Magazine cover blasted by public squeamish over sight of nursing breast

El_Kabong

onelongsong wrote:

i don't mean to pick on you book; but i'm trying to make a point. do you or have you had kids? would it be right to expose children to public nudity? if you support public nudity; is there an age restriction or could 15 to 18 yr old kids be allowed to roam nude?
a coach in mesa az (i believe) was arrested for child porn because he took suggestive photos of cheerleaders which were dressed in their uniforms. the poses were suggestive.
doesn't this all roll together?

there was an exchange student at my high school from finland or some country close to it...in his high school year book there were pics of girls at school topless...taking a pic of a girl sitting w/ friends on a bench is not the same thing as 'suggestive' poses.

of course there will be pervs, but now you can at least know who they are

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

personally; i think nudity is the best policy and rarely wear clothes more than an hour or two a day. but i don't subject my nudity to others and that's what we're discussing.

...
Huhhh-huh... Uhhh, Huhh-huh... you said, "Nudity".
...
And what is being discussed is not public nudity, rather a photographic image on the cover of a magazine about Motherhood.
Now, if the magazine was 'Bowel Movement Illustrated', then a picture of someone taking a crap on the cover would be appropriate. And I tell you... personally, I wouldsteer clear of that magazine, myself.
So, if you're NOT a breast feeding mother... what the hell are you doing looking at Motherhood magazines anyway? You seek that shit out and get offended?
...
And regarding religious symbols on Public (Government/State) property is not a problem if all forms of religion are expressed... that would include Santaria. No one has a problem with plastic Nativity Scenes on Church Property or in private front yards for public display... This includes shopping Malls that are actually privately owned public access properties for commercial use. They want to put that shit up, no problem. It's the idea of the State representing one religion for all of it's people.
If the church wants to be included in Public affairs, then they should lose their tax exempt status and operate like any other business.

Abookamongstthemany

onelongsong wrote:

i don't mean to pick on you book; but i'm trying to make a point. do you or have you had kids? would it be right to expose children to public nudity? if you support public nudity; is there an age restriction or could 15 to 18 yr old kids be allowed to roam nude?
a coach in mesa az (i believe) was arrested for child porn because he took suggestive photos of cheerleaders which were dressed in their uniforms. the poses were suggestive.
doesn't this all roll together?

I think children's bodies are the same as anyone elses. If you are posing them provocatively, then yes, I see a problem. A child just being nude doesn't bother me...people are over reactive or just plain sicko to think of a child in this manner.

Abookamongstthemany

Cosmo wrote:

...
Huhhh-huh... Uhhh, Huhh-huh... you said, "Nudity".
....

Yeah yeah, Butthead....we're gonna score!

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
Huhhh-huh... Uhhh, Huhh-huh... you said, "Nudity".
...
And what is being discussed is not public nudity, rather a photographic image on the cover of a magazine about Motherhood.
Now, if the magazine was 'Bowel Movement Illustrated', then a picture of someone taking a crap on the cover would be appropriate. And I tell you... personally, I wouldsteer clear of that magazine, myself.
So, if you're NOT a breast feeding mother... what the hell are you doing looking at Motherhood magazines anyway? You seek that shit out and get offended?
...
And regarding religious symbols on Public (Government/State) property is not a problem if all forms of religion are expressed... that would include Santaria. No one has a problem with plastic Nativity Scenes on Church Property or in private front yards for public display... This includes shopping Malls that are actually privately owned public access properties for commercial use. They want to put that shit up, no problem. It's the idea of the State representing one religion for all of it's people.
If the church wants to be included in Public affairs, then they should lose their tax exempt status and operate like any other business.

i'm not aware of the magazine but i assume that it was displayed publicly and thus the uproar. why must playboy and hustler be covered with thick paper and enclosed in plastic? what seperates a breast on one magazine from a breast on another. i'm not questioning IF a breast should be displayed; i'm questioning a law that doesn't apply equally to all.

onelongsong

MrBrian wrote:

Islam does'nt believe nudity is "wrong", promiscuity is however not considered a good thing.

