🚀 go-pugleaf

jam81@columbia.edu (Jake Minas) wrote:
>In article <53tm42$p1l@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, Debbie O'Leary

>> >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. 
>
>Oh, great.  Please enlighten me.  I am obviously awed by your analytical skills.

Yeah, I guess it *is* easy to make snotty comments, isn't it?

> 
>> 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).
>
>That depends on how you phrase the question.  Actually the analogy is
>misplaced.  You mix the product of the act in one case (feces) with the
>organ that delivers the product of the second place (mammaries).

I'm talking about the *act* of suckling breasts which is a sexual 
activity for adults. 

  People's
>backsides are just as much erogenous zones as women's mammaries are.  If
>one includes the entire "butt" as well as the muscle ring through which
>the feces passes.  Unless you want to argue that Sir Mix-A-Lot's hit
>"Baby's Got Back" is about something else than sex. 

So, what are you arguing? That people don't really get turned on by 
watching a woman breastfeed or that people do get turned on watching 
someone take a dump in a jar? 
>
>And I'll alter the hypothetical to fit whatever new objections you throw
>in my way in a more obvious way.  If society favors bans on public
>urination, even bans on public urination which does not raise public
>health concerns (e.g. public urinating in a jar), is society rife with a
>sexual fetish for urine?  Since genitals are "dual purpose," have been
>used for evacuating liquid waste and as sex organs.

The fact is, women's breasts have a primary purpose of feeding a baby. 
The sexual function is secondary. Since breast milk is at the top of our 
hierarchy of needs as infants (eating feces is not), the needs of the 
infants should come first.
>
>>  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.
>
>Uhh...that's the point that I was making.  Thanks for agreeing with me,
>especially after acting like such a brat.  

I know you are but what am I? What's your problem? Do you hate it that 
much when people disagree with you? Does it make you feel small and 
insignificant? You are too easy!

  That just because someone
>favors banning an act, someone does not necessarily find that act sexually
>arousing.

Some people find women's breasts sexually exciting. Go figure!

> 
No smell to breastfeeding, but if you find 
>> the sight of breastfeeding gross, then we may need to ask Dr. Freud about 
>> that one. ;)
>
>Again why?  I surely find it a little gross.  Not as gross as defecation
>but a little yucky.  But definitely as something that I think should not,
>if it can be avoided, done in public.  Not that I'd necessarily ban it. 
>Now go psychoanalyze me all you want.  But if you are going to do so, I
>expect you go into a little more depth than just some cheeky back-handed
>remarks.

You couldn't afford me if I went into depth about your many apparent 
emotional problems.
>
If you want "possibilities
>explored" why don't we discuss your apparent felt need to demonize your
>opponents? 

Paranoia

 Between you and b@bb.net, it shows that there is plenty of
>this on your side of the table.  And your cutesy little condescensing
>attitude. 

Projection

 It's all the product of a highly arrogant and true-believing
>mind which equates disagreement with your argument with mental illness. 

Projection again

>Therefore, it surely goes to the credibility of your argument, the reasons
>why you take the position you do.
>
>And I find this "forced to conform to some societal standard that doesn't
>fit in with our biology" to be, alternately, horseshit or vacuous.  You,
>and many others, equate bans on public breastfeeding with outright bans on
>breastfeeding accross the board. 

Lame attempt at mind reading

 Try as hard as you want, the former does
>not equal the latter.  The fact that breastfeeding is a "normal" bodily
>function which women with children need to do periodically does nothing to
>help.  Again, evacuation of bodily waste is something everyone needs to do
>occasionally. 

Adults need to eat as well -- should they be banned from eating in 
public?

Your turn Jake. But maybe you could lighten up a bit -- this is a 
"discussion group".

Debbie