Facebook has received quite a bit of criticism the last few years over their policy on pictures involving breastfeeding. I’m not a fan of either Facebook or Zuckerberg, but there is an absurd yet common argument that breastfeeding pictures are never part of the online arms race for sexual attention, and public displays of breastfeeding are never done to garner sexual attention. As Salon explained in their article Facebook’s hypocritical breast-feeding controversy:
…a person whose photo is deemed by Facebook to have an unacceptable degree of nipple will not just find the picture removed, but often her account temporarily deleted on a vague “breach of terms of use” charge. Treating women like petty criminals for posting what are obviously not sexually explicit images is just stupid business.
…
[Facebook’s Policy] illuminates the depressing reality that breast-feeding, after all this time, is still deemed inappropriate, unproductive and just plain icky. And that a nipple, even one with a hungry baby nearby, is just darn scandalous.
Blogger Dena makes the same basic argument with even greater force about women breastfeeding in public:
There is no such thing as indiscreet nursing. Mothers do not walk around topless, flash the general public on purpose, or shake their tatas in passerby’s faces in an effort to feed their babies. All nursing is discreet nursing. You expose your breast, your child latches on, and nursing begins. Period.
With this argument in mind I present today’s “intimate” photo-shoot at The Daily Mail, which of course cannot possibly be intended to present Tamara Ecclestone as an object of sexual desire. After all, there is a baby in the first picture. Sure she is only wearing a towel in this picture, but I can only assume the photographer showed up without notice and didn’t give her time to get dressed. Besides, after seeing the first picture (with a baby), we already know we aren’t supposed to see her in a sexual light. That would be absurd. Likewise, since there is a baby carriage in this picture, it is clearly all about motherhood, not an attempt to out compete other women for sexual attention on the internet.
My primary objection to public breastfeeding is simply that the women who do this never take other men’s sensibilities into account. A man cannot help but look when a woman exposes a breast in public for ANY purpose, even if it is for breastfeeding. That’s how we are, and it’s unrealistic to expect men to do or be anything else.
As for the photos of Tamara Ecclestone, of COURSE it’s for sexual attention. Any honest human being can see this, particularly in light of the way she is posed and her facial expressions in the breast exposing photos. She looks sexually aroused. Of course it’s intended to be titillating (heh).
@thedeti
On the contrary. The women who are indiscreet when breastfeeding are generally doing so precisely because they do understand men’s sensibilities. They want attention, and they know how to get it. Not all women breastfeeding in public are doing this, but clearly there are women who are using their babies as props in an effort to gain men’s sexual attention.
To show the hypocrisy of women several years ago Alyssa Milano hired every lawyer in Los Angeles to get nude and topless pics of her taken from movies off the Internet a few years ago. She now posts pics of her breastfeeding on her social media pages.
Pingback: Breasts can’t be sexual if there is a baby in the picture. | Manosphere.com
All men and women need to take a piss and dump. However, to do so in full view of the public is absurd. And to expose yourself for all to see whilst doing it would count as indecent exposure. These ladies are nuts once again but of course are white knights in charge will grant them everything they desire..
The beatings will continue until morals improve… and no, that isn’t a typo.
@ Dalrock:
“Not all women breastfeeding in public are doing this, but clearly there are women who are using their babies as props in an effort to gain men’s sexual attention.”
Agreed. I see you and I were talking about two different things. In addition to women who intentionally breastfeed publicly to garner sexual attention, there are those women who are careless about it, and who don’t care about other people’s senses of public conduct and decorum.
More to the point, there are also those who unreasonably insist that a man should never ever notice when a woman breastfeeds. There are those women, like blogger Dena, who apparently contend that only perverts and weirdos notice or get titillated when a woman exposes a breast for breastfeeding.
And contrary to what a lot of women seem to think, a lot of men aren’t going around constantly looking to get turned on. It’s one thing to see a comely woman showing you a lot of cleavage on a date or in a nightclub. It’s quite another to see a woman pull out a breast at 9:30 am in the mall, the office breakroom, or the church cryroom. Men get sexually aroused, and it’s easy to get us turned on, and women should take this into account. We’re men — we get sexually aroused when we see breasts, no matter why it is we’re seeing them.
Just stare at them whilst they breastfeed. Works wonders.
We saw four year old girls drop F-bombs to the squeals of feminists.
Why is anyone shocked when they try to weaponize babies?
If you fight this, you’re anti-baby!
It’d be cool if a man, when he sees a woman breast-feeding, lets out a loud FART.
If she complains, or looks disgusted, he should say, “Please stop sexualizing my ass. Just because I fart from my ass doesn’t mean that farting is sexual.”
Or “Hey, I don’t have a problem with gas. If you feel threatened by my gas, that’s YOUR problem. I’m not hiding my natural bodily functions in a closet just because you have a problem with my masculinity.”
Dalrock,
Clearly? You know, I’m not so sure. Maybe some moms are doing this (see my boobies guys, don’t you want it, haha) but I think that number of breat feeding moms is pretty small. I think it is more those moms just want to be part of whatever adult activity is happening. And they don’t always want to run away to some private room where they can’t converse with others.
Case in point, every other Saturday I join a college alumni group in a public place to watch a 4 hour football game. There are close twenty people at this gathering and two of those are women with babies who are nursing. Inside of that 4 hour window, they feed their babies at least twice, sometimes three times. They are hungry babies. But those two women do not leave our gathering to feed them. They just grab the baby, throw a blanket over their breasts, bring their babies underneath, pull up their shirt, the baby latches on, and they go about their business of whatever conversation they were having 30 seconds earlier. I never see a nipple.
The point is this: yes a woman’s bulging breat is very attractive and arousing but for these two women at least it is not about gaining men’s sexual attention. It about remaining where they are and enjoying their time socializing with other adults while they feed their hungry babies. They don’t want to be forced to leave (to go outside and sit in a car while their husbands and other kids are where they want to be.) And what they do is very quick, very discrete, I really don’t see what the problem is. And the fact that they can do this (discretely) means that many others can and do. So the ones that do it to gain sexual attention from men, I would argue that number is pretty small, insignificant even.
@IBB
This is something different. The movement is to remove the modesty of the covering blanket, under the guise that there is no such thing as indiscreet nursing.
You are assuming they are simply careless/clueless, when I would argue that they are very often merely feigning unawareness.
My main objection to public breastfeeding is that, once again, the demands of women often trump the rights of everyone else, particularly the rights of mall owners, restaurateurs, and others who should be able to decide what behavior is allowed on their own property. But because critical thinking has gone extinct, people cannot separate the merits of breastfeeding from the merits of private property in their primitive little minds.
EThomas says:
Thomas says:
Women should be able to breastfeed in public without being shamed. We shouldn’t let the attention whoring of a few affect the majority of women who simply need to feed their child. (We could, however, shame the attention whores.) Either we allow and encourage women to breastfeed in public, or we suggest that mothers need to stay at home and out of the public eye. Maybe some people like that idea.
There is a decent way to breast feed in public. It’s as simple as putting a little blanket over your breast. I remember woman doing that all the time when I was a kid. Any woman who doesn’t do that just wants attention. What most men don’t realize that complaining to women is a sport. She will complain how all men are pigs, yet will be upset if a man ogles her naked breast in public. If women were innocent of not knowing their cleavage attracted males then they wouldn’t wear low cut tops in public.
Yup, a woman puts on her little black dress, gets all dolled up, and brings photographers into the house because she doesn’t want attention of a sexual nature. I remember taking childbirth/care classes before my first was born, and my wife just shook her head at all the exhibitionists posing for pictures while nursing. It’s what they are.