But someone being nude is not the same as someone promiscuous, in the same way that these mothers think breast feeding is a sexual thing when infact it is not.

as far as muslim women covering their heads, well that's a modesty issue and they feel secure keeping themselves covered, perhaps they keep themselves safe from the same types of people who think a woman breast feeding is a sexual thing and stare.

older christianity? tempting angels? I'm not sure where you got that from.
If anything an angel who is tempted is not an angel correct? nevertheless I don't want to go into a religious debate right now.

let me know when you do. i studied to be a jesuit priest and would welcome the debate.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

i'm not aware of the magazine but i assume that it was displayed publicly and thus the uproar. why must playboy and hustler be covered with thick paper and enclosed in plastic? what seperates a breast on one magazine from a breast on another. i'm not questioning IF a breast should be displayed; i'm questioning a law that doesn't apply equally to all.

...
Apparently, 'Babytalk' is a small publication and is sent to the homes of subscribers... not on public display at the local 7-11. I'm guessing that if you subscribe to a magazine about motherhood, then there's a good possibility that breast feeding will be involved... just as if you subscribe to 'Pinching Off A Loaf Weekly', you'd expect to see a picture of someone taking a crap.

onelongsong

El_Kabong wrote:

there was an exchange student at my high school from finland or some country close to it...in his high school year book there were pics of girls at school topless...taking a pic of a girl sitting w/ friends on a bench is not the same thing as 'suggestive' poses.

of course there will be pervs, but now you can at least know who they are

hi el. it's been a while. you gave me the answer i was looking for. now; how much attention did that yearbook get. alot i bet. but where's the responsability to protect the children from the pervs? let's say a neighbor saw that yearbook and got fixated on one of the girls. this is why child porn is illegal.

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
Apparently, 'Babytalk' is a small publication and is sent to the homes of subscribers... not on public display at the local 7-11. I'm guessing that if you subscribe to a magazine about motherhood, then there's a good possibility that breast feeding will be involved... just as if you subscribe to 'Pinching Off A Loaf Weekly', you'd expect to see a picture of someone taking a crap.

if it's a subscribed magazine; then what's the problem? who's up in arms? the subscribers? if the subscribers are offended then they should cancell their subscription. if no one else saw it; why are we discussing it?

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

if it's a subscribed magazine; then what's the problem? who's up in arms? the subscribers? if the subscribers are offended then they should cancell their subscription. if no one else saw it; why are we discussing it?

...
That's what I'm wondering about. The subscribers are having a fit about it... all they have to do is cancel their subscription. It's not like it was out in the open... the only one who might have seen it without being a subcriber... other than the publishers and printers... would be the mail man. and I am pretty sure none of them were offended. Hell, those guys deliver 'Victoria's Secret' catalogs.

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's what I'm wondering about. The subscribers are having a fit about it... all they have to do is cancel their subscription. It's not like it was out in the open... the only one who might have seen it without being a subcriber... other than the publishers and printers... would be the mail man. and I am pretty sure none of them were offended. Hell, those guys deliver 'Victoria's Secret' catalogs.

the thread was titled magazine cover blasted by public.... i misunderstood. sorry.

Peatrical

I am pretty sure breast feeding is a natural function and has nothing to do with pornography or sex. Animals do it all the time, we as humans daily indrectly feed off of cow milk which is pretty much like sucking an utter. What a bunch of useless controversy.

Abookamongstthemany

Peatrical wrote:

I am pretty sure breast feeding is a natural function and has nothing to do with pornography or sex. Animals do it all the time, we as humans daily indrectly feed off of cow milk which is pretty much like sucking an utter. What a bunch of useless controversy.

I know!!! How dare you show you and your child doing something perfectly healthy and natural!! I just don't see someone getting off or taking this pic the wrong way. Who can it hurt?

onelongsong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I know!!! How dare you show you and your child doing something perfectly healthy and natural!! I just don't see someone getting off or taking this pic the wrong way. Who can it hurt?

but that's when breasts look their best.

NMyTree

Cosmo wrote:

... I'm guessing that if you subscribe to a magazine about motherhood, then there's a good possibility that breast feeding will be involved... just as if you subscribe to 'Pinching Off A Loaf Weekly', you'd expect to see a picture of someone taking a crap.

LMAO:D:D

I just passed my lemonade through my nose, from laughing so hard...lol.

