Boobs. boobs are for men. it BANNED‘ Apparently, E_ yr_ ' t want to get the wrong idea an at T. what breasts are far.. Hello, my name is Bob. Boobs
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (82)
[ 82 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#4 - mytwocents
Reply +42 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Hello, my name is Bob.
Hello, my name is Bob.
#7 to #4 - FatherPedobear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
******* Meatloaf.
User avatar #1 - captainfuckitall
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Well ya, regardless of the reason you're still exposing yourself in public and doing a very intimate act with your baby.

I mean, I really wouldn't care if it were me, but I can completely understand if others did, and would support the stores decision to kick her out.
#9 to #1 - youxbarstard
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
While I do get what you're saying, how is a woman feeding her child intimate?
User avatar #13 to #9 - captainfuckitall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Because it's a baby sucking on its mothers breast. How is that NOT intimate? "Intimate" is just any deep, personal moment with something or someone, not necessarily sexual
User avatar #18 to #13 - thefunnyside
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
You're joking right? That's what breasts are for, feeding the ******* baby! The only reason breasts are considered sexual is because we made them sexual. If a baby isn't fed, it'll start to cry and scream
User avatar #22 to #18 - kinginyellow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
It's still intimate, it is a close bonding exercise when the mother feeds her child and it learns trust. And breasts ARE secondary sex organs.
User avatar #23 to #22 - thefunnyside
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
So you'd rather have a baby kick and scream in public?
User avatar #24 to #23 - kinginyellow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Never said that, and I don't get uncomfortable if I see that, BUT the store has a right to tell her to leave and there are places she could have gone where no one would care. The fact that they denied her to use the dressing room, rude as it is, should have been the hint not to do it in the store.
User avatar #26 to #24 - thefunnyside
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Feeding a baby is different than other intimate acts, simply because it is necessary. You can wait to kiss or have sex, but a baby needs to be fed.
User avatar #28 to #26 - kinginyellow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
The baby also doesn't need to be fed instantly, she can take a couple seconds to walk out of the store, sit down, then feed the baby.
User avatar #34 to #28 - thefunnyside
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I'm not talking about the store (though it's stupid that a woman can't feed her baby in a store that sells sexy clothing), I'm talking in general
User avatar #35 to #34 - kinginyellow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Oh in general there shouldn't be a huge fuss, actually wish they'd make areas where it's ok for women to breastfeed so easily offended people can avoid if they're really fragile. In the same though, just because they sell sexy clothes shouldn't make them automatically about nudity (not just her, just in general). They actually stay pretty classy about it.
User avatar #38 to #35 - thefunnyside
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
My apologies, I fear we had a misunderstanding. I'll take my red thumb back.
User avatar #39 to #38 - kinginyellow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Ya I don't mind the public stuff, but we need to get designated areas for this like smokers having spots.
User avatar #90 to #18 - captainfuckitall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/31/2014) [-]
That's nice. You have no idea what 'intimate' means, do you?
#12 to #9 - stalini
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
It is.
I don't want to see people doing that **** in public.
I ain't gay
#15 to #1 - halfi
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Just so you know, she asked to use a dressing room, and they told her she could use the alley, and this was after purchasing various items there.   
I think its just an asshole move by the store.
Just so you know, she asked to use a dressing room, and they told her she could use the alley, and this was after purchasing various items there.
I think its just an asshole move by the store.
User avatar #89 to #15 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/31/2014) [-]
The dressing room is for dresses. She could have used the bathroom. More so, what's a mother and her baby doing in a lingerie store? I can only imagine how uncomfortable it must have made some others there feel.

Although, if what you say is true, then yes, the store is more in the wrong than the mother is.
User avatar #91 to #89 - halfi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/31/2014) [-]
If it is true yes, I should mention that my source might not be too credible, considering it was just some comment on Imgur, where the picture was taken from
User avatar #27 to #15 - kinginyellow
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Probably didn't want her taking up room when she could have gone outside. Kinda rude, but a lot of public places don't care really from past experience. The alley comment was just asshole material though.
#6 - europe
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
From what I know Victoria's Secret is a somewhat classy store, it's perfectly understandable that neither the personennel nor any of the costumers want to see that in a store like that
#30 to #6 - lazragoon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
She asked if she could do it in the change room, but they made her take the alleyway behind the store.
User avatar #19 - captainoptimist
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Women who claim that breasts are for feeding their children are correct. However, breasts are also sexual objects. They are both. Women can try to deny that when they are nursing, but the fact of the matter is that women have contributed to the sexualization of almost every part of their bodies in our society almost as much as men have.