The question that comes to mind for me is why the husband allows it. It’s not as if nobody will know that her husband is married to a beautiful, buxom woman unless she shows all that femininity to the world as a whole. I’m not one to use the Greek Alphabet to pillory people, but the man is screaming “beta” with that one, I think.
Dalrock, either WordPress or my browser seems to be operating with a mind of its own today. Could you delete this, plus my two previous posts? Thanks in advance.
And what Oblivion says about breastfeeding in public. My wife breastfed all of our six children, and I don’t think anybody ever saw the beauty that belongs to me save me and the lactation consultants at the hospitals. Use a loose fitting shirt or a blanket and you’re golden.
And yes, there’s something beautiful and sexy about a woman nursing.
“There’s something beautiful and sexy about a woman.” Fixed it for ya.
That photo also doubles as child-porn.
Isn’t this also a “status marker issue” among women as well, in addition to seeking the “right” kind of attention from the preferred man and women? Think about the class and status of supporters of the ‘La Leche League’ (http://lalecheleague.org, homepage SFW) groups. . .
IBB says:
I think it is more those moms just want to be part of whatever adult activity is happening.
Well, I think you thought wrong. Any woman can breastfeed discreetly, if she so chooses, or become an exhibitionist while pretending to want to “be part of whatever adult activity is happening”. Just as any woman can dress presentably, or choose to dress like a slut while fighting to “take back the night”.
‘The question that comes to mind for me is why the husband allows it. ‘
I’ve often wondered that myself. Because I actually asked an exhibitionist one time who is married what her husband thinks of that…and he was the one who gave her permission to.
Dave,
If she is in public and she covers her ample breast-feeding bosum with a blankie with baby behind blankie, then yes, she is being discreet. I have no problem with this and neither should the manosphere. This is about 99% of the public breast feeding that I have seen. Now what you and Dalrock are talking about, the 1% where mom pulls out her mother-earth-boob and has baby latch on for one and all to see, well yes, she is looking for sexual attention from men. She is an exobitionist. She is getting off on the fact that strange men can see her goodies and can fantasize about her, she likes that. The thought of men being aroused by looking at her boob arouses her. And the type of mother who does this in public with her baby probably doesn’t have a husband. She has child support instead.
From the photo spread it is obvious that she is not trying to inflame the sensibilities of men but rather to show off to other women her breasts, baby, mansion, car, and husband.
Three 21st century gender goodness axioms:
1. Women can do no evil.
2. Men can do no good.
3. If a woman is committing an evil, a man must be making her do it.
If you need any further affirmation of the veracity of these axioms, consult your nearest 21st century evangelical.
I have never understood the false dichotomy thrown out by so many who have gone bonkers over the breast feeding thing. Namely, “breasts are for delivering nutrition to babies, not for sex).
It is so bizarre. It is just as “natural” for a man to become aroused by a breast as it is for a baby to eat from it. They are not mutually exclusive.
Besides, the “natural” argument falls apart pretty quickly. Just because something is “natural” does not mean we all need to see it. Someone upthread already pointed out that relieving ones self is “natural” but we do that in private.
“It is so bizarre. It is just as “natural” for a man to become aroused by a breast as it is for a baby to eat from it. They are not mutually exclusive.”
The Bible even pointed this out.
http://biblehub.com/proverbs/5-19.htm
Update:
Thank you all for your help. Counseling again last night, nouthetic counseling. It was hard for my wife because the pastor knows feminism has infiltrated the church. He knows the little comments and so forth that are manipulative etc. He pointed out my wife’s area that she needs to deal with which brought her to tears.
I did not get a pass, I have my issues that he said I should be working on.
I stated that she gives a look and someone gave the advice to give her the meaning of the look, “I know that look, it means spanking time…” I like that one. I am new to the redpill and I was inbedded with bluepill for way too long, so some of the very Alpha stuff makes sense to me personally, but it is hard to imagine the outside world truthfulness. In HS and college I had what Rollo would call fun buddyies. I remember it as some of the best fun I ever had. But I treated them so horribly I cannot imagine my wife even remotely liking some of this stuff.
Question to ALL including the women on here:
Would my wife really like me to just take her upstairs and have fun? Should I care how long I have fun with her or just dominate and be done go about my day?
I tried this in the past and she did not reject, but she did use it against me like saying I should be nicer because I’m getting it any time I want.
I am just having a mental block thinking taking her and after 3 minutes of “using” her is ok.
Nouthetic Counseling. Now that is a term I haven’t hear in a while. That’s the model I learned at seminary, many moons ago.
I read a fictional novel of Macbeth. Lady Macbeth complains that he doesn’t take much time, he said, “Don’t accept the traffic and complain about it later. You want more time, pour some wine for me.”
She has to be an adult and make the time worthwhile to you and herself.
That was for Jeff
@Scott
It is so bizarre. It is just as “natural” for a man to become aroused by a breast as it is for a baby to eat from it. They are not mutually exclusive.
It goes way beyond that. There’s actually a convergence. I think most breastfeeding mothers realize that even if they’re politely covered with a drape while they’re doing it will get mens’ attention. My wife breastfed all seven and if you know anything about it you know that an orgasm will often trigger the milk to let down. You’d better be thirsty and have developed a taste for milk when that happens because you don’t want to wake up the baby.
Then too, there’s the 32 B cup that’s suddenly the 32 D cup and she knows it isn’t going to last and wants some attention. I think all women are aware that simply the act of breastfeeding a baby is sexually attractive to men. The EvoPsych take on that is she’s proven her fertility, but there’s a better reason: Because Boobs. I’m not saying women shouldn’t breastfeed in public, I’m simply saying they know very well how men react to it.
@TFH
Divorce raped, kids stolen, maybe two weeks together with them in the past 4 years; and not by my choice. I do what I can and they aren’t stupid, but they are the victims. The boys have the foundation to see how things really are but the oldest girl is a dyed-in-the-wool feminist who takes after her mother and her mother’s family.
My so-called Christian wife who is still vocally a Christian. Right. And her church fully supports her in what she’s done.
Yes, I just saw this ‘photo shoot’ with Tamara Ecclestone.
I wonder why a married woman wants to ‘display’ herself to the world. There was no need to use a ‘breastfeeding’ shot in this case. And yes, it also puzzles me why the husband allowed it. Does he really believe that ‘showing off his wife’ in this way is a good thing??
Yes, whilst it is true that breastfeeding mothers are not subject to the ‘indecent exposure’ laws, there are (as always) the right way and the wrong way to do things.
Just last week, I was reading a lot about breastfeeding because (I didn’t know this before!), it is a fundamental part of NFP as practised by Catholic couples.
It is dawning on me that I shall need to breastfeed in public one day in order to comply with NFP, unless I stay home round the clock with baby/ies, which is impractical, of course.
So common sense/decency will have to prevail. There are special bras/blouses for this, and even with normal clothes, a shawl over the baby’s head should help. It is not that hard to maintain modesty whilst breastfeeding. I watch my friends/relatives as they do it with grace and poise, and I think I could manage that too.
A funny story comes to mind: A friend worked as a sonographer in an arabic country for many years. He had a special antenatal sonography clinic, and as you would expect, a lot of the expectant mums also had a toddler/baby they were breastfeeding.
Whenever a man would pass by (the antenatal clnic area also served as a shortcut to other parts of the hospital), these breastfeeding mothers would cover their…..FACES!
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Anyone know if the sight of a breast (as opposed to a face) has no effect on an Arab man? In which case is this a cultural thing as opposed to a biological thing? Why did these women cover their faces, leaving their breasts exposed?? Any commenters here from or lived in the Middle East?
@TFH
You have no idea how much money is on the table. She makes about $25k a year but she’s got (due to the number of children) an $80K lifestyle provided by the State. Who needs a husband when you can have total control and complete power and a judge who would eat the corn out of her shit.
