Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by icos211, Feb 10, 2015.
Am I the only one who doesn't get bothered by a woman breast feeding her child?
No, because you're a rational human who understands why she is doing it and that its not for some sexual reason but necessity for her child
vaccinations should be mandatory, not optional. Public health and safety shouldn't be endangered by stupid people that refuse to get themselves or their children vaccinated. Just wait til Polio starts making a comeback in the US and kids start getting paralyzed again, then they'll care about vaccinations.
No like, some people are fine with breast feeding as long as the woman covers up. It doesn't bother me even when they don't cover up. And it's not like "hey, a breast, I'm getting turned on!" it's more like "oh she's feeding her child." Now, don't get me wrong, I'll play with my wife's every chance I get, but it's weird how that switch doesn't even come on when a woman is breastfeeding, and all I hear from other people "she should cover up" or "she might make men horny!" Funnily enough, that's never been an issue for me, and I feel like the odd man out.
I still find it weird. Not in a "hey stop doing that" kind of way, but more of a "why would you want anyone to see this?" kind of way - the only times I've seen feeding in public and thought anything of it was when it was an entirely inappropriate place to have brought a child in the first place, or when it was being made a display on purpose. Like the last time I can remember was at a concert... which was stupid for two reasons- one being that the kids ears are getting trashed by no choice of it's own (who brings a baby to a concert?) and the other being that a room full of drunk concert-going dudes seems like the last place you'd want to expose yourself in any way. It very much struck me as trying to make a point more than just wanting to enjoy the show like everyone else. I mean, do what you gatta do, but maybe there's a time and place for things. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I feel it's pretty preposterous that someone who identifies as feminist or feels that men and women should be treated equally with regards to social hierarchy could still feel it's inappropriate to any degree for a woman to be bare-chested. That men can walk in public without a shirt on their chest while women are legally forbidden from doing this seems to be especially forthright example of systematized sexism. It's fucking sharia law as far as I can tell.
Whites can play baseball but blacks cant ---> That's racism, obviously!
Men can be topless but women cant ---> "Oh no that's just about politeness and being dignified. Not sexist in any way"
You could resolve that one of two ways, though.
By not letting blacks play baseball again!?
#FREE THE TITTIES2017
Thanks for the laugh.
I'm sure plenty of people would accuse me of being a perv who just wants to see naked women, but
1) They'd be right
2) Even still, it's besides the point. Why an individual may or may not want women to be topless doesn't in any way invalidate the argument that allowing men to be topless public but disallowing women from doing the same thing is sexist in principle.
I like to think I believe in Topless Equality for simultaneously both the pervy reason and the feminist reason. Why can't I? They aren't zero-sum, right?
How about those that think no one should be topless or partially undressed in public?
Same argument works on a much different level in the Islamic State. Those women had better not flash their ankles nor noses!
Still, though, there's inequality in the law. A guy with huge moobs can walk around shirtless all day and do nothing illegal. A woman doing the same, it's a crime.
Either A) Cover up the nipples male or female
Or B) Free the nipples.
If you don't want to see any nipples, or you don't care about seeing nipples, that's one thing, but saying you can expose nipples if and only if you fit a certain demographic is unequal.
It's a matter of consistency.
Having been to a bunch of topless beaches in europe (and a couple of nude ones here in the US), I can say that at least for me, it's pretty easy to distance myself from looking at boobs. America is so fucking prudish about something so innocuous as nudity. Nudity isn't a big deal and people need to quit sexualizing being naked/topless. We weren't born with clothes on and this vestigial Puritanism is really getting annoying.
I'd rather see neither, thanks.
"Same argument works on a much different level in the Islamic State. Those women had better not flash their ankles nor noses!" This was laughably absurd.
Well, you'd have to define "fully dressed," since it's not about what is being worn, but rather about what is not being worn. Or else, you have to list the parts of the body that must be covered in public. I think most people are fine with that. My point is that once you start placing stricter guidelines on one group of people than on another group of people (i.e., women cover your boobs, but men leave them uncovered), you've made a distinction. What's the reasoning behind this distinction? I bet it's the same reasoning that the Islamic State uses to impose burkas on their womenfolk. Absurd, yet still true.
This forum seems to be on a double post kick lately.
Sometimes, when looking around, I get the urge to shake people and wake them up when they are staring at their phones again.
About half the people *anywhere* are constantly fixated to that stupid screen. Even parents, whilst their kids are clearly craving some love and attention.
And in a few years, growth deformities will occur in backs and necks, because of the constant hunched position people are in.
... "I hate smartphones" (And I'm an early millennial.)
You mean to say that you hate people. Smartphones are incredible. People, on the other hand...
You would have to define fully dressed? No you fucking wouldn't.