C
cheezey
Guest
My mother thought this was the best cure for diaper rash.
I wonder how she then dealt with, um, accidents…
- Status
I wonder how she then dealt with, um, accidents…
P
Petaro
Guest
Initially I would not be opposed to a certain proportion of the female population to go topless. This is because I am a dirty old man. However there are some very valid reasons to avoid it as a norm. Most women are more attractive with the allure of the mystery of coverage. Many women are extremely unattractive without tops. Gravity is a terrible force.
Secondly, purely as a dirty old man, I can tell you that in societies where public nudity such as New Guinea, where topless women are a regular part of society, the sexual attraction of the breast is diminished. This was exampled best in Victorian England where an ankle, because it was rarely exposed became a sexual element. For men’s sake, keep covered and maintain modesty that brings with it the sexual attraction of mystery that God brings to Natural law.
Discarding my dirty old man mask, I arise a man of Christ to suggest that toplessness of a woman in public is an occasion of sin for many normal blokes and women who go topless are sinning against modesty.
Secondly, purely as a dirty old man, I can tell you that in societies where public nudity such as New Guinea, where topless women are a regular part of society, the sexual attraction of the breast is diminished. This was exampled best in Victorian England where an ankle, because it was rarely exposed became a sexual element. For men’s sake, keep covered and maintain modesty that brings with it the sexual attraction of mystery that God brings to Natural law.
Discarding my dirty old man mask, I arise a man of Christ to suggest that toplessness of a woman in public is an occasion of sin for many normal blokes and women who go topless are sinning against modesty.
S
sallybutler
Guest
P
phil19034
Guest
Sexual Organs are organs that are unique to a individual sex, not necessarily about having sex. The purpose for the sexual organs is to procreate, not to have sex. Sex is not the fundamental purpose. Procreation is. Sex is the method used by sexual organisms vs asexual organisms. While female breasts are not directly involved with birth, they are biologically required to keep the newborn alive and provide the infant with nutrients post birth. The female breast are “activated” by pregnancy hence work in union and harmony with the womb.
Men who have “man-boobs” or lactate are not the norm. Biologically, one is an issue of being overweight and the other is a chemical imbalance.
Therefore, from a biological and potentially theological point of view, female breasts can be consider “sexual organs.” But the main reason why science doesn’t consider them “sexual” is because only mammals have them, not all sexual organisms. But the mammary organs are linked to how mammals procreate because it’s how we nurture our newborns.
God Bless
P
phil19034
Guest
In most places, men can’t go topless in a grocery store…
A
ahs
Guest
Toplessness of women in our society would be a moral tragedy. Regardless of why, the fact is that young men (and old) have learned, by whatever means, to view the breast in a sexual way. Public breastfeeding can help retrain the general public to view the breast for its true primary purpose (nourishment and comfort of babies), but the sex industry has found a way to sexualize women in every way imaginable and that’s not going to be "with public toplessness until society at large has ALREADY learned to view the breast appropriately.
I think it boils down to what message we are trying to get across with such acts. Coincidentally, I JUST wrote an article that gets into this a bit:
What Message are You Sending?
Here’s the more relevant portion of that article to this topic, but I recommend the whole post.
“Understandably, some of us may be in financial situations that preclude us from wearing the kinds of attire we’d like, but I believe that the average person, at least in America, is able to dress modestly enough such that their appearance doesn’t shout “I want you to objectify me!”. We see it everywhere and hear it from the mouths of adults and children alike: “I want to look cute [for whomever]”, or “Does this make me look sexy?”, or “that’s a really sexy outfit/expression/photo/etc…” as though being overly “sexy” in public were a good thing.”
-Of course, in this case, it’s not so much an effort to look good, but to express a freedom or right. But I think the intended message in this case would be just as lost because of the fact that the message received will be sexual…until society as a whole has changed.
“…the intended message typically does not match the actual one. Instead of saying, “look at me, I’m cute as a button, but please focus on my countenance and treat me as a person”, the person says , “I want others to view me as a sex object…an image-tool for their personal use”. …“I am easy”, or “I want you to lust after my body, regardless of whether you respect me as a person”, or “I don’t mind being treated like an object by you” or “*I don’t value myself enough to expect you to value me”. *These could be unintentional messages, or intentional ones that the person doesn’t realize are wrong to send out.”
-Again, regardless of the intent, those are the messages that would be sent out, I believe.
I think it boils down to what message we are trying to get across with such acts. Coincidentally, I JUST wrote an article that gets into this a bit:
What Message are You Sending?
Here’s the more relevant portion of that article to this topic, but I recommend the whole post.
“Understandably, some of us may be in financial situations that preclude us from wearing the kinds of attire we’d like, but I believe that the average person, at least in America, is able to dress modestly enough such that their appearance doesn’t shout “I want you to objectify me!”. We see it everywhere and hear it from the mouths of adults and children alike: “I want to look cute [for whomever]”, or “Does this make me look sexy?”, or “that’s a really sexy outfit/expression/photo/etc…” as though being overly “sexy” in public were a good thing.”
-Of course, in this case, it’s not so much an effort to look good, but to express a freedom or right. But I think the intended message in this case would be just as lost because of the fact that the message received will be sexual…until society as a whole has changed.
“…the intended message typically does not match the actual one. Instead of saying, “look at me, I’m cute as a button, but please focus on my countenance and treat me as a person”, the person says , “I want others to view me as a sex object…an image-tool for their personal use”. …“I am easy”, or “I want you to lust after my body, regardless of whether you respect me as a person”, or “I don’t mind being treated like an object by you” or “*I don’t value myself enough to expect you to value me”. *These could be unintentional messages, or intentional ones that the person doesn’t realize are wrong to send out.”
-Again, regardless of the intent, those are the messages that would be sent out, I believe.
A
ahs
Guest
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m sorry but my opinion remains the same. All men have breasts, they are just not nearly as developed as those of women. This is different from the actual sexual organs of the two sexes. And, to be honest, I am not making this distinction to argue for topless women in public, I think that would be a terrible idea. Rather it is because people have over sexualized breasts to the point that they are offended that a woman might even attempt to breastfeed in public. They view the breasts as we ual organs rather than as organs made for the nourishment of babies and so get offended and recuse to allow a woman to feed her child because they accuse her of offending them with a sexual act. So, again, I will insist that breasts are not a sexual organ.
P
pensmama87
Guest
The term I remember learning in biology was “secondary sex characteristic.” So, related to sex in that men and women tend to develop differently, but not actually essential to procreation.
P
phil19034
Guest
I do agree that woman should be able to breast feed in public, when necessary. But I also disagree with the idea that “I can breast feed my baby where ever I want.”
For example:
- There is no reason to breast feed on your front steps, where all your neighbors can see, when you can do it inside your house.
- when at a party, there is no reason to breast feed in front of everyone at the party if it can be done in a quiet room in the house, etc.
- there is no reason why a woman must do it in the middle of a crowded room if there is a quieter space in a corner or towards the sides of the room.
Personally, I think all public places should have a clean and quiet room with couches available when a mother needs to breast feed. Perhaps attached to or next to woman’s restroom. Not only would this allow the mother to have a private place to breastfeed (because many women do not want to breastfeed in public), but also could provide a quiet, hygienic and clean place to do it in.
Breastfeeding mothers must have rights. But breastfeeding in public should not be the norm, but the exception. But it should become the norm for pubic places, restaurants, etc to have rooms which they can breastfeed or even calm a hungry food eating baby (of course restaurants could do this at the table). The truth is that in our society, too many infants are out in the public, instead of home resting, growing & eating. I don’t think we need to encourage more people to frivolously take there newborns out of the house. Obviously some tasks are require taking the baby out, but there are also some things that can wait.
God Bless.
F
FrenzyJen
Guest
This is not a very pro-life statement. This is in line with the pro-choice argument that pro-life people are only pro-life until a baby is born. You are essentially telling mothers that you don’t want to see them as long as they are breastfeeding, because honestly, it is very difficult for a breastfeeding mother to leave her baby for any length of time. If a woman has the Catholic-encouraged large family, let’s say 6 kids, and breastfeeds each child for a year, that’s 6 years that you don’t want to see her.
I had a baby who for a very long time, nursed more frequently and longer than a normal baby would. I felt severe depression and loneliness because my family treated breastfeeding very similarly to you, and no matter the gathering, I was sent off to a spare bedroom, where I spent a good portion of my visit, alone, bored, able to hear the laughter and chit chat, but unable to join in.
I disagree with you that a woman should be expected to seek out isolation first. First priority is feeding the child. And children don’t need to be at home to grow (???).
P
pensmama87
Guest
Sometimes mothers have things to DO. Sometimes we even dare to have more than one child out with us at a time! I know, it’s scandalous.
But really, this rather bizarre reply is out of place on this thread. A woman breastfeeding is not the same thing as being topless, except maybe at home when baby can’t wait after mom managed the quickest shower of her life. Not that I would know.
A
ahs
Guest
You are very welcome!
A
ahs
Guest
Okay…that was HILARIOUS.
Sometimes mothers have things to DO. Sometimes we even dare to have more than one child out with us at a time! I know, it’s scandalous.
You make an excellent point that we can’t simply expect the mothers of our children to not take those children out into the world. At the very least this is just basic witnessing for the beauty of family life. And I agree 100% that this is really not the main topic since public toplessness is not anything at all similar to public breastfeeding. My wife has nursed all of our children in public do far, and has yet to flash anyone. Most people wouldn’t even know she was nursing unless they stared at her chest for some extended amount of time.
P
phil19034
Guest
My point was taken out of context. I was the oldest of 5 and have my send on the way. For the first 3 months of my daughter’s life, my wife barely brought her out unless it was important. She didn’t take her out to go browsing at the mall or to simply eat lunch at a fancy cafe like some people we know.
Sometimes mothers have things to DO. Sometimes we even dare to have more than one child out with us at a time! I know, it’s scandalous.
But really, this rather bizarre reply is out of place on this thread. A woman breastfeeding is not the same thing as being topless, except maybe at home when baby can’t wait after mom managed the quickest shower of her life. Not that I would know.
I wasn’t talking about mother who have legitimate things to do. I was talking about the ones who treat a newborn like a puppy dog or new purse. I also went on to say that I think that public places should supply woman with clean breast feeding rooms. I don’t have a problem with women breast feeding in public because they need to or because there is no other place to go.
P
phil19034
Guest
You misunderstood what I meant to say.
- regarding keeping kids at home, I was taking about the 0-3 month olds who do not have all their shots yet and who doctors say should be kept out of public as much as possible.
- a lot of mothers only breast feed for 1-3 months. God Bless those who breast feed longer
- public places should offer clean and safe places for women to breastfeed, not because I don’t want to see them, but because a lot of women don’t want to breast feed in public. Plus, there are a lot of wackos out there and purse snatchers. A breast feeding mother is vulnerable and should be protected.
M
mikekle
Guest
Whats disgusting about something God created? I personally think a females body is beautiful, it is satan at work if someone thinks it needs to be covered up and shunned. Look at many of the old sculptures, most are completely naked, this was not done to be gross or immoral, they were paying tribute to God for such beauty. Sadly though, in todays world, many choose to cover up private parts, even on a work of art…I will never understand that, but I guess satan is pretty powerful and has swayed many people!
Y
yellowbird
Guest
I’m glad you clarified because your first post made me literally
- I agree with this - especially in the winter in cold weather climates… windows all shut, and flu all over. Breastfeeding helps protect the baby from getting sick though. But still - in Chicago when it’s freezing I kept my babies home. My summer babies I’d haul around from the get-go… especially #4 & #5. This is just our life.
- God bless them is right. And God bless the moms who’d like to breastfeed but for whatever reason can’t.
M
mikekle
Guest
I agree, for some reason, alot of people in the US have been conditioned to think any and all types of nudity and exposure are somehow dirty and need to be banned…if you look at many other countries this is not the case though, But this doesnt really surprise me, as it is clear the US thinks much of what created is also dirty and needs to be covered up or banned.I’m glad you clarified because your first post made me literally
3.) Love the idea about nice places for women to feed their babies. But if a mom chooses not to separate herself, that’s her choice. If people don’t like seeing it, that is their issue.
- I agree with this - especially in the winter in cold weather climates… windows all shut, and flu all over. Breastfeeding helps protect the baby from getting sick though. But still - in Chicago when it’s freezing I kept my babies home. My summer babies I’d haul around from the get-go… especially #4 & #5. This is just our life.
- God bless them is right. And God bless the moms who’d like to breastfeed but for whatever reason can’t.
If you look at most places that have the sculpture of David in the US, they usually put a leaf or something else to cover his private parts…??? LOL I often wonder why they do this to such a beautiful statue, it must be they dont want young kids to realize how beautiful the human body is, they would rather have kids seeing this kind of thing as dirty and nasty, makes it easier for them to ‘condition’ them on other religious beliefs as well.
- Status