Jeff,
Perhaps you might think about cutting right to the chase with your 501c3 nouthetic counselor. Here’s a tip from someone who’s been there.
Ask him to declare if your wife owes you sex. If he’s a real man and a man of the Scriptures, he won’t hesitate to declare in the affirmative.
But if he hems and haws, and in ANY way tries to say that your conjugal rights as a husband are contingent on your wife’s feeeeeeeelings, as in, “Well, Jeff, I’m afraid that you’re wife just doesn’t feeeeel like you are loving her like Christ loves the church…” then know for certain that this man has elevated a woman’s fickle feeeelings above the Scriptured, he is honoring his contract with Caesar, and the longer you are there, the more screwed you’re gonna get.
I have been where you are now.
Cut to the chase with this man.
This is a key litmus test by which you could potentially spare yourself some misery.
I was born in 1942. My mother “nursed” (which is what breast feeding was traditionally called) most of the time until the early 50’s.
Thus, I was indoctrinated young into seeing a woman nursing in plain sight.
To this day, if I see a boob with a hungry baby ready to eat, it does not register on me as a sexual thing.
Yet, without the baby nearby, yes, it has a sexual overtone to me to see a boob.
I cannot say my reaction is the same as all men. But, I suspect that most men who saw their mother nurse until they were approaching puberty, would tend to be indoctrinated the same.
In any case, it is obvious to me that most of you did not see women nursing openly in your childhood as I did. So, we are both responding from our own experience.
I wrote on a private mailing list some years ago that in rural Mexico, women are in three categories on nursing.
The first group is very modest. With th blanket all is hidden, all the time.
The second group lets a flash for a second as the boob is taken out, and the baby latches, then covers it up.
The third goup makes no effort to hide anything through the complete process.
Once, when I came back from the States, a cousin’s wife had just given birth. I went to see the baby, an excellent boy. She was breast feeding, and with the baby’s mouth covering the nipple, she openly showed me everything else, baby, boob sans nipple, and all.
This was a very rare exception though. Around the nipple was a band of bright blue, something I had never seen before. That did fascinate me, and I would like to see that blue band again, heh heh. A friend, a doctor’s wife told me later when I asked that some of the indigenous ancestry in Mexico does have that blue band on the breast. She had seen it when her husband was doing deliveries.
Most men here are also used to seeing women’s boobs during nursing.
Thus, I suggest you are experiencing your own cultural norm. Not sure, but I suspect it.
JF-
Your comment reminds me of a professor I had in my Nouthetic program. We were going through 1 PET 3 verse by verse and he was expositing on the phrase “weaker vessel” which he proceeded to pile his personal opinion on. He said that instead of “weaker vessel” we should be thinking “fine Ming vase–like you would want to put on a pedestal.”
This was a co-ed class so, of course all of the girls grinned approvingly.
Later, I went home to search the Greek text and applied a more accurate hermeneutic to the text. I really does mean “weaker vessel,” as in “container that cannot hold as much, because it will break.”
Spacetraveller,
It is really easy to figure out why Tamara Ecclestone would display herself. It is really easy to see the character of such a woman by first looking at her mother.
Tamara Ecclestone’s mother the model Slavica Ecclestone according to Wikipedia “topped the Sunday Times’ Rich List in the “richest divorcees” category after she was awarded an estimated £ 740 million in 2009 during their divorce.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavica_Ecclestone
Slavica was a foot taller than her husband; she cashed out on the short stock-car driver.
Tamara married her stockbroker husband Jay Rutland one month after meeting him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/tamara-ecclestone-engaged-jay-rutland-1731306
“And she says his confessions about past drug use and a ban for insider training only made her admire him more.”
Hahahahahaha. This woman is sheer gold, sheer gold.
Jay likely sleeps just fine at night, thinking he in in control and has landed a beautiful wife, but he is sleeping next to a ticking time bomb named the “Tell Tale Tamara.”
Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
TheRhoubbhe,
Yes, I see what you mean. From the Wiki article you linked, I also see that Tamara was born prior to her parents marrying…why doesn’t this surprise me?
I also remember that Tamara was on the rebound from some bad boy she had just broken up with, prior to marrying Rutland. She may therefore be some kind of ‘alpha widow’. She has a history of dating bad boys, including Rose, who tried to blackmail her. I guess as a rich girl, she was always going to attract gold-diggers, so some of this is not her fault…but if you consider that her younger sister, Petra has stayed on the ‘straight and narrow’ path, one wonders why one sister resembles the mother in behaviour and the other sister doesn’t…
Yes, I too feel bad for Jay Rutland, though he is also a ‘bad boy’. He is indeed sitting on a time-bomb and doesn’t realise it. This ‘photo-shoot’ may be the start of the rapid descent into divorce hell for him. I hope not, (because divorce is never good) but, like you, I am beginning to get good at reading the tea leaves…
(This is the kind of education one gets in The Manosphere, lol).
“Jay likely sleeps just fine at night, thinking he in in control and has landed a beautiful wife, but he is sleeping next to a ticking time bomb named the “Tell Tale Tamara.”
Yup. They got married whe she was roughly around 29…what else do we know about the time frame of party girls that get married around that time?
Not to mention I noticed the back tat she has. This has divorce/cheating story written all over it.
@Anon 72
This is the common misdirection we get. In my post I pointed out the fallacy that women don’t ever use breast feeding as an opportunity to get a leg up in their intrasexual competition for men’s attention. You turned this around and made it all about men, as if only men have a sexual nature and if it looks like women might be acting sexually it must be dirty men who are misinterpreting what women are doing. It is true that men will respond differently based on culture and their own experiences, but this is a change of topic. I don’t mind the change of topic in itself, but it is so typically used to change the subject from what women are doing that I want to point it out.
More comments would be helpful….
Just taking her and getting it is fulfilling to her as a submissive? Not to get detailed, but last Friday we woke up and I told her 90 seconds to bust or I rub her feet.
We both had a laugh when she said, “That was more like 80 seconds”. I said “I was aiming for 30, but our door was open and didn’t want the kids to hear”.
JF: The pastor without hesitation said she needs to be available and give it to me any time barring severe illness or severe inconvenience. I asked to give an example:
Pastor to wife: You can make the kids lunch with a cold or even pick up some needed groceries with a cold or headache and a sore back. You can also have sex with your husband with a cold, back ache, or headache. It would be expected atleast every 72 hours and if he needs it more to keep him from temptation, there is no reason not to.
Also he said if your son or daughter were thirsty you wouldn’t deny them water less they steal… so why would you deny your husband less he be tempted to sin.
It made perfect sense to her, but she acknowledge it was/is hard to do.
My question still stands. Is she going to balk when I take her and pin her down? Is this something real or is it something we “think” alpha men are suppose to do because we see Michael Douglas do it in a movie?
@Jeff
You are thread jacking here. Please stop.
With that said, I’ll indulge you a bit:
I may have missed a comment on another thread, but I doubt anyone seriously suggested this to you. My own advice was if she offers you sex to take her up on the offer without the modern nonsense that sufficient doses of “romance” are needed to “purify” marital sex. From what you have said, it sounds like your wife is somewhere between ambivalent to repelled by your attempts to make sex more tender, etc. What I and I believe others are saying is, stop doing that. If on the other hand a good dose of groveling romantic poetry and a reading of “she comes first” gets her engine running, then by all means do so.
Women like to be desired. They like to be possessed. If she finds you attractive she will want both from you. If she doesn’t find you attractive, drawing the process out will only creep her out for a longer time each time you have sex. If she liked what modern culture tells us she should like, you wouldn’t be here.
