User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 65

  1. #31
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Hmm interesting.

    I think it's a more natural depiction of the feeding process than girls being given dolls with bottles to feed their babies. Why not both?

    Granted I did find the idea of breast-feeding a bit uncomfortable until I nursed my own children.

    Breast-fed babies generally don't burp much either. That aspect of the doll's functionality may be a bit exaggerated.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  2. #32
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    I see. So no matter what I post, it must agree with your sexualisation point?
    You're avoiding admitting what your comparison illustrated.

    Allow me to suggest something else. What's wrong with dropping your pants and scratching your asshole in public?
    I ask you once more time. What's wrong with sex?
    Nothing is wrong with sex. (btw, if you read my responses, in the vein of this thread, what you're asking me, was already answered....but, let me reiterate: Promoting explicit sex at an early age through media that mold self-identity roles in children, such as toys, like dolls, sexualizes a little girl's early self-identity, which I think is detrimental to her)

    E.g., Playing make-believe grown-up! [the most common game played by children]

    2 choices:

    Breast-feeding dolls:

    Breasts != not sex-objects
    Breasts = food source for babies

    Barbie:
    Breasts = sex-objects (unproportionately huge, "cute tops" that accentuate such parts)
    Breasts != food source for babies

    Now, my turn:
    Can you tell me what such comparisons of yours are trying to prove, as a comparison to the act of breast-feeding?

    I.e., what is the point you're trying to make with choosing THOSE PARTICULAR NATURAL ACTS? (not doubting the natural acts part, questioning why you're choosing those particular acts, you've evaded answering that, once again)

    First the act of sex versus the act of breast-feeding, now implying scratching your asshole in public to the act of breast-feeding.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    I dislike the implications of encouraging little girls (via dolls with VERY specific purposes) to emulate the bodily functions of adult women.
    Fair enough.

    even though I take no issue with breastfeeding (in public or otherwise) at large.
    So, breastfeeding, for you, is an acceptable public act? Even an act to do in front of family? Perhaps, even kids?

    I view menstruation as a natural process that should be communicated openly with my someday daughter, but I wouldn't buy her Period Panties that simulated menstruation with red corn syrup substitute that have the optional Disney-Princess maxi-pads accessory so that she could play grown up.
    Is your hygiene-maintenance during your period, ever likely to be a public act? How about for most women? Let's be even more conservative, how about SOME women? Is it likely to be an act done in front of family? In front of kids?

    The concept of manufacturing imitation post-pubescent bodily functions is unnerving. I think children's curiosity about their bodies is totally normal, but should we really be packaging/marketing this interest?
    Children are going to be curious about things that they are exposed to.

  4. #34
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    You're avoiding admitting what your comparison illustrated.
    Wrong. You're determined to push your pro-breast feeding agenda on me and it's getting annoying as hell. I know what I meant far, far better than you. That is unless you're omnipotent.



    Nothing is wrong with sex. (btw, if you read my responses, in the vein of this thread, what you're asking me, was already answered....but, let me reiterate: Promoting explicit sex at an early age through media that mold self-identity roles in children, such as toys, like dolls, sexualizes a little girl's early self-identity, which I think is detrimental to her)

    E.g., Playing make-believe grown-up! [the most common game played by children]

    2 choices:

    Breast-feeding dolls:

    Breasts != not sex-objects
    Breasts = food source for babies

    Barbie:
    Breasts = sex-objects (unproportionately huge, "cute tops" that accentuate such parts)
    Breasts != food source for babies
    This is a logical fail. Sex and breast feeding are both natural. Why would encouraging one be detrimental and the other not, beyond your "belief" of such?

    This entire argument of natural vs. unnatural is really silly if you consider societal constructs and why people use toilets or wash and cook their food.

    Now, my turn:
    Can you tell me what such comparisons of yours are trying to prove, as a comparison to the act of breast-feeding?

    I.e., what is the point you're trying to make with choosing THOSE PARTICULAR NATURAL ACTS? (not doubting the natural acts part, questioning why you're choosing those particular acts, you've evaded answering that, once again)

    First the act of sex versus the act of breast-feeding, now implying scratching your asshole in public to the act of breast-feeding.
    All those particular acts are natural acts, just like your argument of breast feeding is natural.

