Facebook says no to leaky nipples

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Seriously. I have seen so many cute blankets out there that there is NO reason for me to have to see anyone's boobs in public.

I'm a member of another forum and I posted a similar statement and I immediately got "told off." The argument is that it doesn't matter if you see a boob or not. There shouldn't be a problem unless your mind is in the gutter.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm a member of another forum and I posted a similar statement and I immediately got "told off." The argument is that it doesn't matter if you see a boob or not. There shouldn't be a problem unless your mind is in the gutter.

I don't even know a mom who would WANT to subject people to seeing them nurse in public. I asked my friend (who has a 2 month old little boy) if she would nurse out in the open (without a coverup) and she said, "Ew. I don't want a bunch of strangers looking at my boobs."

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm a member of another forum and I posted a similar statement and I immediately got "told off." The argument is that it doesn't matter if you see a boob or not. There shouldn't be a problem unless your mind is in the gutter.

Not so much in the gutter as immature.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Not so much in the gutter as immature.

It's not immature not to want to see certain body parts exposed.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Not so much in the gutter as immature.

Not wanting to see boobs does not = immature. Just saying.

Squealing "EWWW BOOBIES" when you see them, maybe = immature.

But just prefering to NOT see them does not.

[AKA_Monet]

Compliments of Robot Chicken... LOL

[preciousjeni]

What's the difference between a breast and a hand or a face? Nothing. For the most part, American women do not cover, so we really have no religious objection to seeing the shoulders, bellies, bare backs etc. (think bikinis) of our women. So, there's no reason we should have a problem with breasts (or the vulvular area, or a penis for that matter) unless we're subconciously equating them with sex or sin.

[sjsoffer]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

What's the difference between a breast and a hand or a face? Nothing. For the most part, American women do not cover, so we really have no religious objection to seeing the shoulders, bellies, bare backs etc. (think bikinis) of our women. So, there's no reason we should have a problem with breasts (or the vulvular area, or a penis for that matter) unless we're subconciously equating them with sex or sin.

Well, it can be argued that breasts were evolved as sexual objects, since our closest relatives, such as chimps and bonobos can nurse just fine without having such "protruding" breasts. I've heard it suggested that humans evolved breasts when they started coupling face-to-face, since they can kind of be said to look like the buttocks, keeping males interested.

So, using that logic, it's a bit of an instinctual association with sex; though some cultures are okay with that. From what I can tell, those cultures seem a bit more comfortable with sex as a natural process too...

just my off-topic 2 cents.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sjsoffer

Well, it can be argued that breasts were evolved as sexual objects, since our closest relatives, such as chimps and bonobos can nurse just fine without having such "protruding" breasts. I've heard it suggested that humans evolved breasts when they started coupling face-to-face, since they can kind of be said to look like the buttocks, keeping males interested.

That makes sense to me.

So, using that logic, it's a bit of an instinctual association with sex; though some cultures are okay with that. From what I can tell, those cultures seem a bit more comfortable with sex as a natural process too...

just my off-topic 2 cents.

What would sex be other than a natural process? Or are you talking about how we've commercialized sex?