Who the hell is going to get turned on by a woman breast feeding. First off she is married so that says disloyal bitch, second a single chick is just some slut bay momma. If she is trying to be discreet she is a woman of some character that isn’t going to come off as sexual any damn way.
I’m with Dalrock a non discreet breast feeder is just some attention whore. I think it is one of the lowest kind.
Single moms are for booty calls fellas.
One more thing I would like to add`. A lot of the facebook breast feeding is also about the I’m a better mother than you stuff of the female competition. attention whoring for other women. Half of that shitting on their husband stuff is show for other bitches to denote how valuable they are to their pet man.
@Bike Bubba
Yes. As in “Beta of the month”. He is amazingly clueless as to what he is giving his stamp of approval by not only permitting the photo shoot, but by participating in it.
It is so bizarre. It is just as “natural” for a man to become aroused by a breast as it is for a baby to eat from it. They are not mutually exclusive.
Excellent statement there. I have often maintained that the single most important thing the woman is on earth for is to bring forth children. Everything else pales in comparison. Yes, I have always been called sexist by the brainless feminist masses, but I never really cared.
When you look at a woman, everything in her body is either to attract a sexual partner, or to nurture the young.
Women are naturally not suited to produce, but to reproduce. That explains why there are not many women inventors, because it requires producing original thought.
But women are great at incubating and amplifying anything you give them—be it an argument, a little fight, or spermatozoa, and turn a molehill of that contribution into a Kilimanjaro. That is classic “reproduction”.
My wife nursed both our children in public all the time. She would throw a blanket over her shoulder first, leave it here throughout the operation and no one had any idea what she was doing.
I think any women who exposes herself nursing must be doing it for effect because there is no requirement to.
darlock,
Thank you and sorry. I realize now I was threadjacking… Had to look that up first though!
Good find, Dalrock.
I teach public high school. The things i see young men wearing are bad enough, but the things i see young women wearing are so egregiously provocative as to be almost ludicrous. Push up bras and painted-in spandex yoga pants, are the NORM. It gets worse from there. Admin gives much lip service to a dress code, but it’s all just that: lip service only. It’s farcical. And i tried one time in a meeting to pose the question of whether or not the school dress code should include skintight yoga pants in a non-athletic setting for these young females. And oh my heavens, you should have seen the murderous hate-looks i got from a couple of the many “liberated” female colleagues.
For me, it’s pathetic and comical and tragic. I see it as females running around in what amounts to the bottom half if the “Catwoman” suit, and it is only a matter of time before they are running around with the spandex tops as well, thereby fulfilling the whole Catwoman provocative motif.
But to these feminist teachers, such thinking as mine is “puritanical” and anathema. I learned from their murderous looks to NEVER speak on such a topic as female dress coding again. And indeed, i am NOT the only male teacher on campus who is justifiably scared of losing his job for ever questioning any teenage female on what she wears into our class. If you are male, you leave it alone.
Now, under such a political climate of terroristic feminine imperative, don’t expect American women of the 21st century to hold themselves or their boobs accountable for anything. Whatever they do to provoke men, however they dress to provoke men, it’s always gonna be the fault of men.
. And yes, it also puzzles me why the husband allowed it.
Seriously? C’mon now. As if he had any say in the matter.
Any married woman in the western world who wants to bare her breasts (or any other part of her anatomy), whore herself out to other men, or do anything else with her body that she feels the urge do WILL do it, and with impunity. If her husbsnd should have temerity to assert what for most of human history was considered his husbandly authority, all she has do is say “I’m going to do [x], and if you even think about trying to stop me, I’ll scream rape/abuse so fast and so loud that every cop in the city will be on you within five minutes, and you’ll calling a jail cell home for the foreseeable future.”
Remember: “Her body, her choice” – and the full weight of the “Law” will back her up on that.
Jeff, you asked for a lady’s input, which can be dangerous in the sphere. 😛 Not that we’re all intentionally trying to mislead (though there are plenty of those) but even the few of us that have honestly tried to “get it,” some things still elude us. What’s more, as Rollo has posted in a few different articles, a lot of women’s behavior operates on a primal, limbic level, so we’re not always very aware of WHY we’re reacting as we are, just that we are. Likewise, we may know how we OUGHT to react, but feel drastically otherwise, with no good idea why. Case in point: most of us know we “ought” to like the good guy, we sure SAY we like the good guy, but we can’t help feeling attracted to the jerk.
With that as a disclaimer, my take on this:
Would my wife really like me to just take her upstairs and have fun? Should I care how long I have fun with her or just dominate and be done go about my day?
I tried this in the past and she did not reject, but she did use it against me like saying I should be nicer because I’m getting it any time I want.
I am just having a mental block thinking taking her and after 3 minutes of “using” her is ok.
Almost certainly. yes she would like that. She may kick up a fuss, give you the “anti-slut defense”, and do “the lady doth protest too much” routine, but as long as you maintain frame, then yes. How long? I’m not equipped to give a good answer, except that the more you display a dominant attitude, the more she will crave you, and the less time it is likely to take her to be, ahem, satisfied. So, probably no need to worry about that for a while. If you’re having trouble feeling “ok” then throw her a bone once in a while, but make SURE you maintain frame – maybe tease that she’s “earned it” or something… the guys will be better equipped to advise here…
Don’t worry about her “using it against you.” This is shit-testing. She’s adjusting to the new normal, figuring out what she can get away with it, and on some level, maybe a little dismayed at the power shift. We ladies can be very controlling, very manipulative (even if we aren’t doing so intentionally – and she may well be doing it intentionally) and it can be disconcerting to have the rug pulled out from under our feet. Nevertheless, we will be much happier if/when you can stand up to the plate and be in charge. Recognize that she is testing you, and though she will SAY she wants you to back off, in her heart of hearts, she craves your dominance.
If this is hard to swallow or internalize, think of it this way: no child LIKES to be disciplined, scolded, spanked. Nevertheless, proper discipline over time produces in the child a sense of worth, value, and lets them know they are loved so much that parents are willing to put up with the discomfort to protect them. Contrariwise, undisciplined children may be envied by other children for their freedom, but are more likely to be insecure, to fear their parents don’t really care, and to be unhappier overall. Women are very much the same. We will tell you we would rather have things our own way: like a child, we really think that we WOULD like things better our own way. We will nevertheless be happier if the man takes charge and quashes our shit tests.
And, we shit test like men stare at boobs. It just happens. Sometimes we know we are doing it, sometimes we don’t.
Hope this helps, hope the other gentleman here can clear up anything I inadvertently muddied.
Oh gosh, I hadn’t refreshed in a bit and just re-read what I missed and saw about thread-jacking…. My apologies Dalrock et al, please feel free to remove my post if that would be better.
“Someone upthread already pointed out that relieving ones self is “natural” but we do that in private.” .. unless you’re French, of course. Was tipping diesel into the jalopy earlier this year at the filling station (one of those confounded newfangled unattended ones that generally refuse your card) and Monsieur le Haulier whips it out and wazzes on the wall by the airhose with complete composure and no little satisfaction. At lunchtime. Quite put me off the saucisson & baguette, can tell you.
‘Seriously? C’mon now. As if he had any say in the matter.’
He was in the photos.
The husband in these pics is clearly nothing more than an accessory for his wife. Like shoes, purses, a baby, etc.
earl wrote ‘Not to mention I noticed the back tat she has. This has divorce/cheating story written all over it.’
Nice catch on that back tattoo. Jay Rutland is in a precarious situation of performance with no margin of error, given his wife is worth millions. ‘Tell Tale Tamara’ certainly will use his confessed track record of insider trading and drug use to bury a dagger in his heart in divorce court.