    You believe and want to encourage breast feeding. That's your right. But to suggest that "it's natural", isn't a valid argument.

    Myself, my belief is that breast feeding is a choice. If someone wants to bottle feed, that's also their choice. If people don't want to watch breast feeding or bottle feeding in public, that's also their choice. They can also express their distaste to the woman who's flopped it out and chosen to do her thing or to the woman who pulls out the bottle. Action = reaction.

    But I don't agree with programming children to promote agenda.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Wrong. You're determined to push your pro-breast feeding agenda on me and it's getting annoying as hell. I know what I meant far, far better than you. That is unless you're omnipotent.
    LOL, that's not what I'm pushing on you, but, you would know what I meant far, far, better than me, because you are omnipotent.

    This is a logical fail.
    Nope. You misunderstood what I am trying to illustrate with my comparison of Barbie and the breastfeeding doll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Nothing is wrong with sex. (btw, if you read my responses, in the vein of this thread, what you're asking me, was already answered....but, let me reiterate: Promoting explicit sex at an early age through media that mold self-identity roles in children, such as toys, like dolls, sexualizes a little girl's early self-identity, which I think is detrimental to her)

    E.g., Playing make-believe grown-up! [the most common game played by children]

    2 choices:

    Breast-feeding dolls:

    Breasts != not sex-objects
    Breasts = food source for babies

    Barbie:
    Breasts = sex-objects (unproportionately huge, "cute tops" that accentuate such parts)
    Breasts != food source for babies

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    This is a logical fail. Sex and breast feeding are both natural. Why would encouraging one be detrimental and the other not, beyond your "belief" of such?
    If you say so......but a lot of informed people, except, of course, you, are then making this "logical fail".

    It's not my "belief", literature even supports that promoting sexualization as the primary function of a girl's image of her future body (i.e., woman's body) is detrimental to her. There's a difference between sexualization and healthy sexuality. Barbie is the former (a bombshell sex object), breast-feeding doll the latter (as it is still implicitly tied to a woman's sexuality but is more about the functionality of her OWN body).

    I'll link you a few reports by the American Psychological Association:
    http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

    http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs...eport-full.pdf
    (^ of particular interest to this discussion, read pg 6 and pg 30 of the 72 pages report).

    I'll quote, in case you miss it:

    Pg 6:
    here are many examples of the sexualization of girls
    and girlhood in U.S. culture.Toy manufacturers produce
    dolls wearing black leather miniskirts, feather
    boas, and thigh-high boots and market them to 8- to 12-
    year-old girls (LaFerla, 2003). Clothing stores sell thongs sized
    for 7– to 10-year-old girls (R. Brooks, 2006; Cook & Kaiser,
    2004), some printed with slogans such as “eye candy” or
    “wink wink” (Cook & Kaiser, 2004; Haynes, 2005; Levy,
    2005a; Merskin, 2004); other thongs sized for women and
    late adolescent girls are imprinted with characters from Dr.
    Seuss and the Muppets (e.g., see www.princesscassie.com/
    children/cat.shtml) (Levy, 2005a; Pollett & Hurwitz, 2004). In
    the world of child beauty pageants, 5-year-old girls wear fake
    teeth, hair extensions, and makeup and are encouraged to
    “flirt” onstage by batting their long, false eyelashes (Cookson,
    2001). On prime-time television, girls can watch fashion
    shows in which models made to resemble little girls wear
    sexy lingerie (e.g., the CBS broadcast of Victoria’s Secret
    Fashion Show on December 6, 2005). Journalists, child
    advocacy organizations, parents, and psychologists have
    become alarmed, arguing that the sexualization of girls is a
    broad and increasing problem and is harmful to girls (Bloom,
    2004;“Buying Into Sexy,” 2005; Dalton, 2005; Lamb &
    Brown, 2006; Levin, 2005; Levy, 2005a; Linn, 2004; Pollet &
    Hurwitz, 2004; Schor, 2004).
    The Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls was formed
    in response to these expressions of public concern. In this
    report,we examine and summarize psychological theory,
    research, and clinical experience addressing the sexualization
    of girls.
    Sex sells = sexualization at work

