NIP Article - reader's comments
Find a Conversation
NIP Article - reader's comments
| Sun, 09-09-2007 - 10:53pm |
Here's an seemingly innocent article on a nurse-in at an Applebees. However, if you read the reader comments...boy oh boy! Talk about some ignorant remarks. One of them even equated NIP to smoking! Unbelievable. I thought it would be a good thing to discuss on here, especially since our resident FF/anti-NIP'ers are feeling underrepresented.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/0908breastfeeding--ON.html
BF'ers, be prepared to be astounded.























Pages
Wow, no offense, but if you only have two sexually charged areas, you are seriously missing out in the hanky-panky department."
Oh, I agree, Nisu!!!! I mean, I DEFINITELY have more than two VERY sexually charged areas of my body... Interestingly enough, my breasts are NOT one of those areas...
">>Ears do not fit that description. Ears are not sexualized in general terms. It would be extremely difficult or perhaps impossible to perform a sexual act with ones ears. <<
At risk of coming off as some kind of pervert, I thought the vast majority of people found ears to be quite an erotic zone."
Heck, I always thought ears were an understood erogenous zone too! I'll even admit it: I belong to the paraphilic sub-culture with a seemingly "unhealthy" infatuation with ears- my own, and other people's. But, maybe that's just cause I'm a devient little freak. *wink*
">>So if there were a hypothetical sub culture with an aversion to ears, they are SOL.<<
Whoa – if another American believes that ears are as much for hearing as they are for pleasure, they are SOL, you will not accommodate their sensitivities, but since YOU believe that breasts are as much for feeding as they are for pleasure, only arrogant people would feed a baby in public? At risk of coming off as daft, this logic seems very egocentric to me"
It is egocentric... It's an attitude of "You do what I want, and conform to my skewed views on what is and is not proper."
">>Me covering would serve no purpose since I don't subscribe to Islam. <<
The “purpose” would be to make those around you more comfortable – I think that’s been your whole point all along – other’s comfort comes first."
Don't sweat it... There's a simple solution... A very "two can play at that game" option! If she would not cover herself out of respect for those who practice Islam, because she "doesn't subscribe to it", and does not think she is being disrespectful or whatever... Then, surely, we don't have to cover ourselves when we nurse in public. After all, I don't subscribe to the belief that breasts are for anything other than feeding an infant... So, I don't have to cover up at all, and, I'm not being disrespectful or anything! ^_^ teeheehee
Powered by Lorf!
<>
What North American sub-culture do *you* belong to, because it sure as heck isn't the one that I belong to?!? Only "two sexually charged areas"...? How boring. There are quite a few more potential erogenous zones in human sexuality. You're pretty far off base with your assertion here.
<>
Oh my... I can't believe that I actually have to type this, but here goes. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the ears are well known, and well documented as an erogenous zone. As a matter of fact, it's a very common site of psuedo 'sexual penetration'. A great many people nibble ears, and stick their tongues in. It's actually quite common. Again, you're *way* off base.
<>
Almost every organ serves multiple purposes, and there's quite a laundry list (despite your unfortunate claims) that double as 'sex toys'. None-the-less, I would think that most people would understand the difference between utilizing the breasts during a sex act with a consenting partner and feeding an infant. It really is very much different.
Further, what is more "innocent" than a mother feeding her baby the way design intended? Why would a 'food breast' get your hackles up when there is clearly no sex afoot? How do you envision that an 'innocent passerby' will be spoiled and scarred for life by seeing a woman feeding a baby? Do you also envision their ruin from seeing a baby fed with an artificial teat and bottle, which (using your logic) would double as some sort of phalic symbol, and potentially arouse those who have a thing for artificial 'sexually charged areas'?
And, just so that you understand, the female breasts are not the 'exact same thing', nor do they fall in the same category as your genitalia. This is a term that refers exclusively to your external reproductive organs. Your breasts are a pair of mammary glands. It is socially unacceptable (in most North Amercian cultures) to randomly expose your external reproductive organs (genitalia) in public-- it is widely accepted that doing so would be an invitation or a threat of sex. However, exposing a vagina (genitalia) to expel a baby wouldn't lead the average innocent passeryby to think that a clearly pregnant woman, spread-eagle on the side walk, with a head crowning and vitriolic invectives spewing forth from her mouth, was inviting them to her bedroom for a sexual encouter. And we don't *not* give birth in public because immature gigglers and ickers might see. We try not to do it (but babies sometimes have a
Jani
"Laughter is an orgasm triggered by the intercourse of sense and nonsense."
<
Jani
"Laughter is an orgasm triggered by the intercourse of sense and nonsense."
"What North American sub-culture do *you* belong to, because it sure as heck isn't the one that I belong to?!? Only "two sexually charged areas"...? How boring. There are quite a few more potential erogenous zones in human sexuality. You're pretty far off base with your assertion here."
The entire surface of the skin is an erogenous zone....I assumed everyone knew that and went on with making my point. The only sexually charged areas(as commonly accepted) are the breasts and the genitals. When you expose those two
>>The entire surface of the skin is an erogenous zone....I assumed everyone knew that and went on with making my point. The only sexually charged areas(as commonly accepted) are the breasts and the genitals. When you expose those two areas in public, you get arrested for indecency. <<
But, it seems once again, you are side stepping the issue at hand.
Why should other people breastfeed in a way that "you" deem discreet? Other than the legal (rather circular argument), why are breasts more like genitals and less like skin and ears? Why does your opinion that breast "are" as sexual as genitals trump the majority opinion on this board which is that they are not?
You've already said that you neither would nor should have to honor other people's beliefs by changing your behavior, but you expect other people to honor your beliefs and change theirs. What gives?
"You've already said that you neither would nor should have to honor other people's beliefs by changing your behavior, but you expect other people to honor your beliefs and change theirs. What gives?"
Because, as I have stated several times, I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE! Believe it or not, the general public has no interest or desire to see your breasts! ( I assume we are still talking about indiscreet NIP) It is still considered rude and inappropriate by many many people. If I went to an Islamic area, I would at least make the effort to cover. If I went to some fairy tale land where ears were considered in the same light as breasts are here....I would cover. In a heartbeat. When
Here's the most ridiculous statement of the day so far:
Powered by
Well, that just proves that there are people, including police officers who are ignorant of the law.
Cathie
Actually, I have no desire to other women's breasts, nuring or otherwise.
Cathie
Pages