Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The World's Itty-Bittiest Porn Star

060727_breastfeeding_cover_vmed.widec.jpg

Are we all hard yet? Because people are in an uproar over this magazine cover...baby getting some boobie. I found it very sweet. Then again, I don't think nudity is eeeee-vil. Here's what the Puritans had to say about it:

"I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

She...shredded it? Hmm, just a guess, but I guess now that that horrible magazine has been shredded, Johnny will be free to play Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas:

"Player is a young man working with gangs to gain respect. His mission includes murder, theft, and destruction on every imaginable level. Player recovers his health by visiting prostitutes then recovers funds by beating them to death and taking their money. Player can wreak as much havoc as he likes without progressing through the game's storyline."

The boobie's tale contines:

It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public — a subject of enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term: "lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse wherever she needs to.

"I'm totally supportive of it — I just don't like the flashing," she says. "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

Oh, please. Is this like an alien death ray that will blind them the moment flashes into their corneas?

Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover, precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her 3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast.

"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast — regardless of what it's being used for."

Yeah, them nursing mommies, mmmhmmm, hot! (Well, sure, there are fetishists out there, but still...)

Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public. "There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part — even part of a body part."

"It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."

Will our society really fall apart if Johnny catches a glimpse of titty? In France, where they seem to have a much healthier sexuality, there are exposed breasts everywhere. And isn't that a lovely thing?

Posted by aalkon at July 28, 2006 12:14 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1540

Comments

For crying out loud, it's just a mound of flesh (in the pic)

I happen to be nursing a baby right now, and my only objrction to the pic is that it's a really odd nursing method. Do people really nurse their kids sitting upright? That's what it looks like to me, the way the breast is hanging.

And I'm still trying to figure out what's so arousing about a nursing breast... streched nipples, stretchmarks on the breasts, mismatched sizes, visible veins (at least on we pale-skinned chicks)... oh yeah and they're really floppy after a feeding.

Posted by: meep at July 28, 2006 2:53 AM

Yes, it's true; the flash of Janet Jackson's boob on the Super Bowl halftime show has ruined hundreds of thousands of young lives in America. Gawd has now set his face against the US because of this vile and grievous sin of semi-partial-nudity. Our society is on the verge of collapse because of this. Woe unto us if Gawd ever subscribes to Sirius satellite radio and hears what goes on there! Verily I say unto you we are DOOMED.

Posted by: Bill Henry at July 28, 2006 6:40 AM

Adorable photo. Hard to believe it would offend anyone.

Posted by: Lena at July 28, 2006 7:54 AM

Nothing wrong with that photo. Why is it that, whenever there is an image of something natural, (boobs, getting a hardon, reproduction, ect.) That the fundanutters AND the Islama-Nazi's have a shit hemorage? Maybe they should get together as it seems the both of them want to rid the world of such atrocities....i'm tired of people trying to tell me what i should and shouldn't be looking at.

Posted by: Rob at July 28, 2006 8:12 AM

I agree, the photo is adorable. And I've nothing against women breastfeeding their babies in public.

But as with many things, there is a time and a place. I live in San Francisco, and I've run into some "lactivists" who will breastfeed quite openly at a table in a nice restaurant. I think that it's fine when it is discreet, but not fine when its done "on display".

By the way, I think it is commonly thought that people object because of a sexual aspect... nothing could be further from the truth for me. (I agree with Amy that a strange nursing woman with stretch marks is unlikely to make a man be overcome with lust). For me, its the whole bodily function, I-don't-want-to-see-your-gnarly-boob-while-enjoying-an-expensive-meal thing. I don't really want to see you blow your nose, groom yourself, or fix your underwear in that environment either.

I think its fine when done with a little discretion, but don't make a show of it. I'm hardly shocked by the idea or sight of a breast, but some women here sure want to put it in your face to make a point.

Posted by: TLM at July 28, 2006 8:22 AM

For a libertarian with odd streaks of prude lurking (I have no idea why I am like this), I found the photo wholly delightful.

