FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-19-2002, 04:58 PM   #61
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Post

Indecent Exposure: 300 pounds in a bikini.

Personally, I would have no problem with phasing out the indecent exposure laws. For safety's sake I think there should be a period where it's legal only so long as it's not readily visible from a street--get people used to it before drivers have to confront it. (I have seen a naked driver once--attractive female--and she was making quite a mess of traffic. I was nearly hit twice by people paying more attention to her than the road and she caused a traffic jam on a street I had never seen a jam on before.)

Businesses would remain free to impose standards like they do now (consider the very commono "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.)

Flashers are a different matter. Flashing is a sexual act directed at another non-consenting individual, not mere exposure.

I see no need for discresion in breast feeding. There should be no more need for privacy in that than in any other eating.

My inclination is that normal sexual activity should be permitted in public although I would have no problem with requiring the obviously kinky stuff to be behind closed doors.

I've seen a couple having sex in public once. I avoided going near them but not out of any repulsion but rather a worry about what they might be on--the place they were doing it (a concrete ridge around a parking lot) seemed quite uncomfortable and there were better locations very close by.


I would also say that businesses get to say what goes on their property--so long as they put up warning signs they could permit the kinky stuff that would otherwise not be acceptable.


Of course the prudes would freak out at these ideas. However, once they realized that they couldn't pretend that sex is something evil anymore then they would have to raise their children with a far more healthy attitude towards sex.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 05:11 PM   #62
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

Keith, I was simply saying that I don't see the big deal. How did you interpret that as knocking your fetish?
tronvillain is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 05:24 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: b
Posts: 673
Post

Primal,

First, Where do you think women should feed their babies?

Second, breast feeding is a health choice. Almost all main stream doctors believe that it is better for the baby than formula or milk from another source. Pumping mother's milk into a bottle is a possibility but it is a long, difficult and painful process. Try sticking your penis in a vacuum cleaner and you might get an idea of what it feels like. Also, mother's milk is not pastuerized which means that preserving it for transport is problematic.

Third, learn the definition of need. Babies need to be fed. You are confusing your preference with a need.

I find it amazing that in a world where on any given day you might see someone urinating in public, urban blight or yet another add for "American Idol" you find breast feeding so objectionable.

Glory

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>
Glory is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 05:24 PM   #64
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: my mind
Posts: 5,996
Thumbs up

Agreed with all that Loren Petchel said.

Laws against "indecent exposure" should be phased out. After all what is "indecent" is completely subjective, and laws must be objective.
99Percent is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 05:27 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: b
Posts: 673
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by 99Percent:
<strong>Agreed with all that Loren Petchel said.

Laws against "indecent exposure" should be phased out. After all what is "indecent" is completely subjective, and laws must be objective.</strong>
Excellent point.

Glory
Glory is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 06:14 PM   #66
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,102
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Primal:
<strong>Two things:

1) The whelp doesn't need to eat then and there.
2) Bottles are around.</strong>
As others have pointed out, breastfeeding is a health choice. Numerous studies have pointed out how much better breastmilk is for babies than formula.

Quote:
Also, why is the babies need for food seen as compelling but not a person's need for sexual satisfaction?
For the same reason we send food to starving countries instead of prostitutes.

Quote:
Like I said I don't want to see a woman feedong her pup, the pup won't die if its not fed out there and then. So no, I don't see why the "need to feed immediately in public" takes precedence over my need to not see it.
I sincerely hope this is rhetorical. You are honestly suggesting that babies should go hungry because you can't look away for 5 minutes?

This is why there's a difference. You can choose to ignore a breastfeeding mother. The child cannot ignore its hunger, nor can the mother ignore a screaming child (for long, anyway).

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Monkeybot ]</p>
Monkeybot is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 06:38 PM   #67
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Monkeybot:
<strong>As others have pointed out, breastfeeding is a health choice. Numerous studies have pointed out how much better breastmilk is for babies than formula.</strong>
I’m afraid I can see this one still see this one around for a long time. Of course when it was an issue for my mother, clinical thinking was that formula was better than breast.

Last week the news was running with a study that breastfed babies were 30% more likely to develop obesity later in life.

In the face of so much conflicting evidence I’m content to remain entirely agnostic. Whatever works for the individual AFAIC.
echidna is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 10:11 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Fatal Shore
Posts: 900
Post

Last week the news was running with a study that breastfed babies were 30% more likely to develop obesity later in life.

I think you've got that the wrong way around echidna...
Jane Bovary is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 10:35 PM   #69
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 131
Post

How about deficating in public, then? I mean, there has been a couple times when I absolutely HAD to relieve myself. Would I be within my right to just squat down in the lawn and unleash the beast? Would it be acceptable if I brought a scooper and a baggie?
DarkDruid is offline  
Old 09-19-2002, 11:29 PM   #70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Red face

Quote:
Originally posted by Jane Bovary:
<strong>I think you've got that the wrong way around echidna...</strong>
Ooops you're right. That'll teach me to quote from news I've heard on the radio at 6 in the morning. Oh what the hell, I guess that only leaves baby teeth as a good reason not to breastfeed.
echidna is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.