I have no issue with a woman breastfeeding in public - I have done so with my own children. However, arguing that your breast isn't sexual because there happens to be a baby on your nipple is just stupid. You wouldn't be allowed to sit in a public place with your breast hanging out if there WASN'T a baby nursing, so - in the interest of being modest and allowing others to remain comfortable while you do what you need to do to feed your child, just cover up.

They make lightweight covers. They have great airflow and boning in the top that allows you to see your baby (for that all-important bonding experience) but still keeps your breasts off of display. Problem solved. And no, your baby doesn't care that you have a cover on, they're slightly preoccupied...you know...eating.
User avatar #20 to #19 - mutzaki
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Not gonna lie--the "I have done so with my own children" part threw me off.
User avatar #29 to #20 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I'm female. I have kids. I breastfed them in public, with a cover.

That help? ;)
#33 to #19 - anon id: 63bdb5c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
"And no, your baby doesn't care that you have a cover on"

Speaking for all women based on your own experience doesn't make for a good arguement.

Plenty actually care.
User avatar #37 to #33 - captainoptimist
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Ok. So the fact that your baby seems to care when you wear a cover means you should be able to make everyone around you uncomfortable? Or does it mean that you - because your baby seems to be fussier than most - have to make other arrangements to feed them if you choose to go into a public place when your baby is hungry?

Why does everyone around you have to "deal with" your life choices?

*Obviously using the universal "you" here.
#40 to #37 - anon id: 63bdb5c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Americans.

You know, many other countrys don't care as much about that as you do, right? You say it's "society" but it's really just your society. It can be changed to match the more open ones. Your fine with exploding heads, but you see a breast and the world ends.

Anyways, you say "why does everyone have to deal with your life choices"... You act like people purposefully go out in public to get their rocks off on having people see them breastfeed. Sometimes a woman have to breastfeed in public and don't have a blanket. They shouldn't be crucified for it.

That's the entire point of this. Not "go out in public and breastfeed to get your rocks off" but "Woman have to breastfeed in public sometimes and shouldn't be looked down on for it".

If you don't have a blanket or can't use one, it doesnt affect "society". Your society is twisted if seeing a baby on a breast ruins it. You act as if people should be perfect and be frowned upon when they're not.
User avatar #42 to #40 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
That's not at all what I'm saying. The fact of the matter is that having a baby is your choice. As it is your choice, it is your responsibility to make whatever accommodations you can - be it stepping into a more private area to calm your baby down if they are crying, pumping and bringing a bottle if you don't have a cover, or finding a private place to breastfeed (again, if you don't have a cover.)

It isn't everyone else's job to get over it if your actions are making those around you uncomfortable, or ruining their dinner, or whatever.

And yes, fine, perhaps it's only us "Americans" that take issue with exposed breasts in public. But, I reiterate, you wouldn't be able to whip out your breast in Victoria's Secret (no matter how ironic that may sound) if you weren't nursing a child. The baby does not cover up the exposed breast. In many cases, the baby doesn't even cover the entire nipple/areola. So, yes, in American society, that can be perceived as indecent.

Therefore, women who have made the choice to have a baby, who have decided to breastfeed said baby, should take it upon themselves to make whatever preparations they need to in order to maintain decency in public settings.

If a business chooses to allow a woman to breastfeed, uncovered, fine. Great. That's up to the business. However, they should also be allowed to choose not to allow it, if they feel it will make their customers uncomfortable.

It's not about "going out in public and breastfeeding to get your rocks off" - and I'm honestly not sure how you read that into my posts. It's about being considerate of those around you and not, essentially, forcing others to look at your breasts simply because you need to feed your baby.
User avatar #43 to #42 - catburglarpenis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Yes, it IS our job to get over it if someone else's actions are making other people uncomfortable. That's why you can say whatever you want at a person at whatever volume, and if they punch you in the mouth, they go to jail.

I fought for 4 years to protect your freedom of speech, so get it right, *****.
User avatar #47 to #43 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Thank you for your service. I fail to see how this is in any way covered by the first amendment, but at least I have the freedom to state my opinion in a public forum. And, I'm sure I'll get thumbed down for this, but when has our first amendment been threatened by another country? I'm assuming you were stationed in the Middle East...when, specifically, have they threatened our first amendment rights?