I think Spacetraveller is right, she is an Alpha Widow that likely wants to ride the professional athlete carousel again; so this photo is likely her advertisement.
@ feeriker, November 25, at 5:35 pm
You are too right. Here in Britain, the government is going to introduce a new law to imprison husbands if they commit the grave offense of “restricting their [wives’] personal or financial freedom”—especially if the husbands do so by using psychology.
For details, see “New domestic violence law will outlaw coercive control“, The Telegraph.
Prison sentences can be for up to 14 years.
@Dalrock
>>You turned this around and made it all about men, as if only men have a sexual nature and if it looks like women might be acting sexually it must be dirty men who are misinterpreting what women are doing.
Hogwash. Seldom do I disagree with you, Dalrock, but that is nonsense. I merely told accurately of my personal experience. And, told accurately what women in Mexico do. How that came out like you said totally amazes me. The other comments were also in fact reporting men’s view of women breast feeding.
And, I did not mean to imply that women NEVER show their milk filled boobs in hopes of turning men on. There is in fact in my neighborhood a young woman, maybe 48 years my junior, who tried unsuccessfully for several years to seduce me. I have seen times when I go to her MIL’s house, she starts nursing her baby when she sees me coming and because I saw my mother nurse so many years I can tell the baby isn’t even hungry. That is the only time that has ever happened.
It doesn’t work, because I am conditioned to not be turned on with a baby nursing, as I accurately reported.
Your generation came along after women stopped breast feeding as a normal thing and you aren’t used to it. And, as is the cultural norm everywhere assume your opinion is universal in the world. It is not.
We are products of our culture, which means we are products of what we are used to.
I worked for years with a nudist. He and his wife belonged to what we call a nudist camp. He told me at first seeing naked women is a turn-on. You can tell new guys by the towel they carry around in front to cover up a gigantic erection. Very quickly it goes away.
And, a woman in that camp who wants sex from her man needs to put on, voila, a sexy negligee to get him up.
@S. Chan
That is simply sad. 14 years. Wow. That is stunning.
It will really be no surprise when the Muslims take over Britain and France. They certainly won’t worry about wives financial freedom.
JF
The easiest way to correct the dress of those high school girls and the attitude s of the fem cunts you work with is to make sure they understand you don’t give the slightest hint of a shit about female well being. Only concern yourself with the young men and teach them all the red pill you know from participation in the manosphere. Never ever speak to females about anything as you have stated nothing to gain everything to lose. Let the boys understand girls that dress like that are worthless holes. (which is the truth) Make sure they fully understand the array of laws out to get them and how to avoid trouble and how any emotional commitment to a female is just a road to trouble and that includes marriage.
Jeff
If you don’t have kids get rid of her and don’t do that stupid marriage thing again.
Anonymous_Aged_72 said:
See, Dalrock, you’re just one of the weak men screwing up our fabulously feminine world. If you had been properly conditioned by a woman like our man AA72, then you would have properly separated sex from children.
Yet I agree with the Salon article, which is about Facebook’s double-standards. They let through a lot more trash.
Do you prefer a corrupt judge that happens to agree with you on one issue, or an honest one that judges equally?
@Cane
Be nice. Tis the season to be thankful.
Hmmmff. Should have read “Tits the season to be thankful.”
@JF
You have courage trying to be a male teacher in this environment. I left behind working with teenagers in a social services setting years ago for that reason, fear of being accused falsely by imbalanced girls on psychotropic medications.
It is a great tragedy of the educational system that men are being forced out; just like men are being forced out of families and fatherhood. My daughter is in middle school now, it isn’t just coincidence her grades are higher under male teachers than female teachers.
Male Teachers offend and contradict the feminist narrative that males are deviant predators and misogynistic oppressors. Men have a necessary role in the development of children {both boys and girls} and are not disposable or optional.
When only women are present, children grow up to be thugs, slackers, welfare queens, and meth whores. That isn’t a theory, it is a fact, one can go look at any inner city community to see decades of liberal social policy and neoconservative economic policy to eliminate fathers, husbands, or any male role model in favor of welfare dependent single mothers.
Male teachers are like you are needed JF; though it is understandable if you get out.
My take, breast feeding was being done in public long before the church made tits sexual.
Weak one Dal.
Cane, another weak reply. 72 is right. Breast feeding was/is a natural event. This need to see tits as sexual, is a reverberation of the fallacy of Freud. Tits can be used in the act of sex, but in and of themselves, tits are an organ designed for feeding babies. Period!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/celebrity-launches-ownbreasts-awareness-campaign,2022/
Tits can be used in the act of sex, but in and of themselves, tits are an organ designed for feeding babies. Period!
I’m not buying it.
Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.
Proverbs 5:18-19
could i be called for a single state in life? (My biggest fear is that if I marry and follow the Church teachings I would have to give up my career and not work outside of home.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=924035
scared of babies?!?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=924228
—
And on the complete opposite of the spectrum:
https://archive.today/tTUPg
@Cane Caldo –
Cane, you’re generally one of the people who makes a lot of sense in these discussions. So it’s disappointing to see you making a foolish statement like this one. That was not at all the point of AA72’s comments, and you’re smart enough to know that once you re-read them. He said that he saw his mother nursing until he was 8 or 9 years old, yet he still sees breasts as sexual if they’re outside the context of nursing. That’s not exactly “separating sex from children”, now is it?
Also note that he never suggests that women never use nursing as a plausibly-deniable reason to expose their breasts to men they want to attract, and in fact he gives one example of a woman who was doing just that. So to read feminism into his comments is foolish. You’re generally on-point, but you really dropped the ball with this one.
@DeNihilist
1. See JDG’s response.
2. You’re all over the place. Do you mean to imply that sex and sexuality are not natural events? The need to see tits as sexual has nothing to do with Freud and everything to do with the fact that before a breast can nurture it must be sexual. Long after it has ceased to nurture it will still be sexual. There is no need to elevate one aspect over the other–they can co-exist just fine–but if you must then reason dictates that the sexual aspect should have primacy.
3. The nucleus of the errant notion that breastfeeding is a more natural event than sex is the very separation of the ideas of sex and children that I spoke of. You just don’t get it, and I suspect that is because your idea of what is within the realm of sexual is stunted to only perceive of it as personal desire. (Such a stuntedness certainly would harken to Freud.)
As an example of what I mean: A lot of women who breastfeed without modesty aren’t doing so to generate sexual desire so much as they are using their sex–female–as a weapon. It’s more of a middle finger than a beckoning forefinger. The breastfeeding selfies and protests are the moxie-ridden bra-burnings of our era; and fortified with maternity! They are saying: “You have to look at my tits and there’s nothing you can do about it because I’m nurturing here, motherfucker[1]!” It is very much a sexual activity because immodest breastfeeding is specifically targeted to break rules of sexual modesty.
@Robin
You’re not even in the right ballpark of AA72’s point. The point of AA72’s comment was exactly the same as all his others: AA72 does it right and everyone else is wrong; which is ironic as he regularly regales us with how his decades of counseling efforts failed in this same manner. Those he counseled could only see themselves as in the right, and only see other men as in the wrong. AA72’s comment was not about breastfeeding, but about himself. Breastfeeding was merely the vehicle.
Don’t be distracted by the hand-waving and chest-thumping of a man who is given to hand-waving and chest-thumping.
No, not never, but he does give the impression that it is unusual. It’s not unusual.
