![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttp://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-04-17/feature2.html
Because if we don't make these pictures common, then ignorant idiots will continue to think that a baby sucking tit is sexual, and mamas will continue to have their babies taken away from them, and indicted for child molestation and child porn.
WE NEED TO SEE BREASTFEEDING. This taboo has got to stop.
Dammit.
Okay. If the rationale is no secondary sexual characteristics should be displayed on Livejournal, then we can't have any facial hair or adams apples or, as R. points out, male pattern baldness. Clearly this isn't going to happen, so it isn't a secondary sexual characteristics rule.
If it's whatever-turns-someone-on, my goodness, no pictures left at all.
Is it a no pictures of people eating?
Nope, it's a what-is-work-safe. Well, if breastfeeding is legal everywhere a mama and baby can be together (note: is IS! discreet or not), then it must be work safe. Companies have got themselves in legal hot water for asking women not to breastfeed on the premises. If you can do it there live and in person, you ought to be able to have a picture of it.
And yes, I do feel strongly about this.
Because if we don't make these pictures common, then ignorant idiots will continue to think that a baby sucking tit is sexual, and mamas will continue to have their babies taken away from them, and indicted for child molestation and child porn.
WE NEED TO SEE BREASTFEEDING. This taboo has got to stop.
Dammit.
Okay. If the rationale is no secondary sexual characteristics should be displayed on Livejournal, then we can't have any facial hair or adams apples or, as R. points out, male pattern baldness. Clearly this isn't going to happen, so it isn't a secondary sexual characteristics rule.
If it's whatever-turns-someone-on, my goodness, no pictures left at all.
Is it a no pictures of people eating?
Nope, it's a what-is-work-safe. Well, if breastfeeding is legal everywhere a mama and baby can be together (note: is IS! discreet or not), then it must be work safe. Companies have got themselves in legal hot water for asking women not to breastfeed on the premises. If you can do it there live and in person, you ought to be able to have a picture of it.
And yes, I do feel strongly about this.
they got the kids back
Date: 2006-05-22 04:47 am (UTC)There's an embedded URL there, but it didn't work for me; text is at this
one also.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-22 05:02 am (UTC)Very official summary of state laws on the subject of breastfeeding. Again, if it _is not_ indecent exposure, how can a picture of it be offensive?
ooooooh, I like this
Date: 2006-05-22 05:05 am (UTC)No secondary sexual characteristics here. Heh.
I thought of scanning in one of the photos of a woman breastfeeding a pig (fattening the suckling pig up for a feast), but I'd have to track down the photographer and get the rights. This is _so much better_.
Work safe my left cheeck.
okay, I'm going to quit and go to bed and bf Teddy when he wakes up
Date: 2006-05-22 05:35 am (UTC)http://www.irannet.com/books/womanhood/ftn.html
Note [1] being the relevant bit here. I _thought_ this was true, but of course all the Islamic scholarly types are invested in the symbolism in their current advice and focus on telling women to cover up themselves and their children all the time -- whereas in actual Islamic nations, particuarly ones preserving the old ways, breasts are bared whenever the weather is nice and the babe needs it. You cannot cover up and BF with all babies -- some just won't tolerate it.
But basically, a religious group which requires women to go veiled does NOT require them to conceal their breasts while suckling a babe. Sexual my right cheek.
Good night.