I fail to recall any time in recent history that another nation has tried to conquer the United States.

Again, thank you for your service, I have nothing but respect for those who have served in the armed forces.

I just fail to see how your service to "protect my first amendment rights" is in any way relevant to whether or not a woman exposing her breast in public to feed a baby is, or is not, indecent.
User avatar #55 to #47 - koolmanchris
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
JUST SHUT UP and enjoy the funny =) thank you have a great day or don't I could give a rats ass if you do
User avatar #51 to #47 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
We've been in a hot war with China over cybersecurity for nearly a decade now, and many nations in the U.N. were gonna vote for all-out censorship of their internet assets, something that America would either be forced to agree to or lose all our allies. Also, 9/11 IS a form of censorship- they don't like what we're saying, what we stand for- so they fly a big passenger plane full of STFU into our buildings. If we would've seceded to their demands, that censorship would have succeeded.

Declaring public breastfeeding "indecent" simply because it may or may not give you a boner is ALSO a form of censorship. There are plenty of European countries AND EVEN SOME STATES here in America where it's not illegal for a woman to be shirtless in public. A line must be drawn where and where not someone is in fact indecent- my flabby form may not arouse or interest your daughter but maybe after I get done with a round of Insanity my six-pack abs will make slide right out of her seat. Why is it only women, who HAVE a use for their breasts, and not men? The argument loses itself before it is even spoken, and the logic be hid it is emotionally driven and broken.
User avatar #52 to #51 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I would say there's a definite argument against whether or not exposing yourself in public is freedom of speech.

I also feel we've gone off on a tangent here. The main points are whether or not a woman exposing herself in public to feed her baby is something that 1.) Others should be forced to tolerate, despite the fact that she could make other arrangements and 2.) Should be up to individual businesses to decide if they want to accommodate or not.

In my opinion 1.) No. It was your choice to have a baby, and therefore it's your responsibility to make whatever arrangements you need to feed them in public without exposing your breasts to everyone else. 2.) I believe it should be up to the business owner to make that decision.

Again, if we decide, as a nation, to go through the proper channels and protect a woman's "right" to breastfeed in any public place, uncovered, then I will support that. I will still cover up when I do it, but that will then be my choice to remain modest.
User avatar #57 to #52 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
We can agree on number 2, but I still have to disagree on number one. A person still has the right to insult and threaten you using whatever language and whatever volume they like, even to the point of making obscene gestures and getting in your personal space, and as long as they don't physically touch you their right to piss you off is protected- but God forbid if a woman doesn't have a blanket around when her kid needs fed- THAT should be punished and forbidden. You're either for the 1st Amendment or against it- pick a side. It's kind of like saying that a woman who is a burn victim should make herself not as physically repulsive when stepping into public, because that might bother other people. After all, she could've just... not been in a fire, right? It was her choice... right?(I'm making a point on the possibility of rape here)
User avatar #59 to #57 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Well, if we're going to get into the rape argument, I would argue that she still had options about the pregnancy, and obviously made a choice. And this will turn into a much more unpopular argument. Let's avoid that.

I'm for freedom of speech. I've chosen a side. I don't believe the situation we're discussing is a form of expression. I think it's a decision made based on convenience.
User avatar #62 to #59 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Alright, time to copy and paste from another argument I'm having... there:

"Just because something is practical, rather than artistic, leaves it no merit in the realm of the coverage implied in the 1st Amendment? That statement is grossly misled. Simply because breastfeeding is banned in some places MAKES the process of breastfeeding a political statement. Plus, what about those who take pictures specifically of breastfeeding women to put in advertisements or on commercials? You're saying that the statement they make while the camera is on is invalidated entirely while the camera is off? It's a statement on nutrition, health, policy, society, and all manner of other fronts- but all you focus on is intent. Did you ever even take an Art class? Is 4:33 only a song because that was it's original meaning? Can Art and political statements only be purposeful, not accidental? Where did you even come up with such a concept as this?"
User avatar #64 to #62 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I think intent is crucial in this argument, actually. Without intent, literally everything we do would be covered.
User avatar #65 to #64 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
And everything that we do IS covered, so long as it's not in direct violation of the rest of the Constitution- thus the importance of said document.
User avatar #67 to #65 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
It's not though. You still can't have sex in public, urinate in public, vandalize buildings, etc. - even though those could be argued to be forms of expression.
User avatar #68 to #67 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #69 to #68 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Again. Intent. INTENT. Doing it for artistic purposes: covered. Doing it just for the hell of it: not covered.
User avatar #73 to #69 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Unless doing it for the hell of it is part of the art. Often art is only defended after the fact- meaning that the art creator did not INTEND for his/her actions to BECOME art- it was simply "declared art" afterwards. Just as an artist may throw away a painting that he/she may consider garbage, only for this SAME piece of art to end up in the MoMA. This makes intent subjective- I think all breastfeeding is art- therefor you no longer have a say in the matter under your own logic.
User avatar #80 to #73 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
It's the intent of the person doing the act, not the intent of the person viewing it. If I go bang my husband in the park, because I'm horny, and we get arrested - my intent was to get laid, not to make a political or artistic statement. Whether the policeman, or the people who saw us doing it, feel it was artistic has no merit on whether or not I'm going to jail for public indecency.
User avatar #86 to #80 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Too many purple lines, can't reply specifically...

