Internet Porn

quote:

---

A nipple. The human body is that taboo now?

---

It was on TV that women have started to breastfeed in public. (I forget the city.)They had a kind of a sit-in. HahahahaAnyway, I'm waiting to see what law will be passed forbidding a woman from feeding her child. This ought to be real good, NOT!

Breastfeeding? Not only is that damaging to others to view, but is obviously scarring to the child as it involves oral contact with a sexual organ of the female!Actually I had read a story on line (don't know if it is true) that some mother had her child taken away after she admitted to someone that the stimulation she received from breastfeeding was the same sensation as nipple sucking during sex and she did feel sexual arousal.What I can't imagine is how breastfeeding WOULDN'T have that same stimulation. Maybe girls who have been through this can write a post.If this is true, would that make breastfeeding a form of sexual abuse of the child?Breastfeeding... somebody think of the children!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hahahahahaha. We sure do live in a strange world.The human body, whom so many people consider God's greatest creation, is treated like some form of dirt. The very act that brings new life into the world is despised to such a degree that just the idea of talking about it is considered bad. Society certainly made a wrong turn somewhere on the road to progress.

Actually, I recall that about 10 or 15 years ago Florida passed a law explicitly stating that breast feeding in public was ok.

I've never breastfed a child but my sisters have, and they both tell me that their nipples got so chapped from being wet all the time, and that their breasts got so sore from being full of milk that breastfeeding was pretty unpleasant sometimes.Sometimes they felt like cows.

quote:

---

Of course birth control changes the situation but what of the offspring produced? People whine because there are not enough children being born.

---

I don't know where you live, but nobody is complaining about it in the US as far as I can tell.That is beside the point, anyway.Ever since the advent of The Pill and the sexual revolution of the sixties, a whole mythology of it being "natural" for people to have lots and lots of unfettered sex with as many partners as we want was able to propogate itself.It is ironic, because this myth of the "naturalness" of lots of casual sex was only enabled after reliable artificial birth control was introduced.Let me remind you of what you said in a previous message: This is obviously a post-Sexual Revolution mythology that completely disregards it's origin in The Pill.Sex is NOT "just another activity".It can and does produce children which are a huge responsibility.Previous to The Pill and the Sexual Revolution, much of the "obstacles" and "expected ceremony" that revolved around it before then involved making sure that the male didn't bugger off and irresponsibly not provide for the children he made.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-04-2004 09:47 PM

Not only have I heard this myself, it also makes a LOT of sense. Swollen "udders" aside both men and women's nipples will get sore and eventually become a major turn off when they are touched, pinched, and sucked on for long periods of time over long periods of time.What I am talking about is at the beginning before a girl has been nursing quite a bit. It seems rather odd that pregnant girls can get pleasure from squeezing their own nipples, or having people suck their nipples (including getting milk) while pregnant, but as soon as a child is born that feeling goes away.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I can vouch for a number of publications by conservative Christian groups that point to the impending Social Security crunch (due to the larger population of "Baby Boomers") as evidence that birth control and abortion have lead to a smaller population than "we should have", and that that's "bad."