    Pg 30:
    Sexuality
    Sexual well-being is an important part of healthy
    development and overall well-being (Satcher, 2001).
    Research indicates that among adults,
    healthy sexuality is related to greater
    intimacy (Weekes, 2002), higher selfesteem
    (Hurlbert & Whittaker, 1991),
    low levels of stress (Ellison, 2000;
    Weekes, 2002), personal happiness
    (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, &
    Michaels, 1994), and other positive
    benefits (Planned Parenthood, 2003).Yet
    emerging evidence suggests that the
    sexualization of girls has negative
    consequences on girls’ ability to
    develop healthy sexuality.
    Self-objectification has been linked directly to
    diminished sexual health among adolescent girls. More
    specifically, Impett, Schooler, and Tolman (2006) found
    that White and Latina adolescent girls with a more
    objectified view of their bodies had diminished sexual
    health, measured by decreased condom use and diminished
    sexual assertiveness. Studies also show that supporting
    women’s sexual objectification may affect how women
    view their own reproductive body functions.
    L. M.Ward,
    Merriwether, and Caruthers (2006b) found that
    undergraduate women who frequently watch music
    videos or read women’s magazines, who attribute greater
    realism to media content, or who identify strongly with
    popular TV characters were also more accepting of sexually
    objectifying notions of women and of other traditional
    gender ideologies. At the same time, accepting these views
    of women and their bodies was associated with expressing
    more negative attitudes toward breastfeeding and
    toward the “functional” aspects of one’s own body
    (e.g., menstruation, body sweat)
    .
    These girls see their bodies as an object that functions for the pleasure and identity of OTHERS versus for self (i.e., sexualization), hence, rejecting self-positive natural roles of their bodies (i.e, denying healthy sexual identity: breastfeeding, shame over menstruation, etc).

    This entire argument of natural vs. unnatural is really silly
    This isn't even an argument point of mine, hence, why I said that it was a naturalistic fallacy in the first place.

    All those particular acts are natural acts, just like your argument of breast feeding is natural.

    You believe and want to encourage breast feeding. That's your right. But to suggest that "it's natural", isn't a valid argument.
    ????

    Fail. That's not my argument at all. I am the one that said that "it's natural" is irrelevant, as YOUR whole argument is focusing on ONLY the natural part as a point of debate. I never contested that one wasn't natural. Thus, "natural" is not what I'm debating as I've agreed on that part, with you.

    My whole point is moving BEYOND the "natural" point to the SPECIFIC TYPES of NATURAL acts you chose as a comparison to breast-feeding. And WHY? My whole point was WHY for you is breast-feeding equated with picking one's ass in public and sex?

    Myself, my belief is that breast feeding is a choice. If someone wants to bottle feed, that's also their choice. If people don't want to watch breast feeding or bottle feeding in public, that's also their choice. They can also express their distaste to the woman who's flopped it out and chosen to do her thing or to the woman who pulls out the bottle. Action = reaction.
    Ah, your belief. Finally, you have answered me, thank you.

    But I don't agree with programming children to promote agenda.
    Huh? This is not logical, as no one can escape that. Every parent has an agenda, a way of how they want to raise their child. (sub in "agenda" for "moral outlook" and "programming" for "influencing/raising" )

  6. #36
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    But I don't agree with programming children to promote agenda.
    But we do that from the moment we put the pink sleeper on a girl and a blue one on a boy. All of that is to initiate the formation of pre-defined socially acceptable gender constructs. I am sure there will be a robust market for this doll. Parents will choose this to help foster a healthy approach to nursing for their daughters. It is, after all, what boobs are for. Many cultures (especially of the past) did not sexualize breasts at all.

    Do you really find the doll gross Jen? Just curious, it's not a loaded question.

    I guess I don't see nursing in the same vein as public sex acts or anal-itching issues!

    Maybe what you find offensive are women who whip it out as some show of boob proselytizing. I certainly met those kinds of moms when my kids were little too, they had this whole "holier-than-thou" attitude going on, about everything from breast-feeding to cloth diapers, Montessori day care to their homemade diaper cream.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  7. #37
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    LOL, that's not what I'm pushing on you, but, you would know what I meant far, far, better than me, because you are omnipotent.
    Don't like it when it's turned back on you? Hmm..no surprise.