If your argument was true than no one could defend public movements as artistic after the fact, which is just patently untrue. There are plenty of people that have done ridiculous things both in and outside the law who defended it after the fact calling it art. Did these people change their minds? Did they just do something impulsively THEN declare it art? Nobody knows. This alone blows your whole intent argument out the window. In your world, the only way this would work would be if people performing art would set up giant signs and blaring sound systems warning everyone that they are about to perform art, are performing art, and the art being performed is now over. Also, all "artsy" things should be certified by the national certifying founder of all arts and be labeled as such, or else be taken down. Saying something is or isn't art based on the initial intent is a historically and politically unfounded argument.
User avatar #82 to #80 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Oh, so all of the artistic expression that has ever been unintended has no merit? Wowee, I guess you can't enjoy a sunset any more, because it wasn't made specifically for you. Don't ever go to a museum either, because who knows whether or not the artist intended his/her work to end up in a museum or in the trash.

The fact of the matter is that it's NEVER been the intent of the artist that defined his/her art, but ALWAYS how other people perceived it- which still leaves that divide- I think breastfeeding is art, you don't. That automatically means I win, because you're on the side of censorship, which I'm protected from by The Constitution. If you doubt me, then make anything- anything at all, declare it art, and put it in a museum. If they take it out to the trash and throw it away, then you've just proven yourself wrong. You intended it to be art, but they thought it was garbage. They won. Boil your shoe and serve it for dinner to your next dinner guest, but really INTEND IT to be the best meal anyone could ever make- see how that goes. INTEND that the Holocaust was a lie. We could play this game all day.
#84 to #82 - Sunset
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #85 to #82 - captainoptimist
0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
The amount of sense you're making at this point is...basically...zero.

If I **** on a canvas and call it art, and post it outside my window for all to see, my INTENT was for it to be art. Therefore it is legally protected, assuming I own the building. If I don't own the building, the person who does can decide to tell me to take it down.

If I put that canvas in a gallery, and they choose to throw it in the garbage - well, one they are destroying my property, so that's another issue - it is because they have chosen not to display my art. They, the private business owner. The government can't tell them to shut down the gallery for displaying my canvas, nor can they tell the gallery not to display my canvas.

Again, whether or not I perceive something to be art has no bearing on whether the artist intended it to be. If someone goes to a park, drunk off their ass, and exposes themselves to a group of schoolkids - they weren't intending it as an artistic expression, and they'll be arrested. It doesn't matter whether or not I, as an observer, felt it was the most beautiful goddamned thing I'd ever seen. It is the intent of the person committing the act that matters.

Your sunset argument, that you've posed twice now, is completely irrelevant.
#45 to #42 - anon id: 63bdb5c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Well that's a major difference between our societies. Mine doesn't think women should have to make extensive plans just to feed a baby. It's a baby, it needs food, you feed it. We don't see feeding a baby the same as going somewhere else if it's being loud.

And see, this is the thing that's wrong with that - you put seeing a breast higher up than feeding the baby. It's not "simply because you need to feed the baby," the baby needs food. For some reason, you see breasts as more important than that. You say find a private place, but in the end that's what the woman in the story did. She asked to go in a changing room to feed the baby. And she was denied. Because feeding the baby is apparently lower on the list than there's a breast there.