That's some funny shit (no pun intended).

kenny olav

onelongsong wrote:

religion is relevant because some religions feel that nudity is wrong. as far as athiests; this shows why they're full of shit. if a swastika offends you on government property it will also offend you on any other property. this notion that a symbol only offends when presented on certain property is BS. it either offends or it doesn't.
we've established that this is the anti-Christ board so i know you disagree; but why are your rights better than anyone elses?

that wasn't my point. it should perfectly legal to offend people. my point is about seperation of church and state.

NMyTree

In all seriousness, I think there's a reasonable middle-ground, here.

While I'm completely in support of a woman (or man ) having the personal option and choice to go topless in public, or any where they choose.

I will say that there are some concerns on my part, regarding total nudity....all the time......anywhere.

I think we can agree that there are certain situations and places, that maybe total nudity would not be a pleasant or good thing.

For instance, if I'm sitting in a restaurant (be it fancy-smancy or Cracker Barrel and Bob Evans), I would certainly be against total nudity.

I don't want to be sitting there eating my dinner and have a party of six people come parading through with their bare-naked asses at my head level; as they make their way to their tables.

You see, there are specific biological (bodily) functions of the ass, which may present an unpleasant .......shall I say...ambiance, to the otherwise pleasant evening. Not only from the possibility of passing gas, but also the varying degrees of each individual's personal hygiene habits.

More importantly, there are also biological/hygenic concerns with hundreds of bare-ass naked people sharing the same seats.

As a 5' 8" male, I prefer to avoid standing in line (to gain access to the movie theater), with a 6' 4" - 6' 6" male in front of me and his ass cheeks at my chin level. Call me crazy, but that hardly seems like a pleasant experience for me.

I think we can all agree that a little tact and common courtesy is required, and not an all out full and complete nude-fest.

At the same time, Americans could lighten up and stop viewing, teaching and acting as if the human body is some horrible sin or naughty, shameful entity.

No need to go to one extreme or the other. Know what I mean?

onelongsong

Peatrical wrote:

I am pretty sure breast feeding is a natural function and has nothing to do with pornography or sex. Animals do it all the time, we as humans daily indrectly feed off of cow milk which is pretty much like sucking an utter. What a bunch of useless controversy.

i'm pretty sure sex is a natural function and quite a beautiful thing. animals do it all the time in public. do you see where your point is going?
equal rights means equality. if a woman can publicly show her reproductive organs than men should be able to display theirs too.
as a young boy; anything remotely looking like a breast was exciting. i've learned that baby-talk is common in doctors offices and there's usually several copies. thus; it is exposed to young boys. so i can understand the controversy.
would the supporters here agree that it would be ok for a magazine to show a male organ? if not; why not? the door always swings both ways. it can't always be your way.

Pearl Jam and toast

Honestly, i think all this controversy over sexual images and other things like it is just the response from an over-reactive and overly-sensitive culture that at the moment is really sensative to offending people (thank you, lawers :mad: ).

And also the Christian evangelical movement (which is a response to the hippie culture in the 60's, advancing drug culture in the 70's, and relatively liberal and open culture in the 90s) is multiplying that sensativity to sexual images, which they've chosed to be the main issue they focus on (I would've chosen poverty, personally).

It's a passing thing.

decides2dream

i don't really see it as a 'passing thing' at all. there's no real backlash, b/c we have been slowly progressing more and more to more acceptance in general. we've gone from absolute extremes of repression and hiding from sexuality...and over time...getting more open. we're not quite there yet by any stretch, but there's always bound to be growing pains, thus some back and forth in comfort/acceptance. in time, i hope we continue the evolution, right now i think the pendulum is stuck in swinging to etremes, and we need to find our balance.

btw - i am almost positive that the law passed in NYC quite a few years ago, perhaps all of NY?, as well for women to walk around topless if they so desire.

who ever referred to breasts as 'reproductive organs'...not quite. while yes, they obviously aide in nourishing a child borne out of reproduction, they are completely unnecessary to actually reproduce...so then, not quite on the same page as genetalia. besides the fact, with the bab'y mouth over the nipple, how 'offensive' a picture is it? sheesh. it's just nice round, soft flesh...oh my. :rolleyes: