Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Car rental,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Last-Minute Deals
Travel Guides:
Las Vegas,
New York City,
Los Angeles,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Rome,
Paris,
Tokyo,
Minneapolis,
Phoenix,
Austin,
Charlotte,
San Diego,
Mexico City,
Copenhagen,
Sydney,
Bangkok,
Bogota,
Toronto,
Costa Rica,
Bermuda,
Puerto Rico
All contents copyright © 2003-2009, Weblogs, Inc. All rights reserved
Gadling is a member of the Weblogs, Inc. Network. Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Notify AOL
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-11-2008 @ 12:24PM
chris said...
I'm not sure who is more idiotic: those who demand that breastfeeding women cover up when in public, or breastfeeding women who steadfastly refuse to do so on "human rights" grounds.
What is it about feeding that transforms a bared breast from "indecent exposure" to a "human right"? (Or vice-versa?)
Why don't we encourage all women to publicly expose their breasts for all to see? Interestingly, exposed breasts without suckling babies are much more likely to get their bearers ("bare"-ers :-) arrested.
I don't get it. Exposure is either indecent, or it's not. Which is it?
Reply
8-11-2008 @ 4:44PM
Jeorjia said...
Chris,
Are you familiar with breastfeeding? A breast being used for feeding can not be "seen." The nipple is being "engaged." As for the rest of the breast, I dont find that "indecent" because (lets face it) we can see AT LEAST that much on the MTV music awards.
Jeorjia
8-14-2008 @ 11:10AM
The Mommy Blawger said...
"What is it about feeding that transforms a bared breast from "indecent exposure" to a "human right"? (Or vice-versa?)"
THE LAW, which (in most US states and many countries, and on US Federal property) specifically exempts breastfeeding from laws regarding indecent exposure, obscenity, and sexual conduct.