While he applies a thin veneer of “different strokes for different folks”, the broad strokes throughout his comment paint the picture of his second favorite topic after himself: “Stupid American men aren’t doing it right”. (Is it hard to imagine those sentiments from a leftist/feminist?) Perhaps you missed the part where he said he learned this from his mother blithely exposing her breasts to him for eight years. Or the part where he said he labelled that learning as conditioning; as if sexuality is purely a matter of nurture rather than nature. (Now that I’ve point it out I’m sure you’ll recognize that as a pillar of feminist philosophy.) Let’s not forget that he is here in agreement with Salon(dot)com; a bastion of feminism. I do not mean to say that AA72 is actually a feminist, but rather that his comment is textbook conservatism haplessly, ignorantly, and arrogantly finding itself in support of feminism.
Again, his point was that because the sight of breastfeeding breasts does not arouse him, then anyone who is aroused by a breastfeeding breast has not been properly conditioned like himself and as the good Lord intended. Even that is being generous. His real message was: “My name should be Awesomeness Age 72“.
[1] The word chosen here is carefully chosen to match the expressed sentiment.
Cane
You have it right there. Said the way I would like it to be known from the way I see. The comment goes with every thing else we see coming from women including the photo spread linked to in the article. This chick here falls under the same look at me I’m a sexy mom http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/maria-kang_whats-your-excuse-496×620.jpg
‘My take, breast feeding was being done in public long before the church made tits sexual.’
The church?
That’s a very interesting interpretation, and in many cases I’m sure it reflects reality.
I’m sort of a beta dupe, in that when I have seen chicks breastfeeding, even if it was somewhat off-putting, I’ve thought it preferable to what many women do — which is fill up their tits with silicone implants, in an attempt to rub them in my face (metaphorically speaking). I never saw the narcissistic dimension before, but it’s definitely something that was there, in hindsight.
Tits can be used in the act of sex, but in and of themselves, tits are an organ designed for feeding babies. Period!
Yeah, just as penis can be used in an act of sex, but in itself is an organ designed for peeing. And what of va-jay-jay? It can surely be used in an act of sex, but in and of itself is an organ for having babies.
Did it ever occur to this writer that, long before these organs can be used to feed babies, they often must be used in acts of sex?
Bunkum.
Even liberated women know that, to be a good wife, they must make time to cook for their husbands:
“I think we have more moments where I’ll say, ‘I’m going to be a better wife. I’m going to cook.’ And he says, ‘Oh, honey. Just know what you’re good at. Know what you’re not,’” she explained. “But I do have my, ‘No, no, no! I’m gonna get this wife thing down.’ But he knows my limitations and where I’m a good wife and a good mom.”
–Oscar winner Angelina Jolie
@AT
Just saw this:
Haha!
Seriously though, this is me being nice. As love is an action, it doesn’t always come through in text.
@Anon 72
But this post isn’t about you. That Ms. Ecclestone failed to turn you on doesn’t change the obvious fact that she is trolling for sexual attention on the internet. The baby is a prop, just like the baby carriage.
If you notice her face…she isn’t really smiling, she’s doing that Marylin Monroe sexy face that models do. It is clearly for sexual attention.
“A man cannot help but look when a woman exposes a breast in public for ANY purpose, even if it is for breastfeeding.”
I have to disagree here. There’s a distinct difference between nature and voyeurism. And that’s why I’m rather disturbed by that second picture. The fact that she has a baby at her breast with that expression on her face – just plain wrong.
Scott,
My father used that interpretation (Ming vase) all the time. He also ended up getting divorced by my step mother when he decided to go into the full time ministry. He “stood in faith” for his marriage until the end, so was very blue pill. Ironically he was a natural alpha of sorts and that played havoc earlier in his life.
I suspect that is part of the reason I have so strongly reacted the other way to things. I go for accuracy above all else and the pedestal idea is not sustainable when you look at all the Scriptures.
“tits are an organ designed for feeding babies. Period!”
Then why are some of them so big? Big ones don’t produce an iota more milk than small ones. And why do women wear training bras? Trained ones don’t produce more milk, either.
Even liberated women know that, to be a good wife, they must make time to cook for their husbands:
Of course most of them know this. They just consciously refuse to do it (although I have ZE-RO sympathy for any man who doesn’t bother to learn how to cook for himself and depends on a woman to do it for him. Absolutely NO excuse for that in this day and age.)
It figures that this comment would come from the likes of Angelina Jolie. A truly repulsive creature, on so many levels.
As a relatively new father, you hear certain people in my peer group say “My child doesn’t like to have his face covered when he is eating” as an excuse for why it’s impossible for them to breastfeed discreetly while in public. Personally I think it’s just an example of parents not setting guidelines for their kids early on. My wife thought ahead, so that even if it was just the two of us at home, she would cover up just so our son got used to it. That way as he got older he wouldn’t be bothered by the whole thing. If you go months without covering up, I can see how it might bother some kids to change their routine, but in my mind that should mean learning to think ahead, rather than just whipping out your tit and expecting to be free of criticism.
Slightly OT, but in the ball park …
I swim almost every day at a lap pool on the East Side of Manhattan. There are showerheads right on the deck. According to the sign, everyone is supposed to shower before entering, but I’d guesstimate that fewer than half actually do. Swimmers are predominantly, but not overwhelmingly, male.
Well, there is a certain type of female–always reasonably fit–who likes to take long, luxurious showers on that deck. Like, 10-15 minutes or longer. Some of them do it before they get in AND after they get out. (Keep in mind there are locker rooms with showers, too, so the after shower on the deck seems superfluous.) These are not the majority of the women, but a sizeable minority.
Hyper-hygenic? Or something else?
The point of AA72’s comment was exactly the same as all his others: AA72 does it right and everyone else is wrong; which is ironic as he regularly regales us with how his decades of counseling efforts failed in this same manner. Those he counseled could only see themselves as in the right, and only see other men as in the wrong. AA72’s comment was not about breastfeeding, but about himself. Breastfeeding was merely the vehicle.
I would agree with that one Cane. I probably have a response to reply to in another thread, but he seems to always note “I am right and do as I say” out one side of his mouth while then telling us to “not tell him what to do” out the other, as if only he had the firm truth in all this.
You have gone through more than most of us will in some areas AA72, but that is not the entirety of life and some of us have had our own things to deal with and really do know some things. I am not quite your age, but I am close enough to know I am not always right. I do hold to what I believe until proven otherwise, but that is a different matter.
Either others have some point or they don’t. A few special snowflakes aren’t as drawn by sexual things from females, but most are. This is especially true as men age. I am much less pulled know than I was in my late teens and early twenties.
Someone else claimed men don’t see breasts that breastfeed. I would question that. They may not dwell on it, but I do believe we are made to notice them, as JDG noted from the Scriptures.
-“tits are an organ designed for feeding babies. Period!”
“Then why are some of them so big? Big ones don’t produce an iota more milk than small ones. And why do women wear training bras? Trained ones don’t produce more milk, either.”
To put it more bluntly female chimpanzees don’t have breast like human ones and the produce plenty of milk. So the shape of female breasts has another function than milk production . . . imagine that.
“Even liberated women know that, to be a good wife, they must make time to cook for their husbands:
Of course most of them know this. They just consciously refuse to do it ”
I have known women, after pointing out how important cooking is, use that to get . . . err snag . . . manipulate a man into marrying them.
-They know on some level its important, but I think we underestimate the amount of thought control the media, culture and society place on women.
Men are blue pill conditioned, women are even more aware impacted by what the culture says.
This has to do with the fact that most women do not have an internal moral structure the way men tend to have one. While there is a segment of the population like women, most Men internalize the values (or lack of them, or perversion of them) that they were raised in, and while they can change those values like going from blue to red pill, it isn’t easy, it has to be conscious and deliberate to do so.