Possibly a bit depressing in a Hallmarky way if the whole breast feeding lark is not a picnic for a mother personally..but shredding the image? Yikes.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at July 28, 2006 8:26 AM

Get a load of this freaky letter I just got via e-mail:

I came to your website today. Your column used to be in a local publication but for some reason, they no longer carried it so I decided to find it on the web.

First, I want to start by saying that I am a very progressive person. I am a writer as well, I used to do weekly columns, but when writing became work I started to lose my love for it, so I work on individual stories and sell them when the fancy strikes me. I do real estate for a full-time job.

As a writer, I appreciate the whole “free speech” thing, but unlike most writers, I do feel that there is a fine line between literature and pure TRASH, and TRASH is what I found on your website today.

There was a picture of a baby breast-feeding on what apparently is a parenting publication with the caption, “The World’s Youngest Porn Star” written above the picture.

This is how I see this caption: Only someone that is a closeted pedophile would dare write such a caption. Anyone that would even as a joke, associate an infant in a sexual act, much less post it on their website, regardless of their socioeconomic status in society, again, is a closeted pedophile.

There is nothing wrong with the picture, it’s a beautiful picture. But pedophiles see things differently when viewing otherwise innocent pictures of children and babies, they think little girls being nice to them are hitting on them or flirting, even trying to seduce them. Michael Jackson justified it by saying it was natural to want to share your bed with prepubescent boys, which is a typical target of sexual predators. They will say anything to dismiss their behavior as normal, everyday.

I mean, is your literary skills slipping so much that you have to make desperate grasps for shock value? Is your imagination that limited?

I read the column that followed, and it didn’t help my opinion anymore, in fact, it justified it. There was nothing wrong with you showing the picture and STRICTLY focusing that the picture was innocent, and that it’s OTHER’S sick minds that only want to see breasts as sexual objects…but it was hard to tell until you got half way through your story to tell which side you were on. It was very poorly written.

I hope your career picks up so you can find subjects more interesting than an infant that can’t say anything to defend it’s participation in the photo.

It makes me wonder what the police would find if a search warrant was ever issued on your home.

NAME REDACTED

Charlotte, NC


Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 8:51 AM

I mean, is your literary skills slipping so much that you have to make desperate grasps for shock value? Is your imagination that limited?

MY REPLY TO HER: "As a writer" you might look up the word "irony."

(I always love when people tell me they're writers then criticize me absent grammar or intelligent thought.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 8:53 AM

"A breast is a sexual thing"? I guess newborns must be total pervs for sucking on those things. Sick freaks.

Perhaps we should charge nursing mothers with sexual assault.

Posted by: Patrick at July 28, 2006 8:57 AM

After daily viewing hours of young Israeli and Lebanese children who have been maimed, I find it happy and refreshing to see a healthy baby. It just didn't occur to me to be offended.

And no sane person thinks you have pedophile tendencies Amy.

Posted by: eric at July 28, 2006 9:21 AM

Charlotte lady writes back:

I don’t think you completely read my e-mail.  I said I read the article and I was well over half-way through before your point was even remotely made.  Irony or not, the caption was just not appropriate…I think if you used a little imagination I think you could have come up with a title that wouldn’t be such a negative comment regarding the poor little baby in the picture.   It’s a real baby, with a real mother, that has a real family.  I would have felt completely different if you were writing from the standpoint of a hypothetical example, but you included a photo of a baby that does, indeed, exist.   But then again, I’m sure all you cared about was attention, and at the expense of the defenseless.   By the way, all “creepy” people start out with perverted thoughts. 

I respond:

Yeah, there's a bit of controversy about the photo of the baby, and I think it's wrong. And I'll speak out about it the way I wish, as long as there's free speech in this country. I don't think the baby knows or cares that I'm making fun of the photo.

Let's be real here. I think you have some time on your hands and you need to get horrified at stuff like this. Everybody else seemed to get it just fine, if you'll look at my comments. If my humor is too hard-edged for you, well, read Dear Abby's site.

