criticized what looking at what a woman is advertizing. I consider that a form of social entrapment. I have conditioned myself to think otherwise when visiting Latin America. The first thing I think of in Latin America when a woman overly reveals herself is being on the alert for a pickpocket.
Abbey Marie
05-13-2012, 03:18 PM
One can't control ugly, but they can control keeping their things that sag in their pants or shirts!
Last I saw was about 2 years ago at one of my sons baseball games. There was a guy there on a sit up lounge type chair, had to be in late 70's early 80's. He had on a pair of shirts that were probably 3 sizes too large for him. His family jewels were not only visible, but dangling in the wind like a set of wind chimes. Now, I certainly did not go out of my way to find them, but everyone in the general area couldn't help but giggle and try to further refrain from looking in his direction.
We're human, we're curious by nature. There's nothing wrong with gazing around a restaurant and being aware of your surroundings and who else is dining with you. That's why I don't wear things where my jewels are on display!
It's like the chaps over your way who think it's cool to wear the skimpiest pair of speedos, and nothing else, to the beach or pool. Here, you'd get laughed at, or people would point and say "He must be European". :lol:
Jim, you definitely have a way with words! :laugh2:
There's a phrase I grew up with: "It pays to advertize." I don't see how any man can be criticized what looking at what a woman is advertizing. I consider that a form of social entrapment. I have conditioned myself to think otherwise when visiting Latin America. The first thing I think of in Latin America when a woman overly reveals herself is being on the alert for a pickpocket.
...advertising? Really?
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 04:05 PM
...advertising? Really?
I'm not sure what he's getting at, so I won't begin to speak for him. But from my POV - if a woman goes out in public in just a bra, or tube top, or see through garments, or a HUGE amount of cleavage showing - they are looking for attention, not to be confused with harassment or abuse. I think "advertising" assumes selling, which is not what I mean. I think they expect to be looked at to an extent when dressing in certain manners though.
tailfins
05-13-2012, 04:42 PM
I'm not sure what he's getting at, so I won't begin to speak for him. But from my POV - if a woman goes out in public in just a bra, or tube top, or see through garments, or a HUGE amount of cleavage showing - they are looking for attention, not to be confused with harassment or abuse. I think "advertising" assumes selling, which is not what I mean. I think they expect to be looked at to an extent when dressing in certain manners though.
More often than not, I think it's bait so the woman can bite the man's head off or worse.
I'm not sure what he's getting at, so I won't begin to speak for him. But from my POV - if a woman goes out in public in just a bra, or tube top, or see through garments, or a HUGE amount of cleavage showing - they are looking for attention, not to be confused with harassment or abuse. I think "advertising" assumes selling, which is not what I mean. I think they expect to be looked at to an extent when dressing in certain manners though.
'Advertising' and what you have said *totally* objectifies women, it means every time a woman is getting dressed as far as you are concerned she is not wearing what she wants to wear, she is wearing what she wants you to think of her, and it is *because* of her that you think the way you think about her.
When you take this further (not implying you would) thats when you get into the realms of sexual harassment and such, 'she was dressed that way you honour, she wanted me to look/comment/grope' etc)
jimnyc
05-13-2012, 07:11 PM
'Advertising' and what you have said *totally* objectifies women, it means every time a woman is getting dressed as far as you are concerned she is not wearing what she wants to wear, she is wearing what she wants you to think of her, and it is *because* of her that you think the way you think about her.
When you take this further (not implying you would) thats when you get into the realms of sexual harassment and such, 'she was dressed that way you honour, she wanted me to look/comment/grope' etc)
Do you think women who wear see through clothing, tube tops, "skinny jeans", very tight jeans, very tight tops, extremely low cut tops - you really think they are wearing these things because they are more comfortable in them, or they think it's fashionable? What about gucci pocketbooks and extremely expensive shoes, like Loubottins are whatever the hell they're called? Same thing, 'cept in that case it's generally meant to impress.
Then you have some women who never leave the house in revealing clothing, high pumps, outlandish jewelry and other material things.
And yes, I think most women here would even agree, that's why there is the term "dress to impress". Not that everyone does it, but most people wear things to impress, to fit in, to attract attention. Same as men, with an Armani suit for example. Are you going to pay $5k for such a suit because it fits better or feels better? Nope, it won't. It's the name and the appearance - which men will do to impress and look good for others.
As for your last sentence, I believe I have even already stated, that even though women wear certain things to appear better and gather attention, or to look good if they are in fact seen in public IS NOT to be confused with harassment or abuse. Even if a woman walks around town naked, no one ever has a right to do anything harmful or sexual.
tailfins
05-13-2012, 08:21 PM
'Advertising' and what you have said *totally* objectifies women, it means every time a woman is getting dressed as far as you are concerned she is not wearing what she wants to wear, she is wearing what she wants you to think of her, and it is *because* of her that you think the way you think about her.
When you take this further (not implying you would) thats when you get into the realms of sexual harassment and such, 'she was dressed that way you honour, she wanted me to look/comment/grope' etc)
In more "innocent" times a man would have stared or even commented. Nowadays men are "wise" to the sexual harassment war. The war really became noticeable during Clarance Thomas' Supreme Court confirmation. Now the common thing is to file criminal charges for indecent exposure or for the man to file a sexual harassment complaint. Dressing in a manner likely to arouse is nonverbal sexual harassment. The accusation WILL stick if pressed. Come to think of it uncovered breast feeding falls in the same category. Either men are allowed to stare or the woman is committing nonverbal sexual harassment. They cannot have it both ways.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.