    Nope. You misunderstood what I am trying to illustrate with my comparison.
    Nowhere have I suggested the forms of sexuality you've linked. I was talking about a male and female doll who were capable of "pretend" copulation. This is natural, no? Is it unhealthy for children to know that tab A fits into slot B? Shouldn't children be allowed to watch their parents while they're copulating, much like watching their mother while breast feeding? It's all healthy and natural, rather than the media hyped style of sexualisation.

    Fail. That's not my argument at all. I am the one that said that "it's natural" is irrelevant, as YOUR whole argument is focusing on ONLY the natural part as a point of debate.
    But that was what I was focused on and have stated it over and over again. You're the one determined to link the sexualisation aspect into what I was stating.

    My whole point is moving BEYOND the "natural" point to the TYPES of NATURAL acts (i.e., natural is a given) you chose as a comparison to breast-feeding. My whole point was WHY for you it is equated with picking one's ass in public and sex?
    Because breast feeding is a choice and not something that's a necessity, much like ass-scratching, extreme forms of PDA or anything else, for that matter.
    Ah, your belief. Finally, you have answered me, thank you.
    Go back to at least three posts of mine which have expressed my reasoning. I've openly stated many a time that it has no logical reason beyond the standard distaste.

    Huh? This is not logical, as no one can escape that. Every parent has an agenda, a way of how they want to raise their child.
    So, here we have it. Per parent preference for child rearing, same as per parent preference to breast feed.

    This entire thread surrounds beliefs, opinions and preferences.

  8. #38
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    But we do that from the moment we put the pink sleeper on a girl and a blue one on a boy. All of that is to initiate the formation of pre-defined socially acceptable gender constructs. I am sure there will be a robust market for this doll. Parents will choose this to help foster a healthy approach to nursing for their daughters. It is, after all, what boobs are for. Many cultures (especially of the past) did not sexualize breasts at all.

    Do you really find the doll gross Jen? Just curious, it's not a loaded question.

    I guess I don't see nursing in the same vein as public sex acts or anal-itching issues!

    Maybe what you find offensive are women who whip it out as some show of boob proselytizing. I certainly met those kinds of moms when my kids were little too, they had this whole "holier-than-thou" attitude going on, about everything from breast-feeding to cloth diapers, Montessori day care to their homemade diaper cream.
    Frankly, yes, I find the doll distasteful and if I had a daughter in the future which would be unlikely, I wouldn't buy it for her.

    The bolded does describe part of my distaste. The militant nature of some breast feeders.

  9. #39
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    ^ see, I think that's more what pisses you off than anything. You can imagine them in your minds eye right now, can't you? Hear them say, in a snooty kind of voice, "I bought this doll for my daughter in order to help her shake the oppressive bondage of our overly sexualized society".

    Do you think that's what is more bothersome, than the doll itself? The attitudes of some of the people who will choose to buy it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Because breast feeding is a choice and not something that's a necessity, much like ass-scratching, extreme forms of PDA or anything else, for that matter.
    @bold: People with Pruritus ani would disagree that there's choice involved!
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  10. #40
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    ^ see, I think that's more what pisses you off than anything. You can imagine them in your minds eye right now, can't you? Hear them say, in a snooty kind of voice, "I bought this doll for my daughter in order to help her shake the oppressive bondage of our overly sexualized society".

    Do you think that's what is more bothersome, than the doll itself? The attitudes of some of the people who will choose to buy it?
    The entire breast feeding issue in my opinion is so strange. Either do it or don't. It's much like waving toilet paper around to tell people how great you are for using it.

    @bold: People with Pruritus ani would disagree that there's choice involved!
    My apologies to those who have anal issues!

    E - Which leads me to the motto for toilet paper wavers. "I'm saving hygiene and society, one square at a time".

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] does anyone else like to say weird or random things
    By whimsical in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 11:14 PM
  2. Mayor Bloomberg wants to lock up formula to promote breast feeding
    By Eilonwy in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 10:16 PM
  3. Technology or Nature: Which is more beautiful/appealing?
    By Athenian200 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 03-05-2011, 10:00 AM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO