Time magazine cover - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-31-2012, 04:52 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyfreckles View Post
Should also add, "grabbing" anyone where they do not want to be grabbed is assault, period. Being topless wouldn't change that, and the location of where you are grabbed should not change that either. I don't really think having a guy grab your breasts counts as sexual assault, it's more of an unwarranted advance.
The location matters because sexual assault and assault can be treated differently under criminal legislation.

And no, having somebody grab your breasts is not harassment, it's battery.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 04:53 PM   #77
Acrobat
 
ladyfreckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
There's nothing sexist about what we're talking about. Nobody is asking for a ban. But it doesn't mean we need to see a woman's baby slobbering all over her breasts when we're at the Olive Garden. Be discrete
That is not what I'm saying at all. In a restaurant even men are required to shirt up. However, in a place like a park or a beach I could not care less if a woman is fully exposed and feeding a child. I honestly don't care. From the arguments I've seen about public breast feeding it sounds like it's only modest if the entire infant and the breast is covered in a blanket, which is just ridiculous. Even in the photo of the two air force women, neither of them are really over-exposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
irrelevant. If we were to start catering to every fetish, you'd have to show ID to get into a shoe store
That's exactly my point. If we require by law women to cover up every body part that can possibly be deemed sexual, we'd all be covered from head to toe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Site a source then.
I learned about this in high school/college through textbooks and library mediums (aka not online sources). However there are specific terms for it.

Décolletage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of underclothes (Book, 1992) [WorldCat.org] One of the books I've read that discusses this.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.amazon.com/Customs-Cultur.../dp/0060661100 And this is one of the books I've read on it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I refuse to engage in such hyperbole. Your argument just jumped off a bridge. I'll expect to see a Hitler reference in your next post
It's not hyperbole. "This is what our culture deems acceptable, and it's just not acceptable for blacks to be on a bus, it doesn't matter if that's allowed in other countries" has been used before. Back during the civil war similar arguments were used to defend the idea of slaves by saying it wasn't abusive because they were nice to them/here the slaves are just part of a culture/etc.
__________________

__________________
ladyfreckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:01 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyfreckles View Post

I learned about this in high school/college through textbooks and library mediums (aka not online sources). However there are specific terms for it.

Décolletage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of underclothes (Book, 1992) [WorldCat.org] One of the books I've read that discusses this.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Amazon.com: Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions (9780060661106): Eugene A. Nida: Books And this is one of the books I've read on it.
Fair. And good on you for finding some sources. But even then, in the course of history, it was still a somewhat obscure fashion trend (again, I'm not opposed to going back to these styles if you ladies are on board)
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:02 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyfreckles View Post


That's exactly my point. If we require by law women to cover up every body part that can possibly be deemed sexual, we'd all be covered from head to toe.
But we have to go back to what society deems sexual. I can't hang my ass out and walk around either
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:03 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyfreckles View Post

It's not hyperbole. "This is what our culture deems acceptable, and it's just not acceptable for blacks to be on a bus, it doesn't matter if that's allowed in other countries" has been used before. Back during the civil war similar arguments were used to defend the idea of slaves by saying it wasn't abusive because they were nice to them/here the slaves are just part of a culture/etc.
You're equating not being able to show your breasts in public (which you are where I live) with an entire race of people being enslaved and treated as 3rd rate human beings. That's hyperbole. It's a disservice to your argument
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:05 PM   #81
Acrobat
 
ladyfreckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 05:36 PM


Also wanted to add that I'm a fairly "modest" person. I'm not the kind of person that would go around topless (heck, in over 95% of my shirts and dresses you can't see cleavage), it's just that I believe other women who do want to do that should have the right to.
__________________
ladyfreckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:06 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyfreckles View Post
That is not what I'm saying at all. In a restaurant even men are required to shirt up. However, in a place like a park or a beach I could not care less if a woman is fully exposed and feeding a child. I honestly don't care. From the arguments I've seen about public breast feeding it sounds like it's only modest if the entire infant and the breast is covered in a blanket, which is just ridiculous. Even in the photo of the two air force women, neither of them are really over-exposed.
We're probably closer on this subject than either of us realize. My problem is not so much with the actions, but with the justifications (ie It's natural. It's beautiful. Breasts aren't sexual).
That said, I still think discretion should be exercised. And not even for myself; I just know it makes a lot of people uncomfortable and there's no need to be so in-your-face about it.
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:09 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyfreckles View Post
I'm not sure what this is referring to or if it was even for anything I said, but I'll assume it's for me not being able to hang my ass out and walk around
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:10 PM   #84
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 08:36 PM
And thank goodness for that!
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 05:11 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AchtungBono View Post
- when we see couples having sex on the cover of "Field and Stream"? Where will it end?
that would be called the moneyshot