If your society has made it so taboo that businesses won't even let you use a private place, then there is something wrong with your society.
User avatar #50 to #45 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Perhaps there is something wrong with our society. That's somewhat beside the point here. There are other options a woman has, if she makes arrangements before going out, to make sure her baby can be fed if it needs to be, that don't involve exposing herself in public. Maybe that's inconvenient for her, but that's part of the choice you make when you decide to have kids. Many, many things become incredibly inconvenient in the course of raising a child, or dealing with children in public. But that's the choice we made as parents, to deal with that.
#53 to #50 - anon id: 63bdb5c9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Not sure how that's beside the point.

You say women can breastfeed in public, but with a blanket. You assume that all women can use a blanket. And when they can't use one, you say to go to a private place. And when businesses don't let them use private places, you say it's their fault and they should have planned ahead even more.

That's twisted logic. It's not consistant. Whenever something you suggest fails you automatically blame the woman.
User avatar #58 to #53 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Look. I'm a woman. I have kids. I've breastfed them in public, covered up (with a cover, not a blanket...). If my children had been overly fussy under the cover, I would have pumped and brought a bottle with me.

So...yes...failure to adequately prepare for an outing with your child is...ultimately...the fault of the woman who failed to prepare. Until there are laws protecting it, you cannot assume that a business will be ok with you breastfeeding, uncovered. It's your job to make sure that you can care for your baby. If the business is accommodating to your needs, awesome. If not, it's your responsibility to find a way around it.

Were they assholes for not letting her use a changing room...in my opinion, yes. But that's their choice.
User avatar #31 to #19 - secretdestroyers
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
It's the biological act of breastfeeding which makes it necessary.....but psychological/societal norms are what made breasts into sexual objects
User avatar #48 to #31 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Actually there is also a biological basis on why people love breasts sexuality. Not everything is a social construct you know.
User avatar #41 to #31 - kinginyellow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
They are secondary sexual characteristics though. They are a sexual part of a person.
User avatar #32 to #31 - captainoptimist
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Right. And no matter how much women may want to deny that, it's a fact that we - as a society - have sexualized breasts. Therefore, cover up.
User avatar #36 to #32 - secretdestroyers
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Or at least if you're going to (assuming you're in a mall) go into one of those booths that simulates the intense winds of a hurricane (idk if you have these in your malls).

It's not going to be private, but it's gonna make breastfeeding a lot more interesting/fun to watch.
User avatar #44 to #32 - catburglarpenis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I'm attracted to midriffs. Should women cover those up too just so I don't get aroused while eating my Subway sandwich? With that mindset, eventually we'll have women in burkas like in The Middle East.
User avatar #49 to #44 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I appreciate the point you're trying to make here, but breasts and midriffs are not the same thing. Breasts are overtly sexualized in our society, and exposing your breasts in public for any reason other than breastfeeding is against the law. Now, if we wanted to change the law, through the proper channels, I would take no issue with it. But the law is there, not to keep men from getting aroused in public, but because we as a society decided that exposed breasts and genitalia in public were indecent.
User avatar #54 to #49 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
So change society. Very simple- there are an assload of states and other English-speaking countries that allow women to run around shirtless just the same as men. We hypersexualize the human male torso in highly developed men and use male genitalia as a shock-joke in our media (Brickleberry, Your Majesty, Meet The Millers, Bruno, Jackass, etc.)

Seeing a man-dick in public or in a form of media is more likely to make you laugh than make you horny, so it's undersexualized, but illegal. Seeing an in-shape man shirtless is a hypersexualized image but perfectly legal in our society. ****, even seeing someone's muff in a movie is often made into a shock joke, and seeing someone's ass is such a forgivable shock joke that it's allowed in kid's films and media. But once female breasts enter the equation, all bets are off?

And where do we draw the line? National Geographic gets away with showing the nude indigenous people constantly in public, but one white lady takes off her shirt and blammo- jail time? Literally, you can take a well-to-do black lady, put her in traditional garb fully nude, then take a picture of her amongst a tribe, and be able to show it on TV. If we took a tribe member, put her in modern clothes, and had her take off her shirt because it got too hot- jail time.

Your argument doesn't make any sense- you're either for freedom of speech and expression (which is by definition 90% nonverbal or more) or you're against it. Pick a side.
User avatar #56 to #54 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
We clearly don't agree on this. Which is fine. To be clear, I have a masters in Journalism and Mass Communications, I am 100% for freedom of speech.

However, I don't believe that exposing your breast to feed your baby is a form of expression. You're not doing it for it's artistic value, or (generally) to make a political statement. Therefore, I don't believe it is covered under the first amendment.