For women, they are more fluid and so adapt to whatever the external environment dictates, you see it with 180 changes in their personality when they change cultures (sometimes).-
Once they’re married the cooking stops . . .
or there’s the worse side of things, where they are terrible cooks, believe it is their wifely duty to cook, cook, and absolutely go batshit if the family doesn’t sing praises of their cooking. Seen that too.
Escoffier:
Bathing or cleaning is an intimate act.
Women love taking showers with men they are attracted to.
Doing it in public, is a sexual teasing display nothing more
TFH; boys and girls, learning life well, and of course, armed where appropriate. :^) Thankfully happily married.
I agree with Ras regarding the kind of woman who takes long showers at the pool. Either clueless, or more likely she wants attention.
That was my point.
Breasts can’t be sexual if there is a baby in the picture
Obviously we have had wildly different lives… Long ago when I was still young and dumb to the ways of the world – at least in business – I shared an office with a young woman who had just had a child. She had a “milk machine” that she would use three times a day – at least when at work – and she confided that it would make her so hot and horny that she had to sit on a towel. She used to enjoy having sex when being milked by the machine – we went through three of them. So while I know all of the usual tripe that women spout, when it comes to breast-feeding. The fact is that they get turned on, and just refuse to admit it – usually, along with a lot of other things. I’m convinced that is why with all of my flaws women enjoy my company as much as they do – I accept their perverted nature and enjoy it.
That is why they step out on their husbands and boyfriends – the can’t admit to someone that they will see all the time, the things they really want to do. That is where the ONS’s come in – they never have to see him (me) again. I am their dirty-little-secret that they can be a whore-of-Babylon with, and the next day put their angel wings back on and hubby is none the wiser.
So when women spout non-sense about breast-feeding not turning them on – just nod and smile. But if you want to f**k them silly – challenge them and tell them they are full of it. You’ll be glad that you did.
AA72’s comment is mostly spot on, Which is why he is wrong. He was born in a different time and age where people did not have TV as readily as the do now. His conditioning and understanding of the various functions of breasts will be vast different from a man who was raised up watching sexualized breasts from every pore of the Main Stream Media™. People are now conditioned to think that breast are sexual; otherwise the breastfeeding wouldn’t even get sideways glance. I personally think that breast-feeding-in-public women are an anti-boner.
“Escoffier:
Bathing or cleaning is an intimate act.
Women love taking showers with men they are attracted to.
Doing it in public, is a sexual teasing display nothing more”
It’s what caused King David to get all hot and bothered.
I guess its a cultural thing. I don’t see what the big deal is over breast feeding, anywhere. Babies have to eat. A lot. The breast was created, or evolved, or a combo of both (creative evolution), depending on one’s view, to feed babies That’s what they are there for. In my culture it is common to see women doing with their breats what they are intended for. I grew up seeing it and never once got aroused by its sight. Here in the States the few women I have seen breast feeding in public were discreet about it. They use a scarf or something to cover up whatever flesh might be exposed, which I don’t think is even necessary but they know their culture better than I do.
I think it might have something to do with pornography and I’m not just talking about online videos but I have seen how commercialied and commodified the breast, female beauty and even male physique his in this country. It wasn’t like that growing up in my country. People got aroused in private when having sex with their spouses. Other than that, sexual images were not used to sell products and we weren’t bombarded wight such images on the daily, weekly, monthy or even yearly. Even now we are not and I find the use of such in the West to be shocking.
This has no doubt influenced the perception of things here.
“I’m sort of a beta dupe, in that when I have seen chicks breastfeeding, even if it was somewhat off-putting,”
What do you find off-putting about feeding babies? In most places around the world women are doing this on busses, trains, while sitting, walking, working in fields etc. Why is it so hidden and sanitized (like death) here? These are things on my mind since arriving here which have totally confused me.
“A funny story comes to mind: A friend worked as a sonographer in an arabic country for many years. He had a special antenatal sonography clinic, and as you would expect, a lot of the expectant mums also had a toddler/baby they were breastfeeding.
Whenever a man would pass by (the antenatal clnic area also served as a shortcut to other parts of the hospital), these breastfeeding mothers would cover their…..FACES!
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Anyone know if the sight of a breast (as opposed to a face) has no effect on an Arab man? In which case is this a cultural thing as opposed to a biological thing? Why did these women cover their faces, leaving their breasts exposed?? Any commenters here from or lived in the Middle East?”
Not Middle Eastern but it makes sense to me. Culture does effect how one views things and the reactions to them. Breasts have been so overly sexualized, commercialied and commodified here that I wouldn’t expect anyone to understand. When you grow up seeing literally thousands of women breast feeding, you will not get aroused at the sight of it. If on the other hand your cultue has tabooized faces, and in a sense overly sexualized them, then that is considered more revealing and alluring to you.
Dave, I’m not aroused by either photo. I grew up seeing women breastfeed without special blankets and shirts designed to cover it so a big lactating boob with a baby stuck on the end does nothing for me.
The reason you didn’t see this 20 years ago is that most American women had bottles stuck to their babies mouths 20 years ago. Breastfeeding is a new thing here. Previously American doctros touted breast milk as not as healthy as soybased formula and people believed them.
Where exactly is that pool with the public showerheads? Heheheheheheheh!!!
Jeff: I gave you a reply over in the 50-shades thread.
@Just Saying
Two comments
It is well known in breast feeding literature that a portion of women will become aroused by the action of breast feeding – not the context. Your lady friend was willing to have sex while hooked up to a machine but would probably not be willing to so so while feeding a baby. It is the physical experience and sensation which can be arousing.
Bragging about having sex with married women just makes you the lowest of low life. Have a little self respect and decency. With the world so full of single women DTF you have to be particularly depraved to bother ruining marriages to get a little action.
Uh, I have never known a woman to breastfeed in public in order to gain attention from men. In fact, quite the opposite. I have been involved in discussions with friends and acquaintances about how best to breastfeed in public in order to NOT draw attention to your breasts. It is VERY common to get disapproving looks from both men and women while breastfeeding in a public setting.
Gee, Dalrock, this assumption that some women are trying to gain male sexual attention via breastfeeding sounds like male solipsism to me….
@Jen
I offered up an example of a woman who is clearly using breastfeeding to gain male sexual attention. You disregarded that example and talked about your feelings, and your experience. In short, you made it about you. Since my post isn’t about you, clearly I must be indulging in male solipsism.
Jen,
You didn’t even look at the Tamarra Ecclestone picture that Dalrock linked to, did you? If you did, you wouldn’t be saying this.
@ Old Asian man,
Thank you for your answer to my question!
Interesting that culture plays such a major part in this…
@ Jen,
Come on now…
Kevin:
Just Saying talks frequently of having sex with married women. While he’s committing all sorts of moral wrongs; at least he isn’t married. The married women he’s having sex with are guilty of just as much moral opprobrium as JS is, if not more. Those women are injuring themselves AND their husbands AND their children, if they have any.
JS made no promises to be faithful. The wives he sleeps with DID make such promises, though, and they are breaking those promises every time they cheat on their husbands. So I have much more moral objection to what the women are doing than I do to JS’ moral failures.
The story about covering their faces makes sense to me from another perspective, because I heard a story about some Christian missionaries in South America almost a century ago. They had no plumbing in the semi-jungle location where they lived, so their “shower” was cupping water out of a basin and pouring it over themselves. Apparently (my memory is unclear on the specifics of this part of the story) the location was remote enough that the shower didn’t have privacy walls built around it, or the privacy walls were inadequate and there was an angle from which one could see in — because one day as one of the men was showering, he heard footsteps and female voices approaching. And he recognized the voices as belonging to some of his fellow missionaries. There was nothing to hide behind — the women were going to see him — so to save everyone embarrassment, he covered his face. (Why he didn’t just turn his back, I really don’t know). The point of the story was that he trusted the women weren’t going to stare, and would turn away the minute they realized what they’d seen — and if they didn’t know whom they’d accidentally seen naked, and he didn’t know who had accidentally seen him naked, then embarrassment would be saved all around later when they met each other socially.
