Breastfeeding in public

[bennyboy]

Your repeated mischaracterization of that incident is curious, seeing as we have explained multiple times why we temp banned you.

We did not view the picture of the naked child as sexual. We viewed it as someone else's child that you hotlinked and posted a picture of---without that child's permission or the permission of the parents. We have a blanket rule that no pictures of naked children will be posted on this site, period. Rather than parse which children gave permission for their naked bodies to be displayed for a bunch of internet strangers, we decided to err on the side of caution. I understand that you don't agree with this rule. But don't try to make it out like we think children are always sexual objects.

You're a god damned adult. Act like one.

?

Okay, I don't want to make this thread, or my last post, about the ban or the reasons for it.  I'm clearly mentioning it for anecdotal reasons: it's a good example of the conflict that arises when people don't see eye-to-eye on certain facets of our definitions of sexuality.

But let me attempt to save the value of the anecdote with some discussion about it. Where's the requirement for consent in the latter case?  The fact is that it's not an identity or permission issue-- it IS, in fact, an issue defined by differing views on sexuality: maybe yours personally, maybe those of the site's free hosts, or maybe those of US lawmakers, or maybe that of anglo-European christian culture. And the fact is that there's currently a big disconnect between people's views about if and when women's breast are sexual objects.


My last post pretty clearly explained why I think we have arrived at twisted views of sexuality, and what position we SHOULD take.  I think we should lift the blanket completely.  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any human body part or function.  I think people who are against breastfeeding in public have such a distorted view of what it means to be human that it borders on insane.  Milk cows have massive, massive mammaries-- but nobody gets upset at cows walking around naked.  People are animals  too, and breasts exist for 100% the exact same reason as udders: to feed offspring.

That being said, you can google "breasts" and get almost nothing but porn.  And that's fetishism at work; and the only remedy is to stop making breasts a dirty, hidden, shameful thing.  Frankly, I think comfort is the only reason women should be required to cover their breasts at all.  That a fairly flat-chested woman might be out of line for going nude at the beach, while a 400lb man can let his double-Ds fly free and proud, is clearly a double standard. If my wife or my daughter wanted to go topless in public, I'd support them 100%. And I wouldn't worry about them being sexualized-- what some pervert thinks is his problem. What I would do is what I always do-- if anybody touches them in any way they don't accept, or threatens them for any reason or in any way, I will turn him into a red stain on the road.

---

I do not mind it being done in public so long as it is done tactfully; meaning that she utilizes a means of keeping her breasts covered while breastfeeding in public.

Why should tact be required?

You show your neck wherever you damned well please, and your knees.  Your hair is uncovered, and your eyes are not shaded.

What is particularly special about breasts that require them to be seen as an object of shame and secrecy?