Did you find this offensive? - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

07/27/2006 10:50:10 PM · #56

Milk for my Cake!!! I'm American and totally into this. And a republican.. Weird is it not...

Delta_6

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/27/2006 10:51:29 PM · #57

I do not find this photo offensive at all, when I come in contact with mothers breastfeeding their babies I do prefer to turn away, so as to give them privacy.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/27/2006 11:00:21 PM · #58

Originally posted by Shecoya:

Originally posted by redsunphotography:
I don't think it's offensive, but I also don't think women should breast feed in public unless they cover themselves up. "Beautiful" or not.

But I also disagree with the whole, "it's part of life, it's natural, so it shouldn't be offensive" thing. Sex is natural, but you'd go to jail for having sex on the patio of a restaraunt.

-Hideo

There is absolutely nothing sexual about that cover. Its a tool for achieving nourishment. Nothing more than a source to nutrients. When a womans breasts are full of milk.. they are that way solely for the purpose of the child..

I get so worked up when I hear that women shouldnt breastfeed in public.. sure try to cover up a bit.. use discretion. Please just dont ask a woman to leave the comfort of family, friends or an event to feed her child. Would you enjoy your dinner in the washroom? In the bedroom where all the coats are at a party? Down a hallway or outside.. why segregate mother and child for doing exactly what you are likely doing.. eating.

stepping down off my soap box now.

My comment had nothing to do with breast feeding itself. I was commenting on how people say it is "natural" so it is okay. So if being natural makes something okay, everything that is natural should be okay.

But, I was formula fed. So I might be biased. Growing up in a very sexual society , and having never been around more traditional types, I am used to the "new" world where people feed formula or use a breast pump at home. So I was raised never seeing it, so when I DO see it, it grosses me out. Just because breasts are a utility in nature, doesn't mean I haven't spent my entire life having only seen them represented as a sexual thing. So naturally, it seems disturbing to see.

That's what people don't seem to realize. Many people feel that it is disturbing.

To me, I don't care if a woman is flashing her breasts around, whether for shock value, comfort or utilitarian means. I wouldn't have a problem if women were allowed to walk around topless. I personally wouldn't care, that'd just be one more step towards de-scandalizing sex. At first I am sure people would be shocked, but after a few years it would certainly become a minor thing, and people wouldn't so shocked by sex, or even moreso, people might be able to detach sexuality from breasts.

That's a whole other topic though :-)

My whole point is, I don't personally like seeing a woman breast feed. I think it would be nice if she could use a blanket or something to cover up. I'm very left wing with human rights, however, I would love to see a world leaning more towards that side of things. No matter how liberal I am, it still kind of grosses me out to see a woman breast feeding. I'd never vote against her having that right, though.

I think it is a common courtesy however, to cover yourself up. I've known lots of women who covered up, didn't harm anyone, and gave her some privacy!

Originally posted by laurielblack:

I can't believe this really is an issue for people. HOW many years have human females been nursing their offspring?

I don't like that line of thought, personally. Women used to get married at 11 and 12 years old to 30 year old men. Pregnant immediately. That was natural, and quite literally, still is. The body tells a girl she's ready to have babies when she starts to menstrate. I don't think anyone today thinks it's acceptable for a 12 year old to get pregnant and marry however. The past should never be a template for the future. Not that the world is going in a positive direction by any means, but we have certainly eliminated many horrible things!

-Hideo

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 23:03:12.

ralph

Nikon Z9

07/27/2006 11:00:46 PM · #59

not offensive
& very natural

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/27/2006 11:02:34 PM · #60

Originally posted by davyaldy:

I do not find this photo offensive at all, when I come in contact with mothers breastfeeding their babies I do prefer to turn away, so as to give them privacy.

take a photo and post it in DPC for us to see....LOL

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

07/27/2006 11:15:25 PM · #61

I don't find it offensive at all, but I also try not to make assumptions and judgements about people who do for whatever reason.

Most offensive and ridiculous comments in this thread are things like "ashamed to be an American" and "We can't do what we want [in America]" - I can think of several places to send you to get a better perspective on how good you have it. And if you think it's better in other countries, guess what? you are free to leave.

If I posted a thread about how I was in another country and I offended someone because of some silly cultural gesture, I don't think I would be hearing "makes me ashamed of the people in that country who were offended" or if a few of our Aussie friends expressed an unpopular opinion, should the other Aussie's be ashamed to be Australian? I just don't get the generalizations and hipocracy - I guess people think it's a popular thing to say.

Sorry for the rant. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

07/27/2006 11:15:25 PM · #62

Originally posted by redsunphotography:

Originally posted by laurielblack:

I can't believe this really is an issue for people. HOW many years have human females been nursing their offspring?

I don't like that line of thought, personally. Women used to get married at 11 and 12 years old to 30 year old men. Pregnant immediately. That was natural, and quite literally, still is. The body tells a girl she's ready to have babies when she starts to menstrate. I don't think anyone today thinks it's acceptable for a 12 year old to get pregnant and marry however. The past should never be a template for the future. Not that the world is going in a positive direction by any means, but we have certainly eliminated many horrible things!

-Hideo

Women STILL are married off at a very young age, but I think what was being referred to was that human females have lactated and breast fed for many years. There was a time when the average life expectancy was well under 30 years, so having kids at 12 or 13 years old was normal considering many died when by the time they were 20.

If you talk about the past, you can't forget the present (girls being married off and pregnant at 12 which I don't think is right) or the context of the past (short life expectancy).

Enough rambling. Shutting up now

07/27/2006 11:18:31 PM · #63

No you have a good point about life expectancy. Things were different in the past. But things were different in the past for breast feeding too. We have formula these days. And breast pumps.

-Hideo

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

07/27/2006 11:22:35 PM · #64

Originally posted by redsunphotography:

No you have a good point about life expectancy. Things were different in the past. But things were different in the past for breast feeding too. We have formula these days. And breast pumps.

-Hideo

You've completely lost me. Are you saying breast feeding in public should not be allowed because it advocates girls getting married off at 12 and 13 years of age? Sorry, I'm just confused

xianart

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

07/27/2006 11:22:42 PM · #65

formula is expensive, and does not nutritionally meet the full needs of a baby. breast pumps are just plain uncomfortable. belieive me, i tried. would a man like to pump his urine out with a manual or electric vaccuum? hmmm - just got a whole lot less inviting, eh?

eta: breast pumps are a stop gap, for emergencies, or times when the mother cannot be there. they cannot be used for every single feeding. my god, the pain involved would be stunning.

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 23:24:01.

fotomann_forever

07/27/2006 11:26:35 PM · #66

Originally posted by xianart:

would a man like to pump his urine out with a manual or electric vaccuum?

Hmmmmmm...

nevermind... that was wrong....

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 23:27:24.

07/27/2006 11:26:47 PM · #67

I agree, I can't imagine pumping milk out of your breast. I've seen a breast pump before and I thought it looked like some kind of sick and twisted bondage weapon. (Seriously)

I'm just saying for the sake of saying, breast milk is better, but I never once drank breast milk and I was fine. Just as a comparison to the past vs. the present.

-Hideo

07/27/2006 11:27:24 PM · #68

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by xianart:
would a man like to pump his urine out with a manual or electric vaccuum?

or the uprights with beaters?

Sounds like something from American Pie 4: Yet another stupid movie.

-Hideo

xianart

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

07/27/2006 11:30:01 PM · #69

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by xianart:
would a man like to pump his urine out with a manual or electric vaccuum?

Hmmmmmm...

nevermind... that was wrong....

whichever turns you on, honey...;-)

i was formula fed, and i'm fine, i have friends who formula fed their kids, but... i breastfed mine, and would encourage every mother to do the same, if at all possible. i'm on the breast feeding contact list in my area. i live in a pretty rural, quite conservative area. i have two words for husbands who are unhappy about their wife breastfeeding, that usually help change their minds: it's free.

xianart

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

07/27/2006 11:31:32 PM · #70

hey, fotomann - it was funny! sometimes wrong is funny... so, it's not wrong, then. right? uhhh...

Phil

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

07/27/2006 11:32:34 PM · #71

Originally posted by routerguy666:

psych101 means 10 parts bullshit to 1 part truth :D

If you were joking then I understand. You're comparing it to the "envious" comment which was said in jest so I am to assume that you were kidding, right?

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/27/2006 11:35:07 PM · #72

wow. I'm just stunned.

In Africa, many societies breast feed until the age of 5.

Breast feeding until the age of 2 or 3 seems natural and normal and is carried out widely, and many western magazines recommend until the age of one.

What the heck could be wrong with it?

Better yet, who the heck complains about seeing a baby nursing on the cover of a magazine called BABY TALK.

What more appropriate place could there be?

I see breasts displayed prominently on car and truck magazines and I'm not offended. Why would I be offended about seeing breasts on a magazine about babies.

And besides, what self-respecting 13 year old is checking out Baby Talk magazine anyhow? More T&A on "SuperFunkyUselessTrucksWithPrettyColorsAndToplessBabesWithHandsCoveringTheNiftyBits".

yeesh

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/27/2006 11:35:32 PM · #73

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
"odd to insinuate that there is something sexual about it"

If I remember my psych 101, it's part of the foundation of hetero male sexuality... At any rate, I didn't say watching the kid feed turned me on. I said I didn't notice the kid because I was turned on by the boob. See the 'envious comment(s) below'.

psych101 means 10 parts bullshit to 1 part truth :D

If you were joking then I understand. You're comparing it to the "envious" comment which was said in jest so I am to assume that you were kidding, right?

I'm sorry, I think he is over on the linked photo page masturbating. He will return momentarily. ;-)

07/27/2006 11:37:14 PM · #74

No to mention any 13 year old today is probably looking at porn on the internet and would have no interest in a nippleless photo on a magazine cover.

-Hideo

Phil