What you just outlined is the real myth and you ought to be very very ashamed for stating it again. You carted this out once before and I tore it to shreds. I hope this is the last time I am going to see this from you.Until the rise of Xianity it was quite "natural" to have lots and lots of unfettered sex. I am uncertain how you can say otherwise at all. And this is global. From Angkor Wat, to Ancient Greece, to upper European Druidic cultures.I can't believe I would have to post sections of histories on orgies, group sexual fertility rites, and the ocnstancy of prostitution throughout human history (sometimes venerated with holy status). If you really need me to so you can understand it is NOT myth, then I'll do it.As it stands you can look to the Bible. What on earth were the Jews and later the Xians condemning except rampant sexual activity. They are quite detailed about it and use their strict monogamy as a standard to distinguish themselves from others. One does not have to be a creationist to realize that those portions were not written post sexual revolution.Once Xianity rose to power it attempted to squash our natural promiscuity, especially any mention of it in writings. They certainly succeeded more with the latter than the former. St. Augustine (definitely not around for the Pill) championed the existence of brothels in order for their to be an outlet for the natural promiscuity of humans. He himself said to God "Grant me chastity--- but not just yet."And brothels and group sex did continue, even if firmly underground in literature (Western lit. you can find plenty within the Orient), up through the years. There were even organizations which lived free sexual lifestyles (if you have never heard of "sporting life", look it up).And once again, the myth you have created is steeped in ethnocentrism. I am trying to figure out how you came to believe promiscuity was NOT the natural state of things outside the Western world, up through the invention of the Pill.Geishas and courtesans and brothels and mistresses have been with us FOREVER. So have orgies...What happened with the invention of the PILL is that women were free to engage in sexuality with a bit more freedom than before. They did not have to restrict their sexuality to oral, anal, or digital (masturbatory) sex in order to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.And I am going to repeat this one last time... THE PILL STOPS THE RISK OF PREGNANCY AND ORAL/ANAL/DIGITAL SEX DOES NOT CAUSE PREGNANCY!!!!! People can and do have those other forms of sex all the time, and have throughout history. One can point to the walls of Pompeiian ruins to shoot down both odd ideas you appear to have of human sexuality.And this is to ignore the fact that the Pill is not the only contraceptive there ever was. Condoms (or forms of them) had been in use for a very long times, and there were also forms of sponges and spermicides (though that isn't exactly what people thought they were). And then there was abortion and infanticide which was very popular in ancient times.Your myth is propagated on ethnocentric beliefs you have, so ethnocentric (perhaps to your own sexuality, I dunno) that you ignore not only history but the fact that the Pill only stops pregnancies and sex with many partners can take many forms outside of vaginal sex.Indeed one wonders how promiscuity among gay men suddenly came to be because of the Pill. Unless it is part of your myth that gay men always were promiscuous, compared to the staid chastity of everyone else. The whole of human history, even etched in stones, are against you on this one.What the Pill did was allow people to engage in more full contact vaginal intercourse, without the worries such activity brought with it in the past.The sexual revolution went well beyond this. What that brought was a greater PUBLIC DISCUSSION of sexuality, throwing off the shackles to communication. Ethnocentrically it may seem things weren't wild until after people started talking about sex, which happened coincidentally with the rise of the pill, but that is an illusion.Indeed you can see this quite clearly in a book written by a female author (Helen Gurley Brown) about the free wheeling sexuality of some independent women prePill. I think the title of the book was Sex and the Single Girl. It was a bombshell at the time because it exploded the ethnocentric myth that girls didn't like sex and hunt it just like men. And she straddled the invention of the Pill.I saw a great doc with her and others on sexuality in America before the sexual revolution (I think it was on the Discovery or History channel). A guy summed it up by saying people were having as much sex before the revolution as afterward, they just didn't talk about it as much.Seriously, I want you to tell me you have read this and understood what I am saying, and will NEVER USE YOUR MYTH ARGUMENT AGAIN.The Pill did NOT cause promiscuity or the idea that such sex was natural. It had been so long long long before that. Heheheh... look to your Bible!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tsk tsk tsk.There are certainly people that complain about reductions in birth rates. And that includes some very conservative Xians.Open yer eyes peoples.Within the last month Australia called upon people to start having more babies. Israelis have for the last decade called upon their citizens to have more babies. And many within the Northern European elements of the Western world have been upset by falling birthrates of Northern Europeans.As a globalist (which my guess is you are too) I don't quite care about my ethnic group "surviving", or believe that America will go bye bye if it becomes minority white. But that kind of thing is what many conservative groups around the world are feeling and condemning birth control and abortions for causing (although it doesn't just have to be about America and whiteness).To me we could use a lot less people, especially in the US.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Ever since the advent of The Pill and the sexual revolution of the sixties, a whole mythology of it being "natural" for people to have lots and lots of unfettered sex with as many partners as we want was able to propogate itself.

---

I see Holmes' reply adequately dealt with that misconception.Also, there is a difference between casual sex and sex with as many partners as one can find. Consider "casual" as one would consider "casual" dining. Dinner with one's spouse. Lunch with a co-worker. A BBQ with the neighbor. Casual dining does not mean one consumes food with people they do not know. Casual sex does not mean one has sex with people they do not know. A co-worker. A neighbor. People that belong to the same social activity group.

quote:

---

Sex is NOT "just another activity".
It can and does produce children which are a huge responsibility.