Different times… different times.
Now, in the case of the breastfeeding women covering their faces, it seems likely to me that they were doing it for a somewhat similar reason — not because faces are more sexual than breasts in that society, but because if their faces were visible, it would allow whoever saw them to know who they were, which might lead to consequences down the road. By making sure that they were just anonymous bodies to their observer, they could be reasonably certain that no matter how much he lusted after them in that moment, he wouldn’t know where to track them down later on. That’s what I’d guess their reasoning was.
@deti –
I agree that the married women that Just Saying slept (is sleeping?) with are guilty of more sin than he is, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t guilty of sin, nor that he shouldn’t be called out on it. So I’m not sure you should be calling Kevin out for calling Just Saying out. The women Just Saying sinned with aren’t here to be called out as they should be, but he is.
Robin:
I think I did call out JS. There’s no question he’s sinning. But he admits it (sort of); and even if he stopped sinning it wouldn’t fix the problem, which is women who choose to sleep with men like JS while being married to other men. It isn’t men like JS who cause the problem; it’s the married women. Women choose who they have sex with, full stop. Women control the sex spigot. If these married women wouldn’t sleep with him, he’d find other women to sleep with. Moreover, if JS wouldn’t sleep with them, they’d find other men to sleep with them. (It’s the easiest thing in the world for a woman to find a man willing to have sex with her.) And, if these married women refused to have sex with JS or men like him, then they wouldn’t be breaking their promises to their husbands.
So when we’re talking here about the deleterious effect on marriages, the married women are the problem here, not men like JS.
Kevin:
“Bragging about having sex with married women just makes you the lowest of low life. Have a little self respect and decency. With the world so full of single women DTF you have to be particularly depraved to bother ruining marriages to get a little action.”
Well, married women are easier to bed than single women and not as picky either and depending on where you live the really attractive women get wifed up quickly. So there are three advantages of not caring if they are married . . .
Plus marriage 2.0 needs to be destroyed.
“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!”
@ Robin Munn,
That’s a very interesting perspective on this. Thanks!
And now I wonder whether this way of conducting oneself in erm, compromising situations is what gave rise to the expression ‘to save face’?!
In both of these cases (your example and mine), these people are literally ‘saving face’, lol.
I know for sure that in those parts of the world, ‘saving face’ is all-important.
Old Asian Man @ November 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm:
“In most places around the world women are doing this on busses, trains, while sitting, walking, working in fields etc. Why is it so hidden and sanitized (like death) here?”
It’s cultural with Europe. No doubt our strong Christian traditions led our ancestors to emphazise modesty.
Meanwhile, you’re missing the point. These women are deliberately violating social norms, scandalizing decent people to numb their consciences… in fact if not by intent. That’s despicably evil.
…
“Bragging about having sex with married women just makes you the lowest of low life. Have a little self respect and decency.”
Shrug, he’s honest. That’s all I really care about these days. A PUA decides there is no God, acts like it and is fully honest about burning in Hell if he’s wrong… what else needs to be said? I’ll take honest monsters over smiling traitors any day.
JS won’t escape justice. Incurable STDs. Baby traps. Rape accusations. Maybe shot by a cuckolded drug dealer or something. Sex with random people is STUPID, even apart from morality.
Dear “Old Asian Man”:
Well, kooky, since you’re calling me out specifically, I find it situational, and all about aesthetics.
I make a point not to fart or blow my nose at the dining table with friends. Having some pal’s bitchwife pull out her saggy dugs and start spraying bodily fluids into her toddler’s screechy maw is similar, in form and content. Hence: off-putting.
As an aside, I find it funny whenever any of these “new” names show up and start trolling for attention. Another thing, whenever one of these dolts uses “man” in their pseudonym, they’re almost always a chick in drag.
Regards,
Boxer
Ras al Ghul, on why banging married chicks is acceptable:
Marriage 2.0 is collapsing right now, under the weight of its own internal contradictions. None of us needs to lift a finger to help it along. If we’re going to sully ourselves by banging married chicks, we should accept our own dishonor, without lying to ourselves or attempting to cloak our bad behavior in supposedly lofty ideals.
Married women who cheat are the absolute bottom of the sexual marketplace barrel, and only a truly desperate and thirsty brother would stoop to giving such a slag any dick.
Just say no, to the married ho’.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear thedeti:
That’s true, and when the wimminz show up here, talking about how it’s OK for them to fuck around on their husbands, or to fuck around with the husbands of married women, then I’m sure we’ll all point and snigger at them. The thing is, wimminz hardly ever do that here (even the trolls usually adopt the holier-than-thou garb rather than the super-slut persona).
The men who show up here running this line are, perhaps, not breaking a promise to another person. They are defiling themselves, though, in a number of interesting ways. He’s like a chubby chaser, who talks about how great sex is with the latest smelly fatty he picked up in the Wal-Mart parking lot (queue Nigel and the BBig game creW). It’s a fetish, and a pretty weird one. Note that in the literature, it’s often suggested as a sign of a deeper paraphilia. Many of these men who bang married women are likely repressed homosexuals who like the feeling that they are “connecting” sexually to another man, even if they don’t have the courage to get banged in the rear personally. Fucking another man’s wife is a short hop away from becoming another man’s wife, in that regard.
Anyway, there is such a thing as personal honor, and that includes not trespassing, or going where he isn’t welcome, aside from the lack of standards these men have.
Best,
Boxer
I’ll take honest monsters over smiling traitors any day.
Who says we must accept either? It is not an either or choice. I say “none of the above” instead!
Does anyone actually believe Just Saying’s stories? Like the one where he has his girfriend pick up a married mother, whom neither has ever even met, and who is at Disneyland with her husband and children, and within thirty minutes they are having a threesome? I forget the venue–car, hotel, or behind one of the rides. I mean, come on. That’s right out of Penthouse Letters circa 1980. More preposterous than the Rolling Stone UVA gang rape story.
A timely article from the Daily Mail today…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857391/Claridge-s-staff-order-mother-cover-huge-napkin-started-breastfeeding-12-week-old-baby.html
Aye so, Spacers, but the giveaway that Mme. is a card-carrying cadre of the “in your face, daddy-o!” juggerati is her membership of the attention-seeking classes. Wife of a “comedy” actor from the tired old ‘alternative’ TV sketch set. And works “in finance”. Say no more. Haul her Blahniks off, check for hooves, garçon.
The comments so far are fairly representative of the general civilised opinion hereabouts. Claridge’s flunkies exquisitely urbane about the whole attempted épatement des bourgeoises, as one might expect, diners wholly unmoved. But there’s a fuss to be made here, so into the tabloids it goes. With many large and colourful in situ illustrations.
TBH I’d expect Claridge’s patrons to be more exercised about random and intrusive photography on the premises. Where can an honest oligarch or politician get peace to conduct hooky business/commercial espionage deals these days, I ask you? Take my tip, old thing, don’t drink the tea.
Oh wait, what is this? “‘All we ask is that mothers are discrete towards other guests.’ “
Right, that’s it. Into the fire with you, Daily Mail. Simply disgraceful.
Ah yes, the Daily Mail:
Mother was told to stop breastfeeding her son at swimming pool
The pool owners apologised but at least some of the commenters saw it for what it was.
I see that this day a bevy of mothers have descended on Claridges and staged a feed-in. All hail to the V.
Pingback: A conservative own goals on breastfeeding | The Practical Conservative
Pingback: Broadcasting what they bring to the table. | Dalrock