definition available at Urban Dictionary
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 08:32 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Of course breasts are sexual- but they are and have to be 100 % of the time, during any and all circumstances? For me it's the shaming and sexualization of breast feeding that's troubling. I'll probably regret asking this , but is that picture a turn on? Or the Time picture? Breasts as sexual can be separated from breasts as feeding a child, no? Unless you have some sort of breastfeeding fetish, as mentioned here before by ..99.9 percent probability it was .. dreadsox. Not that he had one, but he knew of it. Yeah, that's it...

The women I have seen breastfeed in public do it discreetly. I've never seen anyone breastfeed twins at the same time but logistically I imagine that would be tough period. Not to mention tough to be discreet. That military photo is exaggerated for effect, just like the Time photo. I like the military photo because it shows two distinct aspects of women-the tough and the tender.

Testicles can't feed a baby, obviously. If they could I'm sure guys wouldn't walk around doing it with them just hanging out for the world to see and 'ogle'. I'm sure they would be more discreet about it. Well, maybe not all of them
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 08:59 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Of course breasts are sexual- but they are and have to be 100 % of the time, during any and all circumstances? For me it's the shaming and sexualization of breast feeding that's troubling. I'll probably regret asking this , but is that picture a turn on? Or the Time picture? Breasts as sexual can be separated from breasts as feeding a child, no? Unless you have some sort of breastfeeding fetish, as mentioned here before by ..99.9 percent probability it was .. dreadsox. Not that he had one, but he knew of it. Yeah, that's it...
To be 100% honest, I think this is probably where some of the uncomfortableness comes in to play. It's impossible to completely desexualize breasts (for me anyway and I assume for a lot of men), so there's probably a little bit of shame on the man's part for even having a flash sexual thought. Am I turned on by the pictures? No. Did I notice the breasts and on some level *ahem* evaluate them? Yes ma'am. It's impossible not to. Military mom on the left? c'maaaan. So there must be, in most men, a bit of an internal conflict between what we think is sexual and what we know is kinda weird to be thinking of as having any sexual aspect.

/perv'd
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 09:00 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I'm sure they would be more discreet about it. Well, maybe not all of them
Trust me, I can say with 100% confidence that I have friends who would will not be discreet with their testicles
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 09:25 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 07:36 PM
I fully admit that I notice and recognize beautiful natural breasts, most likely because I've never had any. My evaluate would probably be are those real and spectacular or are they fake. But to me noticing them and being like "wow" isn't the same as sexualizing. I can notice a beautiful looking man, but it's not always and not automatically sexual. If I saw some beautiful shirtless guy with his child, honestly at first I'd probably be thinking "aww" then I might be thinking other. Even without a child, it's not some automatic sexual thing. I think what I'm trying to say is that it can be an aesthetic thing without being sexual. So aesthetically the breasts might be considered beautiful, and nothing wrong with that. But they don't exist solely for sexual gratification. I do understand the whole dichotomy of it, but not making the leap to putting it on women and to shaming them.

For me the sexual/turn on part comes into play when anyone suggests that women should not be breastfeeding in public at all. Personally I think everything related to public display of body parts should be as discreet as possible/appropriate for the circumstance. But like anitram said, when a baby has to eat he/she has to eat. And if it comes to that, I'm not going to hold any woman responsible for anyone else's feelings or thoughts about it. In the end it's just a breast, we see far more displays of breast on a beach or sometimes at the mall. If she needs to "whip it out" and doesn't have the time to be discreet, well I think she should go right ahead and that we can handle it. To compare it to Playboy or to urinating and defecating in uniform, that's just ridiculous.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 10:32 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:36 PM
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com