---

Many times an "unwanted" pregnancy is not all that "unwanted". A family friend had their teenage daughter become pregnant. I spoke to her and asked why she became pregnant. Why didn't you take precautions? Her reply was, "My parents are separated. My dad has a girlfriend. My mom has a boyfriend. I wanted someone so now I will have a baby."Also, some girls believe that by getting pregnant they will "catch" the guy.If condoms were more readily available I believe there would be less pregnancy. By readily available I mean at every checkout stand at every store. Remind the people to carry a condom. TV ADS. Keep reminding the people to wear a condom. Pregnancy and disease rates will fall.If a pregnancy results and the woman does not want an abortion there should be social programs in place to assist. Really assist. I don't mean counselling. I mean dollars and cents assist.The father can be found by DNA. Again, casual sex meaning the woman at least knew the guy's name and either she or her friends knew him.People complain about all the abortions and fewer younger people to support pension plans, etc. One would think they'd be glad some women are having babies due to casual sex.When one takes the time to analyse the arguments against casual sex one sees the mind set behind the arguments. "Children are great but not if they are born of a single mother." "Pregnancy is to be avoided by those not responsible but condoms should be hidden behind the counter."It comes down to people believing sex is bad, evil, wrong. We know this because of the illogical arguments. If we are going to celebrate a married couple having a child then we should celebrate an unmarried teen having a child. If we are against unmarried teens having children we should be pro-condom and/or pro-abortion.The fact is certain people do not want a solution to unwanted pregnancy. They want people to suffer consequences. At 60 cents a condom they should be handed out by the handful to those unable to afford them and vending machines should be installed in every public place unless the goal is to shame the person whom had sex and not because unwanted pregnancies are such a big deal.

You left out Japan.

Initially, there is no milk in the breast of a pregnant female, but there is some colostrum. During the second stage of labour (the pushing bit) hormonal changes start to happen and the production of colostrum goes up. A couple of days after the baby is born the milk "comes in", round about the time that the "baby blues" comes on. The suckling of a baby on the colostrum stimulates this milk production. Thing is, the skin on the nipples isn't toughened much so any sensation of pleasure is obliterated by the red hot knives!!!Once the milk comes in the baby feeds longer and longer at each feed and the skin of the nipples toughens. Also, the "let-down" reflex starts to kick in. This is when the milk glands and ducts within the breast are made to squeeze by the action of oxytocin. This same oxytocin, the release of which is stimulated by a suckling baby, also causes the uterus to have rhythmic contractions in the same way as when a female has an orgasm. It's Nature's way of helping the uterus get back to its pre-pregnancy shape and size.The let-down reflex is an unpredictable little blighter. I only had to have water from the shower touch the skin on my breasts and I was squirting jets of milk onto the wall. It's fierce, not just a tiny twitch! Thing is, if a lactating female has an orgasm the let-down reflex will kick in and her partner can get an eyeful of milk - I kid you not! It's all down to the oxytocin, a physiological response. Some women have it in a much stronger form that others.I breast fed my son for eleven months (I must be a bleeding masochist). Actually, I enjoyed it for the cuddly, nurturing, mothering feeling it gave me. I only stopped when he bit a small piece of my nipple off and lay back happily, chewing away.I think that breastfeeding was designed by nature to be enjoyable, otherwise why would anyone volunteer for cracked nipples, unpredictable drenchings and a smell like three day old chewed grass? If you manage to get it right, you don't have any problems - so the best thing is to ignore the midwives and just let your baby get on with it - they know what to do. The prudes who think that a sexual sensation during breast feeding is perverted only demonstrate their ignorance of human physiology (note I didn't say psychology) and their own hang-ups and fetishes. On that note I remember breast feeding my son in a shopping centre. I couldn't find anywhere quiet so I had to sit in a cafe. A guy came up to me and called me a child abuser and pervert because my son was obviously too old to be breast fed. He was FOUR WEEKS OLD! The git even called security! Luckily they saw sense, but it was the last time I did it.

Ewww. That guy was indeed one sick puppy.

I have been EDUCATED. Thanx Trixie.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)