🚀 go-pugleaf

jam81@columbia.edu (Jake Minas) wrote:
>In article <53m9sr$pft@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, Debbie O'Leary
><doleary@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>> jam81@columbia.edu (Jake Minas) wrote:
>> >In article <53ksmd$1ff@news2.cais.com>, b@bb.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> My God!  anyone with these ideas would be an outcast in European
>> >> countries.... they'd view you as a pedophile or a pervert if you
>> >> proposed regulating breastfeeding. They would (properly) assume that
>> >> you have some guilt or pre-concieved misconceptions about sex that
>> >> would make you a danger to society.
>> >
>> >So I take it if I were opposed to public defecation, these enlightened
>> >Europeans would think I'm a coprophile (someone with a sexual fetish for
>> >feces).  I imagine the vast majority of Americans oppose public
>> >defecation.  Do we all just get really horny around shit, then?
>> >
>> 
>> You teach law or you are studying to be a lawyer? Either way, I'm 
>> surprised with the logical leap you just took here. 
>> Debbie
>
>Its easy to make snotty comments, but if this is such a "logical leap,"
>surely you can point to the hole in my analogy. 

I really thought you would be able to figure it out after you reread the 
posts. Sorry, I'll be more specific. 

Poster 1 favors that
>public breastfeeding be prohibited, curtailed, or regulated.  Poster 2
>claims that anyone who proposes that must have some sort of fetish for
>breastfeeding, children, or something.  The principal poster 2 seems to be
>articulating is that if you propose the public display of some act, you
>must find that act to be sexually arousing. 

Historically breasts have had a dual purpose, unlike feces. They have 
been used for feeding babies and they are also an erogenous zone -- like 
the neck. Feces doesn't historically have a sexual purpose (at least not 
for mainstream society).

 Therefore, I say, it should
>follow that if the vast majority of Americans favor the banning of public
>defecation, said vast majority should be coprophiles.

There are many acts that are banned in our country, to now include 
smoking in some restaurants. It doesn't automatically follow that because 
some people find smoking foul, they must be sexually aroused by it.

  Unless you think
>that people only oppose defecation as a sewage issue (think: would it be
>okay with the Joe Sixpack if I were to walk down the street and shit in a
>jar?), the analogy fits.

Just gross -- smell, sight. No smell to breastfeeding, but if you find 
the sight of breastfeeding gross, then we may need to ask Dr. Freud about 
that one. ;)
>
>Poster 2's claim strikes me as patently silly.  The only reason that I
>responded to it was the visciousness of the ad hominem, essentially a
>claim that poster 1 is some sort of sex criminal.  Such accusations are
>serious and should not be made lightly.  It was highly uncalled for.

You might think so, but I think it needs to be discussed and the 
possibilities explored why women and children are being forced to conform 
to some societal standard that doesn't fit in with our biology.

Debbie