I completely agree with the points you've made about portrayal of the human body in the media. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a billboard or other outdoor advertisement containing a penis or exposed breasts.
User avatar #61 to #56 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Unfortunately, many people disagree with you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding_in_public

To be clear- I have an Associate's in Speech Communication, over 10 years experience in both Public and International Relations, countless certifications, medals, awards and honors, have been featured in international media in video, audio AND print, Several United States Military Apprenticeship Programs completed, and have 5 years of military service total. Please do not whip out your E-penis in internet arguments, or we'll be stuck measuring ALL DAY.

Also, vimeo.com/73446465

Just because we don't outright show it, doesn't mean it's not implicitly implied. Or that we don't outright show it- for that matter. Also, just because something is practical, rather than artistic, leaves it no merit in the realm of the coverage implied in the 1st Amendment? That statement is grossly misled. Simply because breastfeeding is banned in some places MAKES the process of breastfeeding a political statement. Plus, what about those who take pictures specifically of breastfeeding women to put in advertisements or on commercials? You're saying that the statement they make while the camera is on is invalidated entirely while the camera is off? It's a statement on nutrition, health, policy, society, and all manner of other fronts- but all you focus on is intent. Did you ever even take an Art class? Is 4:33 only a song because that was it's original meaning? Can Art and political statements only be purposeful, not accidental? Where did you even come up with such a concept as this?
User avatar #66 to #61 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I wasn't whipping out my e-penis (e-vagina?). I was clarifying WHY, specifically, I am for the first amendment. It affects every facet of my job, every day.

And I believe intent to be crucial in that argument. As stated somewhere else in this ********* of a thread I created.
User avatar #70 to #66 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
If you believe that intent is crucial to art, then you also must believe that art and expression cannot be done accidentally. This invalidates half or more of all things that you consider art today, and everyone that makes art saying that they're not actually doing anything of note. If you invalidate art based in intent, then you literally will not be able to enjoy a sunset ever again, because the sunset was not made specifically for you.
User avatar #72 to #70 - captainoptimist
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
We've gone so far off topic...

Intent is crucial for artistic expression to be covered as a first amendment right. The end.
User avatar #74 to #72 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
User avatar #77 to #74 - captainoptimist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Did you even read it?
User avatar #79 to #77 - catburglarpenis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Yes- the result of the article was a question, not a conclusion. Would you like more?

Here's one: I could use Google all day. I have that ability.

www.law.ucla.edu/workshops-colloquia/Documents/Kendrick.SpeechIntentandtheChillingEffect.Draft030712.pdf
User avatar #2 - randomwanker
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
If you are gonna breastfeed in public don't call the cops on me for staring at your breasts
#11 - kustomforce
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Except that since humans evolved from apes and started to stand upright breasts have become a secondary sexual characteristic.
Except that since humans evolved from apes and started to stand upright breasts have become a secondary sexual characteristic.
User avatar #17 to #11 - clonedcommando
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Breasts are only sexual because we MAKE them sexual, in many cultures breasts are... well breasts, they have little to no sexual implication. And the fact that humans have evolved to stand upright does not change the fact that their primary function is to feed the young. Now with that out of the way, I do believe the store was within its rights to deny the woman, and on a second note I don't care how fake that bitch is I want to bury my head in her cleavage and do my best impersonation of an outboard motor.
User avatar #21 to #17 - kinginyellow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Well breasts are considered secondary sex organs.
#92 to #17 - anon id: b60e9981
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/09/2015) [-]
ooga boogas got ******** breats, that why they don't sexize them, real people's breats are much better, that why they sex.
User avatar #25 to #17 - kinginyellow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
*characteristic, sorry.
#46 - herbolifee
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Jesus god damn christ. You know ****** ****** up if people of the "modern world" start bitching about things that are in the primitive back-to-the-roots nature of us humans. Yeah, I know breasts are sexual objects, but that's the point:

SEX IS NORMAL AND THE CORE OF OUR EXISTANCE. I honestly think this subtlety and censoring of sex has gone WAAAY too far, and is ******* retarded.
User avatar #3 - hellomynameisbill
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
texas
User avatar #14 - jibb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
I was skiing at a ski resort late at night, and in the cafeteria, there was only 1 other woman. She started breastfeeding her son, it's truly disgusting
User avatar #16 to #14 - kirkbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
no, it's just indecent
#8 - anon id: f2914520
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
The girl holding the baby looks like a witch (look at nose)
#10 to #8 - stegosaurusrah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/30/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 82 comments ]
Leave a comment