And the strong voices saying that it is a "natural function" and so one can whip out a boob anywhere, even at a table so onlookers can listen to the robust suckling!

Copulation and urination is also natural functions but not exactly for general exhibition!

However titillating for dirty old men!

I've had need to breastfeed a child in a bus to stop him from crying. The covering with a light handkerchief served us both.

It is a matter of good taste  and self respect.

nothing wrong with breast feeding, stop being such a prude. It's a tit for christ sake.

Who cares. Get a life olde.sault.

There's no sound on the youtube video so you won't hear Jim Carey suckling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwr9EEMwIBo

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:08am:

Who cares. Get a life olde.sault. There's no sound on the youtube video so you won't hear Jim Carey suckling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwr9EEMwIBo

Now that is tasteless (and humourless)  :(

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

nothing wrong with breast feeding, stop being such a prude. It's a tit for christ sake.

Good show for the perfs, what?

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:52am: nothing wrong with breast feeding, stop being such a prude. It's a tit for christ sake. Good show for the perfs, what?

what show? I'm partial to a bit of participation  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I don't know the answer. There are other things you do in life and it is not 'what you do, its how you do it and who sees you doing it' that counts.

As you say, self respect, good taste and good judgment, and good social grace and a quick wit to deal with the issue if it all goes wrong.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

I don't know the answer

it's simple .... really not complicated


Babby hungry ---->  tit out ------->  feed ----put it away

if you get all excited when you see someone breastfeeding thats your problem, not the mothers or the babies.

Quote:

I've had need to breastfeed a child in a bus to stop him from crying. The covering with a light handkerchief served us both. It is a matter of good taste  and self respect

.

I also did same, with a light bunny rug.

Something has to be said for the difference between conspicuous and inconspicuous, and yes, self respect.

I have no problem with a mother feeding her bub, in public, without it being so brazen and obvious, the typical attention seeking without any dignity of "look at moiye".

Saw this happen recently, a mum stuck both her tits out, so obviously, while waiting for a lift, in front of all the whole dining area at a shopping centre. Bubby didn't seem interested in having lunch much, was too distracted and busy watching everything else going on all about. It was a scene that told me, something didn't seem proper here. She is an idiot.

Wearing a tight top so she had no choice but to expose herself.

Now c'mon folks, there is a difference between the way some mums handle a breast feeding infant....some very respectably and wise, and then some...otherwise. ::)

My adult kids have friends now with new bubbies, and have shown to be able to breast feed with dignity.




     

Sophia wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:28am:

Quote: I've had need to breastfeed a child in a bus to stop him from crying. The covering with a light handkerchief served us both. It is a matter of good taste  and self respect . I also did same, with a light bunny rug. Something has to be said for the difference between conspicuous and inconspicuous, and yes, self respect. I have no problem with a mother feeding her bub, in public, without it being so brazen and obvious, the typical attention seeking without any dignity of "look at moiye". Saw this happen recently, a mum stuck both her tits out, so obviously, while waiting for a lift, in front of all the whole dining area at a shopping centre. Bubby didn't seem interested in having lunch much, was too distracted and busy watching everything else going on all about. It was a scene that told me, something didn't seem proper here. She is an idiot. Wearing a tight top so she had no choice but to expose herself. Now c'mon folks, there is a difference between the way some mums handle a breast feeding infant....some very respectably and wise, and then some...otherwise. ::) My adult kids have friends now with new bubbies, and have shown to be able to breast feed with dignity.

I'm talking about breast feeding, not stipping off in public

I  think to many people make to big a deal out of it ...

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

nothing wrong with breast feeding, stop being such a prude. It's a tit for christ sake.

Right, "nothing wrong with breastfeeding"

Quote my words saying that there was something wrong with breastfeeding. . .

Women who  openly feed their babies  are exhibitionists.

No wonder we women are getting less and less respect from the opposite gender.

Fortunately, I have always been treated with respect. That's because I have worn skirts that well-covered  my pants and didn't have tits peering from  necklines!