PS Avoid seeing The Aristocrats. Watching it may cause your heart to give out -- although, I do have Larry Miller's home and work numbers, as well as those of a few other comedians, in case you want to send the police out with search warrants!

And FYI, if you appear in the public eye, you're up for criticism and joking about you. If the mother thought criticism would somehow harm her baby (perhaps by transmitting via those pink alien rays I talk about through her tiny skull) she shouldn't have taken the money to let her baby model.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 9:30 AM

"And no sane person thinks you have pedophile tendencies Amy."

If anything, I work really hard to avoid any contact with children, which are usually loud and annoying. As for turn-ons, I'm into tall, aging intellectuals.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 9:32 AM

This is the silliest thing I've ever heard of. The only reason this is thought to be a "sensitive" subject is *because* public breast feeding in America is a rare thing. If it was done all the time, we wouldn't think twice about it.

Posted by: Norm at July 28, 2006 9:46 AM

"what's so arousing about a nursing breast... streched nipples, stretchmarks on the breasts, mismatched sizes, visible veins"

If THAT were on a magazine cover, I'd immediately toss it into a paper shredder.

Posted by: Lena at July 28, 2006 9:48 AM

You ruined that poor kid's life Amy. It'll probably go on his permanent record.

Posted by: eric at July 28, 2006 9:54 AM

Oh, wow, it's a juicy one this time! The nutbag from Charlotte calls herself (or himself) "very progressive"? HA HA! Oh, and Amy Alkon, a closeted pedophile? Ohmigawd, now that's even funnier! Hey nutbag, you've missed your true calling: you ought to be a comedian!

Posted by: Little Shiva, The Visible Trash Society, Charlotte, NC at July 28, 2006 10:22 AM

Cool to have readers in North Carolina, though.

Posted by: Crid at July 28, 2006 10:55 AM

I think these sick freaks who think this cover is somehow perverted should be beaten with a drag queen's fake titty!

Posted by: Patrick at July 28, 2006 11:56 AM

What I think is interesting is France *does* have a very relaxed attitude about breasts. They are a part of the body like a nose or elbow. Culturally many other parts of the body are seen as exciting or erotic - the nape of a woman's neck, the curve of her upper calf and back of the knee, a woman's back side, etc. France has one of the LOWEST initiation and duration of breastfeeding rates in the world! In France there are many places (restaurants included) where it is acceptable to bring your DOG but not your CHILD!

Breastfeeding is not inherently an erotic activity. Women in America *generally* aren't into flashing breasts. If you don't want to see breasts/breast tissue then DO NOT LOOK! Of course I think MORE people need to see human babies nursing. Baby bottles should be relegated to the dustbins of marketing history as a symbol for babies and infant feeding.

I went back to the picture. It really could be a picture of a baby sucking on or mouthing the outside edge of a person's arm!

Posted by: Monique at July 28, 2006 1:35 PM

There are sex breasts and food breasts. Adults should be able to tell the difference. (Hint: if you see a baby attached to it, it is a food breast.)

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at July 28, 2006 1:46 PM

What silliness.

For a cool title page check out www.stern.de/magasin/heft/566413.html?nv=sb, this week's edition of a normal, bourgeois German news magazine.

Once again, I'm glad my kids grew up in Europe.

Posted by: Linda at July 28, 2006 1:50 PM

"these sick freaks [...] should be beaten with a drag queen's fake titty!"

That would be called a water balloon fight.

Posted by: Lena at July 28, 2006 2:12 PM

Wow, that's too bad about the breastfeeding rates in France. They're generally a decade or so behind the U.S. in medical-type matters, so maybe they'll come around eventually. Plus they all smoke, so perhaps it's just as well.

But really, between all the craziness over abortion, birth control and nudity, I think perhaps we should all move to France, pronto.

I recently saw a very amusing French movie called "Nos Jeurs Heureux" about a French summer camp where young teens and horny counselors all run around perfectly happily making out here and there -- I'm sure plenty of French kids are seeing it with no ill effects.

Posted by: Pat at July 28, 2006 2:31 PM

There are sex breasts and food breasts. Adults should be able to tell the difference.
I dunno. When I see a naked breast, I'm thinking sex no matter what that breast happens to be doing. It's not a decision or anything, it just happens. For instance, my first reaction was "get that damned baby out of the way and zoom out some so I can see her face."

I bet I'm not in the minority.

Posted by: Kevin at July 28, 2006 3:02 PM

I saw that at the French film fest. I was kind of disappointed going in - summer camp movies aren't my usual choice - but it was just great. I also loved that they went to camp and stayed in some grand chateau, not some stinky cabins.

And whatever your thoughts are upon seeing a breast, that doesn't mean you should take the sight of breasts away from the rest of us. Even as a hetero girl, I really enjoy seeing them. That Stern cover is fab.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 3:07 PM

"France. They're generally a decade or so behind the U.S. in medical-type matters, so maybe they'll come around eventually. "

Pat: you so sound like a desktop traveler! Because if you did actually travel to France -- and fell sick there -- you'd realize that their healthcare system is *way* better than in the U.S. Everyone gets taken care of, in time, with the best medical expertise available, and without having to sell the house to pay the bills.

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 3:30 PM

It's amazing what you can do with your social programs when the United States is handling your international $ecurity.

Posted by: Crid at July 28, 2006 3:44 PM

So cliché, Crid. Disappointing, coming from you.

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 3:50 PM

Your honor, move to strike as nonresponsive.

Posted by: Crid at July 28, 2006 5:00 PM

hello there,Italy here. This anti-breastfeeding meme is completely idiotic: someone let the gods of marketing drive them into belief that breasts are sexual organs,"a woman's balls" to be very down to earth. They have stolen a little bit of our humanity in order to make their male costumers a pack of pavlov dogs,constantly aroused by those "bells" everywhere. A woman breastfeeding her children is the sweetest thing in the world,a very human moment: it's not a dirty thing...it's actually quite important to understand why the same part of the body can be of different importance. I say,if the problem is just that you want more discretion from those women who breastfeed in your presence,then ok: ask them to please,not act as you weren't even there...that's called good manners. But persecuting breastfeeding as it was fellatio? You let commercial media turn you into a clockwork monster.

Posted by: xdiesp at July 28, 2006 5:10 PM

Crid please, cut out the strike B.S. -- that's cliché, yet again.
I've been reading your informed comments for a while. I don't agree with your politics (which is fine), but I was under the impression that you'd be able to look past the clichés and media snippets, to form you own, intelligent opinion. For the record:

1. On America's myth of saving the French/world::
- If it wasn't for the French, Americans would still be subjects of the British Empire;
- If it wasn't for the French dying by the thousands, Hitler would have invaded Britain at the beginning of WW2;
- If it wasn't for the French, D-day would never have succeeded;
- My father was a resistant, and he, and is family (as well as my mother's), helped/hid/saved Jews and Americans G.I.'s during WWII;
- There were "collaborators" and convenient cowards on all sides; don't forget that everyone turned a blind eye on the Jews' horrendous faith (ED. NOTE FROM AMY: I think she means "horrendous fate")-- including their own community in America.
It was in *everyone*'s interest to kick Adolph's butt, so let's cut the crap.

2. My (American) husband and I are healthy individuals without kids, we don't go to the doctors/dentists for anything else than regular check-ups. Yet, we pay handsome PPO and co-pay fees. Why? because American healthcare is an insane bureaucracy. Given your politics, aren't you repulsed every time you go to the doctor, to see that they have to gang up in practices, so that they can afford the staff to man all the paperwork? I don't criticize medical care in this country -- far from that -- but as a manager, I take a seriously cynical look at its dysfunctional healthcare system.

3. FYI, I'm a big mo-fo MBA with 6 languages, who worked the Paris-London-New York financial axis for years. No striker/slacker of any kind. I've worked my butt off all my life, and so have many of my countrymen -- despite what comical O'Reilly may have to say. I made big bucks for America Inc. Nothing to prove in that Dpt. I make handsome money in this country, on contracts I get because of my international expertise America Corps. don't seem to find locally (if they did, they'd rather hire them than me, so I don't "steal" American jobs). This means I pay handsome taxes, *including* social security I'm not entitled to because I'm not a citizen (but you are, so enjoy).

4. Considering the French as backward, surrender monkeys, striker socialists or that kind of shit is as a cliché and myopic as saying that all Americans are dumb and fat. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and basic cultural exposure knows that it's untrue.

I've been an expat for over 20 years, have visited and lived in many countries. I claim mlieage and ability to take a hard, objective look at the places I'm seeing -- inlcuding my own country. The above is a result of it.


Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 5:42 PM

I'm glad your out of France (as I'm sure you are). We are going to need your help in the future, when the Islamic revolution starts getting really messy in Europe. Many think that France will be the canary that will sound the alarm. Of course some, including myself believe that canary has already sounded the alarm, but it seems very few are hearing it.

Did you hear it?

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Posted by: Papa Ray at July 28, 2006 7:20 PM

Sheesh, Frog, a nerve has been touched. Maybe in a few minutes we can get back to tits.

> cut out the strike...

Well, then, respond. Your presumptions about the source of my belief continue to elide the main point, which is that a lot of the world, especially Europe *after the war*, has had money for social programs because we've saved them the expense of Maginot-type investments. IIRC, they still don't have an aircraft carrier in the water (though they still have a few francs for detonations in the South Pacific and adventurism in Cote d'Ivory.) It's the first sixty years of peace since I-don't-know-how-many centuries ago. And it came through a mix of largess and control-freakery from the American taxpayer, who didn't want to come over and clean up yet another mess later in the century. (Though eventually, he did.) Beyond that, you can play any game you like about which nation owes what to which. (The one about brave Frenchfolk laying down their lives to shelter befogged Brits is especially darling.) I think too many liberal thinkers in Europe imagine this peace to be the product of their own spiritual and intellectual excellence. And so now they're said to be afraid of the one nation from which they have nothing to fear. I can never resist the analogy of an unemployed teen with his feet on the coffee table, whining as the mortgageholder comes home from work.

I haven't owned a tv since the riots, and O'Reilly (Coulter/Moore/Stewart/Olbermann) is not a figure of interest. People who willingly spin out over these personalities deserve to have their time wasted.

> an insane bureaucracy.

Absolutely, and something's going to break. But I see the problem as a mix of historical forces peculiar to America (expecially our wartime and postwar employment policies). Yes, human nature is working against us here, no less than in other countries... People want to be coddled, especially when the shit hits the fan.

I'm at an age where the probability of a severe health crisis is skyrocketing. If there was a Medical Wonderland of compassionate care where everything was free 'n' easy, I'd jump at it! Lost friends, new language, ugly clothes, spooky wall voltages, meals of blended duck gizzard, whatever. But in practice it just never seems to work that way. Consider the example to our north, where some people speak French:

http://www.colbycosh.com/old/november02.html#csag

Consider also what's about to happen to the French economy. The youth of the indigenous French riot because they can't get a lifetime of benefits for busing tables on their 25th birthday. Meanwhile, even greater numbers of immigrants riot because they can't find work (or social inclusion) of any kind. In 30 years the immigrants are going to want cancer treatment without having worked a day in their lives to fund the economy to pay for it. What will that be like? Say what you want about the States, people come here to work. You did.

That's a wonderful resume. You're an MBA, just like our handsome President! And my brother, and my sister. I know too many too well to be impressed.

> I claim mlieage and ability...

Everyone who's seen two dawns in a row has a viewpoint forged by their experience of life for which they think the rest of the world insufficiently deferential. I get touchy about these things:

1. The presumption that our problems are from policy, and not human nature. Health care in France in the late 20th benefitted from particular lucky circumstances. It's infantile --as well as grotesquely arrogant-- to argue that they've found a magic bullet through some sort of nostril-twitching, wine-savoring, breezy-nippled sophistication. ("Amelie" is a great film, though.)

2. After being sheltered, clothed, fed and fucked, and maybe sung to, nothing is more important to the human soul than having someone around to condescend at. This is the core of Eurocentrism, a clucking dislike of McDonald's and Britney Spears. But what is the EU if not an "insane bureaucracy"?

Thanks for reading. Kevin's right about the tits.

Posted by: Crid at July 28, 2006 7:29 PM

Ray, you've got as point. France has to deal with a 20% Arab population it never bothered to integrate. Hence the riots -- more to come. But also hence its exceptional understanding of the Near and Middle-East, something Americans could learn from (without necessarily abiding with the politics).

As far as the Islamic fundamentalist threat is concerned, I think Londonstan (ie. the UK) is more extreme and dangerous.

The bottom line is that we won't defeat those nuts through direct fighting. The solution is to drain the swamp -- rather than waste bullets and lives killing mosquitos. What's going on in Lebanon right now is a clear example of what asymmetric or proxy wars can produce. The only way we can defeat that kind of cancer is through "empathy" (as McNamara said), ie. understanding where they're coming from, what they want, and working/manipulating it. Plain old marketing strategy, if you want my view.

And yes, I live in the U.S./California -- for personal reasons, but probably not the smartest geopolitical bet.

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 7:48 PM

Question: How did we get from breast-feeding to here? Fascinating. That's why I love Amy's blog!

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 7:51 PM

I agree with you, Crid. Europe is going through a deep, durable crisis. The end of a "system" that needs to transition to something more compatible with global dynamics -- with all the inertia involved. Tough.

Yet, I don't think America has "the" solution -- we're heading for tough times, too. But something I love and admire about this country is its ability to reinvent itself, and to rebound. Ideally, sclerosed Europe could learn from it, but there's too many centuries of history to shake off.

Back to tits -- it's much more fun :)

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 8:26 PM

How dare you agree so readily. How dare you.

Posted by: Crid at July 28, 2006 8:40 PM

Because I'm a cheese-eating surrender monkey ;)
[and I incidentally take other's opinions into account]

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 8:49 PM

VERY interesting discussion.

And this is something I've always wondered about: "- There were "collaborators" and convenient cowards on all sides; don't forget that everyone turned a blind eye on the Jews' horrendous fate -- including their own community in America."

What was the Jewish community doing at that time? I asked my dad a long time ago, and he didn't really have an answer.

As far as what pays for the health care in France, a friend of mine, American, married to a French woman, paid 65% of his income in taxes.

I've met amazing people in France, and shitty people in France, same as here. All in all, though, I think they have a much more civilized, appreciative, sensual way of living day-to-day life, and they're much more realistic about many facets of life than we are; for example, about sex and relationships. Also, they don't have the ridiculous Puritanism we do. And I love the French sense of mirth.

Enconomically, our system is better, as is the fact that we don't have the rigid social hierarchy of France. Sure, we have a hierarchy -- but it's still very possible to be born to a poor, non-descript family and make something of yourself here -- maybe even be president, like Clinton was. Very hard to do that in France.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 9:32 PM

Oh yeah, and because religion doesn't have everyone by the throat like it does here, they have laicïté:

http://www.sikhnet.com/s/Laicite

Like many countries, French history is thick with violence stemming from religious conflict. Out of this history, France developed the secular value called Laicite. Laicite means that the government is to remain strictly neutral in terms of religion. It also is to promote a civil environment where no one can intimidate any other person due to their religion.

And, hence, they have the PACS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarit%C3%A9

In France, a pacte civil de solidarité (English: "civil pact of solidarity") commonly known as a PACS /paks/, is a form of civil union between two adults (same-sex or opposite-sex) for organising their joint life. It brings rights and responsibilities, but less so than marriage. From a legal standpoint, a PACS is a "contract" drawn up between the two individuals, which is stamped and registered by the clerk of the court.


Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 28, 2006 9:38 PM

Amy, you're so right. French "class" is defined by right of birth. Here's its by money. I'm not sure which is better [L.A. is a great example of "you can get the girl out of the trailer park, but you can't get the trailer park out of the girl"] -- but at least you can move around in the States. Not so in psychorigid France.
ps: thanks for your correction on fate vs faith -- sorry, frog lost in translation.

Posted by: LA Frog at July 28, 2006 9:49 PM

Just my 0.02$ in all this.

As a man who love breasts, I don't feel aroused by that picture. I love all breasts as long as the nipple is visible and pointed relatively towards the horizon. For the rest, I love them all. I saw more sexual breasts In the streets of Downtown Montreal on in a swimsuit catalog.

Must be a case of "I am a Fundie and I need to bitch about something"...

Posted by: Toubrouk at July 28, 2006 9:57 PM

> paid 65% of his income in taxes.

For 65%, I want breakfast in bed. Like this:

"Hmmmmm.... The yolks were a little *runny* this morning, weren't they, Senator? Ah well... I'm sure it won't be a problem tomorrow, and I'm look forward to the gently torn greens in today's lunch salad. Yes... Ask the girl to draw my bath now."

Posted by: Crid at July 28, 2006 10:18 PM

Yeah, I know what you mean. When he bragged about having free health care moments before complaining bitterly about his taxes, I reminded him that it wasn't free health care at all, but extraordinarily expensive health care. Still, from what I've heard from my French friends in France, and Matt Welch, Emmanuelle Richard, and others here, it's really great care in France. Then again, for 65% of your income in taxes, I think they should serve you fine champagne and foie gras and blow you in the waiting room...at the very least.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 29, 2006 12:31 AM

Jeez, I come back to the thread, and it's changed into discussing French healthcare.

Oddly enough, I'm nursing the baby right now. Again. Okk, not so odd, because I do most of my nursing in front of the computer.

Posted by: meep at July 29, 2006 5:49 AM

Grenouille:

> ....social security I'm not entitled to because I'm not a citizen...


Sure you are. There's no citizenship test for SS benefits. It's purely a question of how much you've contributed.

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at July 29, 2006 9:40 AM

Bwahahahha.

This reminds me of a really cute picture of my mom and me...we were living in Germany, and my mom was sitting on a chair next to a sign for a dairy farm that said "Daily Fresh Milk!" and breastfeeding me. So cute!
Americans are insane. There's nothing remotely sexual about breastfeeding, and I think people need to calm the hell down. Seeing a slice of errant boob is not going to cause your eyeballs to melt and run out of your head. For a country that uses sex in advertising all the time, as well as magazine covers (FHM, Maxim, Cosmo, et. al.) that are more revealing than the average gyno exam, I don't understand how they can be so schizophrenic about breastfeeding! I'd rather see a nursing mommy at a bookstore than see up a cover girl's twat.

Posted by: amh18057 at July 29, 2006 10:53 AM

"Clockwork monster". Wow. Nicely done.

Now, can we get back to watching knives and bullets rip through bodies on several versions of CSI, like good Americans?

Posted by: Radwaste at July 31, 2006 5:40 PM

From a male stand point I don't think that the cover is outrageous. I wasn't turn on at the sight of it. It is a natural thing and should be veiwed as such. My wife breast fed our daughter. Many times it was in the super market or mall. If the child needs food then they need food. What is strange is that if a mother changes a diaper in public they get "Oh would you look at little Johnny, isn't his cute" or some such junk. However if a mom need to feed a child those same people are the first ones to raise an issue. They would rather look at the child's poop then see a flash of mom's breast. Now that is odd. As for other men seeing my wife's breast I didn't find it an issue. Most of their wives put them right in line if they stared to long. And as for the looks and comments we didn't care. It was and is the right thing to do. I supported my wife in her doing this and will again for our next child.

Posted by: Justin Diestler at August 4, 2006 6:13 PM

Leave a comment