If one behaves and dresses slovenly one attracts disrespect.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:30am:

Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:28am: Quote: I've had need to breastfeed a child in a bus to stop him from crying. The covering with a light handkerchief served us both. It is a matter of good taste  and self respect . I also did same, with a light bunny rug. Something has to be said for the difference between conspicuous and inconspicuous, and yes, self respect. I have no problem with a mother feeding her bub, in public, without it being so brazen and obvious, the typical attention seeking without any dignity of "look at moiye". Saw this happen recently, a mum stuck both her tits out, so obviously, while waiting for a lift, in front of all the whole dining area at a shopping centre. Bubby didn't seem interested in having lunch much, was too distracted and busy watching everything else going on all about. It was a scene that told me, something didn't seem proper here. She is an idiot. Wearing a tight top so she had no choice but to expose herself. Now c'mon folks, there is a difference between the way some mums handle a breast feeding infant....some very respectably and wise, and then some...otherwise. ::) My adult kids have friends now with new bubbies, and have shown to be able to breast feed with dignity.       I'm talking about breast feeding, not stipping off in public I  think to many people make to big a deal out of it ...

John, I am talking about public breast feeding, and the difference of how some do it. With or without taste (pardon the pun)  :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:30am:

I'm talking about breast feeding, not stipping off in public I  think to many people make to big a deal out of it ...

Frankly people are prudish for no good reason. I don't even care if people wanted walk around naked, as if the naked body is somehow naturally offensive.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:39am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:30am: I'm talking about breast feeding, not stipping off in public I  think to many people make to big a deal out of it ... Frankly people are prudish for no good reason. I don't even care if people wanted walk around naked, as if the naked body is somehow naturally offensive.

Well this is where the conflicting confusion is....in another thread, they talk about young underage teens, wearing bikinis and that they are asking for trouble etc blah blah blah.

So how do we differentiate what is offensive and what is not?

Simply, if we all were at a nude club, we would be more accepting, as we would be used to it.
If someone was fully dressed, all the nudies would oggle at that fully dressed person (doesn't fit in with the general society rule of that club).....

But where we are a clothed society in general, with so many clothes shops selling trending fashions, we are focused on material on our bodies, and covering up.

Sophia wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:45am:

Well this is where the conflicting confusion is....in another thread, they talk about young underage teens, wearing bikinis and that they are asking for trouble etc blah blah blah.

Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction.


Sophia wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:45am:

So how do we differentiate what is offensive and what is not?

Sexual behaviour is probably a safe line.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction.

http://replygif.net/i/172.gif

So tell me why 80% of rapes are against women under 30? (ie while they are still attractive)

Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson.

I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut.

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:30am: Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. So tell me why 80% of rapes are against women under 30? (ie while they are still attractive)

Studies show that provocative clothing does not increase the chances of rape.

The majority of rape (70-80%) is committed by people the rapists knows, not some random stranger from the street. This includes, friends, family etc.

The two largest age groups of women that get sexually assaulted are 10-14 and 15-19.

Studies show that sexual satisfaction is in the minority in terms of motivations for rape, with power and anger being the biggest contenders.

What evidence do you have for an alternative position?

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:14am:

Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut.

This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males.

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:32am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:52am: nothing wrong with breast feeding, stop being such a prude. It's a tit for christ sake. Right, "nothing wrong with breastfeeding" Quote my words saying that there was something wrong with breastfeeding. . . Women who  openly feed their babies  are exhibitionists. No wonder we women are getting less and less respect from the opposite gender. Fortunately, I have always been treated with respect. That's because I have worn skirts that well-covered  my pants and didn't have tits peering from  necklines! If one behaves and dresses slovenly one attracts disrespect.

Gawd Olde Sour Puss, yours are probably around your knees now so any Bub would get neck strain trying to get a feed

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: Well this is where the conflicting confusion is....in another thread, they talk about young underage teens, wearing bikinis and that they are asking for trouble etc blah blah blah. Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: So how do we differentiate what is offensive and what is not? Sexual behaviour is probably a safe line.

Seriously?  You're taken in by that nonsense?

" ...  rarely about sexual attraction ... "

Come on, you don't really believe that.

Vic wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

Gawd Olde Sour Puss, yours are probably around your knees now so any Bub would get neck strain trying to get a feed

Lol!!! It could be a case of the green eyed monster.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-73TGcA7rECs/Ts-bVrfbISI/AAAAAAAABEo/SnMj3_dHRow/s1600/india.jpg

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:45am: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:30am: Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. So tell me why 80% of rapes are against women under 30? (ie while they are still attractive) Studies show that provocative clothing does not increase the chances of rape. The majority of rape (70-80%) is committed by people the rapists knows, not some random stranger from the street. This includes, friends, family etc. The two largest age groups of women that get sexually assaulted are 10-14 and 15-19. Studies show that sexual satisfaction is in the minority in terms of motivations for rape, with power and anger being the biggest contenders. What evidence do you have for an alternative position?

Oh is that how it works? 

You make stupid, counter-intuitive statement and back it up with barely, if-at-all relevant surrogate markers and it's up to me to disprove it?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:24am:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males.

So?  It makes perfect sense in an evolutionary context.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:30am:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:30am: Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: Well this is where the conflicting confusion is....in another thread, they talk about young underage teens, wearing bikinis and that they are asking for trouble etc blah blah blah. Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: So how do we differentiate what is offensive and what is not? Sexual behaviour is probably a safe line. Seriously?  You're taken in by that nonsense? " ...  rarely about sexual attraction ... " Come on, you don't really believe that.

Your position is backed by what exactly, what you feel is correct?

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. So?  It makes perfect sense in an evolutionary context.

That does not mean it is rational or desirable for society. It makes sense we like fat and sugar, but that does not mean we should eat as much as we want.

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:50am:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:21am: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:45am: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:30am: Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. So tell me why 80% of rapes are against women under 30? (ie while they are still attractive) Studies show that provocative clothing does not increase the chances of rape. The majority of rape (70-80%) is committed by people the rapists knows, not some random stranger from the street. This includes, friends, family etc. The two largest age groups of women that get sexually assaulted are 10-14 and 15-19. Studies show that sexual satisfaction is in the minority in terms of motivations for rape, with power and anger being the biggest contenders. What evidence do you have for an alternative position? Oh is that how it works?  You make stupid, counter-intuitive statement and back it up with barely, if-at-all relevant surrogate markers and it's up to me to disprove it?

I provided some evidence for my position, you have provided virtually none for yours.

The null hypothesis (default position between two things) is dressing provocatively has no impact on sexual assault, for you to claim otherwise means you need evidence.

Just because you find it intuitive isn't evidence.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:39am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:30am: I'm talking about breast feeding, not stipping off in public I  think to many people make to big a deal out of it ... Frankly people are prudish for no good reason. I don't even care if people wanted walk around naked, as if the naked body is somehow naturally offensive.

agree

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

Vic wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:09am: Gawd Olde Sour Puss, yours are probably around your knees now so any Bub would get neck strain trying to get a feed Lol!!! It could be a case of the green eyed monster. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-73TGcA7rECs/Ts-bVrfbISI/AAAAAAAABEo/SnMj3_dHRow/s1600/india.jpg

now that is wrong

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:30am: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:30am: Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: Well this is where the conflicting confusion is....in another thread, they talk about young underage teens, wearing bikinis and that they are asking for trouble etc blah blah blah. Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. Sophia wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: So how do we differentiate what is offensive and what is not? Sexual behaviour is probably a safe line. Seriously?  You're taken in by that nonsense? " ...  rarely about sexual attraction ... " Come on, you don't really believe that. Your position is backed by what exactly, what you feel is correct?

I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?"

Do you seriously believe what you said?

If so, what are you basing that assumption on?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:50am: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:21am: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:45am: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:30am: Asking for trouble? I'm assuming it's about rape, which when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction. So tell me why 80% of rapes are against women under 30? (ie while they are still attractive) Studies show that provocative clothing does not increase the chances of rape. The majority of rape (70-80%) is committed by people the rapists knows, not some random stranger from the street. This includes, friends, family etc. The two largest age groups of women that get sexually assaulted are 10-14 and 15-19. Studies show that sexual satisfaction is in the minority in terms of motivations for rape, with power and anger being the biggest contenders. What evidence do you have for an alternative position? Oh is that how it works?  You make stupid, counter-intuitive statement and back it up with barely, if-at-all relevant surrogate markers and it's up to me to disprove it? I provided some evidence for my position, you have provided virtually none for yours. The null hypothesis (default position between two things) is dressing provocatively has no impact on sexual assault, for you to claim otherwise means you need evidence. Just because you find it intuitive isn't evidence.

Ah.  You don't know what 'surrogate markers' means.

It's when one measures similar, but not identical things.  For example, when one subtitutes "dressing provocatively" for "sexual attraction", or "sexual assault" for "rape". 

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:51am: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. So?  It makes perfect sense in an evolutionary context. That does not mean it is rational or desirable for society. It makes sense we like fat and sugar, but that does not mean we should eat as much as we want.

Meh.  You can complain about our nature all you like - you'll just be forever disappointed.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on?

Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct.

Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition.

It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc.

Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Meh.  You can complain about our nature all you like - you'll just be forever disappointed.

There are plenty of things we do as society that are not in line with biological motivations.

In any case, the sexual promiscuity being bad thing seems more a social construct than a biological imperative. Women themselves are actually more critical of promiscuity than men.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum

Is that what the rapists told the researchers?

And you still want to go with that story?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:11pm: Meh.  You can complain about our nature all you like - you'll just be forever disappointed. There are plenty of things we do as society that are not in line with biological motivations. In any case, the sexual promiscuity being bad thing seems more a social construct than a biological imperative. Women themselves are actually more critical of promiscuity than men.

Not getting syphilis is a pretty strong biological imperative. Women have good reason to fear a syphilitic whore wandering into town more than some dirty old man with syphilis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum Is that what the rapists told the researchers? And you still want to go with that story?

More than I want to go with your "feelings". But still research doesn't just "ask" them.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:24am:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males.

It is because women are mothers or potentially, mothers and besides everything else, have to set an example.

What child likes to see mother flaunting her boobs or showing her underwear every time she bends own?

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. It is because women are mothers or potentially, mothers and besides everything else, have to set an example. What child likes to see mother flaunting her boobs or showing her underwear every time she bends own?

actually I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't give a damn ... unless you've already brain washed them into thinking its bad

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. It is because women are mothers or potentially, mothers and besides everything else, have to set an example. What child likes to see mother flaunting her boobs or showing her underwear every time she bends own?

Pretty sure most children don't actually care

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum Is that what the rapists told the researchers? And you still want to go with that story? More than I want to go with your "feelings". But still research doesn't just "ask" them.

Please elaborate.

I'm curious to find out exactly why you (and others) believe "rape ... when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction."

What else does "research" do?

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. It is because women are mothers or potentially, mothers and besides everything else, have to set an example. What child likes to see mother flaunting her boobs or showing her underwear every time she bends own?

I doubt many children would see mum breast feeding their baby brother or sister as 'flaunting her boobs'. Kids adapt to the environment they live in, if mum has always flashed her underwear, the kids wouldn't think anything of it.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:11pm: Meh.  You can complain about our nature all you like - you'll just be forever disappointed. There are plenty of things we do as society that are not in line with biological motivations. In any case, the sexual promiscuity being bad thing seems more a social construct than a biological imperative. Women themselves are actually more critical of promiscuity than men.

Yeah, not sure why that would puzzle you.

If someone was giving out something (sex) for free, or vastly underpriced, while you're trying to sell it for maximum value, you'd get a bit pissed too.  The people getting the freebies (in this case, men) would rarely complain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:09pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum Is that what the rapists told the researchers? And you still want to go with that story? More than I want to go with your "feelings". But still research doesn't just "ask" them. Please elaborate. I'm curious to find out exactly why you (and others) believe "rape ... when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction." What else does "research" do?

This is an example.


Quote:

This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey

Do you have some alternative position and evidence?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:37pm:

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:15pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:14am: Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly to automatically associate nudity with sexuality or offense. The continental Europeans handle it much better. If you want to flop both of them out to give the kid a choice, everyone else should get over it and stop being so judgemental. It doesn't make you a slut. This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. It is because women are mothers or potentially, mothers and besides everything else, have to set an example. What child likes to see mother flaunting her boobs or showing her underwear every time she bends own? Pretty sure most children don't actually care

...until...they become teenagers, then the critique of the parents is so evident.....if anyone hasn't had teens that get embarrassed by their folks at some time....

Reminds me of a quote I read.....
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
~ Mark Twain  :)

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum Is that what the rapists told the researchers? And you still want to go with that story? More than I want to go with your "feelings". But still research doesn't just "ask" them. Please elaborate. I'm curious to find out exactly why you (and others) believe "rape ... when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction." What else does "research" do? This is an example. Quote: This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey

They asked and surveyed the rapists?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:30pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum Is that what the rapists told the researchers? And you still want to go with that story? More than I want to go with your "feelings". But still research doesn't just "ask" them. Please elaborate. I'm curious to find out exactly why you (and others) believe "rape ... when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction." What else does "research" do? This is an example. Quote: This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey They asked and surveyed the rapists?

Short of a mind reading device what else do you expect? It's not like ask "why did you rape?" How do you think we determine intent in things?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:11pm: Meh.  You can complain about our nature all you like - you'll just be forever disappointed. There are plenty of things we do as society that are not in line with biological motivations. In any case, the sexual promiscuity being bad thing seems more a social construct than a biological imperative. Women themselves are actually more critical of promiscuity than men.

This actually reminds me why that may be so, with my gen anyway....when I was a very early developed teen with boobs I didn't want, and particularly more bustier than most, and all the attention I (they) got  ;D.....damned hated all the attention, the more I tried to walk hunch back with arms crossed, the more I wore baggy tops to hide myself, the more I seemed to attract all sorts of unwanted attention.
From all ages of males.
I looked about 16 at age 14.
Funny thing is, by the time I was 19, I looked only 15  ;D
Most guys were suprised I had my drivers licence!

Now I am talking about the way times were back in the 1960's and early 70's....big revolutionary stuff happening, music, long hair, mini skirts, flower power, make love not war, free love, burn the bra, rebelliousness against the oldies and the establishment, consciencious objectors, etc etc.

It was a time when new attitude with freedom and fashion and music exploded....so much for me being shy with unwanted attention  ::)

When my daughter was 14 with her friend, and they wanted to go to parties and I would drive them, looking at their dress code would astound me....lovely and curvy etc...but I was glad my daughter was more hippy and covered up more than her friend....I wasn't worried for them the way they dressed with clingy clothes to accentuate their beautiful curves, I was more worried about the unwanted attention it may get......does this make sense?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:30pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:09pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum Is that what the rapists told the researchers? And you still want to go with that story? More than I want to go with your "feelings". But still research doesn't just "ask" them. Please elaborate. I'm curious to find out exactly why you (and others) believe "rape ... when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction." What else does "research" do? This is an example. Quote: This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey They asked and surveyed the rapists? Short of a mind reading device what else do you expect? It's not like ask "why did you rape?" How do you think we determine intent in things?

I didn't expect anything.

Moreover, I don't really trust statistics based on conversations with criminals.

If rape, "when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction", why are the victims mainly young, attractive women?

If rape is "an act of violence, used to dominate, violate and control", why don't they go after the weaker, uglier and older women?.

It's because young beautiful women have more social power.

Power is part of it.  I expect rapists are frustrated that they're not getting any, as women have the power to refuse them.  So rape is them taking it by force.

But it only works if the rapsits actually want sex from their victims.  That is, they need to be sexually attarcted to them.

Nobody gets frustrated at not getting attention from fat/ugly/old shielas.  Why would they risk the consequences of raping someone, when they don't want them in the first place?

Blokes rape each other in prison. This is not because they suddenly turn gay. It is a barbaric way of establishing a pecking order.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Blokes rape each other in prison. This is not because they suddenly turn gay. It is a barbaric way of establishing a pecking order.

Yep, but that's a different set of circumstances.

You cant' separate sex from power, nor can you separate genes from culture, so arguing over which "one" of them causes something is a hopeless cause.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Blokes rape each other in prison. This is not because they suddenly turn gay. It is a barbaric way of establishing a pecking order.

And getting their rocks off in something other than their own hands, I would assume    :-/

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

It's because young beautiful women have more social power.

You don't think they have more "sexual attraction"?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

I didn't expect anything. Moreover, I don't really trust statistics based on conversations with criminals. If rape, "when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction", why are the victims mainly young, attractive women? If rape is "an act of violence, used to dominate, violate and control", why don't they go after the weaker, uglier and older women?.

We can only work with the best data we have.

Most victims know their attackers by a large margin, those attacked on the streets are targets of opportunity, vulnerable and who is more vulnerable than a drunk young woman walking alone at night?

Correlation isn't causation. For example it might be that young women tend to engage risky behavior and frequent places where they are more likely to be targeted. The behaviour may be the risk factor rather than attractiveness.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm: I didn't expect anything. Moreover, I don't really trust statistics based on conversations with criminals. If rape, "when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction", why are the victims mainly young, attractive women? If rape is "an act of violence, used to dominate, violate and control", why don't they go after the weaker, uglier and older women?. We can only work with the best data we have. Most victims know their attackers by a large margin, those attacked on the streets are targets of opportunity, vulnerable and who is more vulnerable than a drunk young woman walking alone at night? Correlation isn't causation. For example it might be that young women tend to engage risky behavior and frequent places where they are more likely to be targeted. The behaviour may be the risk factor rather than attractiveness.

True enough.

I'd be interested in seeing the research:

"This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey."

Where it took place, how many involved, etc.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm: I didn't expect anything. Moreover, I don't really trust statistics based on conversations with criminals. If rape, "when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction", why are the victims mainly young, attractive women? If rape is "an act of violence, used to dominate, violate and control", why don't they go after the weaker, uglier and older women?. We can only work with the best data we have. Most victims know their attackers by a large margin, those attacked on the streets are targets of opportunity, vulnerable and who is more vulnerable than a drunk young woman walking alone at night? Correlation isn't causation. For example it might be that young women tend to engage risky behavior and frequent places where they are more likely to be targeted. The behaviour may be the risk factor rather than attractiveness. True enough. I'd be interested in seeing the research: "This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey." Where it took place, how many involved, etc.

This one is unfortunately not free to access.

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm: I didn't expect anything. Moreover, I don't really trust statistics based on conversations with criminals. If rape, "when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction", why are the victims mainly young, attractive women? If rape is "an act of violence, used to dominate, violate and control", why don't they go after the weaker, uglier and older women?. We can only work with the best data we have. Most victims know their attackers by a large margin, those attacked on the streets are targets of opportunity, vulnerable and who is more vulnerable than a drunk young woman walking alone at night? Correlation isn't causation. For example it might be that young women tend to engage risky behavior and frequent places where they are more likely to be targeted. The behaviour may be the risk factor rather than attractiveness. True enough. I'd be interested in seeing the research: "This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey." Where it took place, how many involved, etc. This one is unfortunately not free to access.

Hmmm....

It's not very scientific to assimilate and disseminate the conclusions of a study, when you don't have any details about how it was conducted.

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm: I didn't expect anything. Moreover, I don't really trust statistics based on conversations with criminals. If rape, "when perpetrated by strangers is rarely about sexual attraction", why are the victims mainly young, attractive women? If rape is "an act of violence, used to dominate, violate and control", why don't they go after the weaker, uglier and older women?. We can only work with the best data we have. Most victims know their attackers by a large margin, those attacked on the streets are targets of opportunity, vulnerable and who is more vulnerable than a drunk young woman walking alone at night? Correlation isn't causation. For example it might be that young women tend to engage risky behavior and frequent places where they are more likely to be targeted. The behaviour may be the risk factor rather than attractiveness. True enough. I'd be interested in seeing the research: "This research combined questions assessing these underlying motivational factors, as well as questions dealing with underlying sexual motivation and disinhibition, with a slightly modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey." Where it took place, how many involved, etc. This one is unfortunately not free to access. Hmmm.... It's not very scientific to assimilate and disseminate the conclusions of a study, when you don't have any details about how it was conducted.

It is peer reviewed, and has an abstract, and it was only an example. I'm not a scientist, I'm making an argument and using study conclusions to back my position.

Like I said before, the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between things until proven otherwise.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Blokes rape each other in prison. This is not because they suddenly turn gay. It is a barbaric way of establishing a pecking order.

Also to get rid of the itching water.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

olde.sault wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:15pm: Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:24am: [quote author=freediver link=1402004654/16#16 date=1402013653]Because they are the ones who need to be taught a lesson. I think our society is way too prudish. It is silly quote] This is another point of contention I have. Most people view promiscuity by females to be far worse than promiscuity by males. It is because women are mothers or potentially, mothers and besides everything else, have to set an example. What child likes to see mother flaunting her boobs or showing her underwear every time she bends own? actually I'm pretty sure most kids wouldn't give a damn ... unless you've already brain washed them into thinking its bad

You sure spring from a classy background, John!

Should you be boasting?

Kytro wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum

I've heard that some males can't complete the sex act without employing violence. . .

I think it is more of frustration, accumulation of semen that has to be spilt to derive bodily comfort.

olde.sault wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 1:15pm: I asked you a question - " You're taken in by that nonsense?" Do you seriously believe what you said? If so, what are you basing that assumption on? Yes,  I seriously do. The reason is because the balance of research suggests it is correct. Like all research, there are opposing viewpoints, but I do think research is a better basis for opinion than intuition. It's a complex issue and sexual assault does have various motivators such as sexual entitlement, sexual satisfaction, power, anger, sadism etc. Those attacking strangers tend toward the power/anger end of the spectrum I've heard that some males can't complete the sex act without employing violence. . . I think it is more of frustration, accumulation of semen that has to be spilt to derive bodily comfort.

There are easily ways to do that...

http://www1.theladbible.com/images/content/630w/54b51ffa70e6d.jpg

Pope Francis Welcomes Mothers To Breastfeed In The Sistine Chapel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/pope-francis-breastfeeding_n_6456314.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000037

This past Sunday, Pope Francis celebrated the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord by baptizing 33 babies in the Sistine Chapel, NBC News reports. During the mass, the Catholic leader encouraged the infants' mothers to breastfeed their babies.

"You mothers give your children milk and even now, if they cry because they are hungry, breastfeed them, don't worry," Pope Francis declared in his homily. According to Reuters, the written sermon used the Italian phrase for "give them milk," but during his remarks, the Pope changed it to "allattateli," which directly translates to "breastfeed them."

During the mass, Pope Francis also asked the congregation to think of the impoverished mothers around the world -- "too many, unfortunately, who cant give food to their children," he said, according to NBC News.

Pope Francis has shown his support for breastfeeding in public in the past. In a December 2013 interview with La Stampa, the religious leader declared that moms shouldn't feel ashamed to nurse their babies outside the home:

At the Wednesday General Audience the other day there was a young mother behind one of the barriers with a baby that was just a few month s old. The child was crying its eyes out as I came past. The mother was caressing it. I said to her: madam, I think the child’s hungry. “Yes, it’s probably time…” she replied. “Please give it something to eat!” I said. She was shy and didn’t want to breastfeed in public, while the Pope was passing. I wish to say the same to humanity: give people something to eat!

In a time when women are often shamed for nursing their children in public, it's good to know that one of the world's most influential leaders is in support of breastfeeding mothers.