From: Adam Flinton 

Gary Wiltshire wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:44:33 +0000, Adam Flinton
>  wrote:
>
>> Jeff Shultz wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe it helps in breeding for stupidity.
After all, if the only
>>>>>>> way  that the woman got the man was due to her
cup size, what does
>>>>>>> that say about either of them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That they're human?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't say much for humanity, does it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not? No kids no humanity & kids have to eat....
>>>>
>>>
>>> One assumes that if you can get past cup size, there are other survival
>>> related features that would start getting looked into.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh very much so. It does kinda amuse me though the hangup people have
>> re the female chest. My wife & her sister have all breastfed their
>> offspring & flopping out a "booby for baby" is not
something that
>> disturbs me any more than the sight of a female ankle. However.....
>>
>> Easy if humorous example:
>>
>> Florida - Sea World. Sister in law has small baby. We are sat watching
>> the manatees who have babies & are suckling. Long, loving spiel by the
>> seaworld employee on the wonders of nature & how they were thought to
>> be mermaids etc. Baby wants a booby so SIL pulls out tit & jams in
>> mouth. A short while later employee approaches & says she can't do
>> that here & that they have special "womens rooms"
where there are baby
>> changing facilities etc for "doing that".
>>
>> Same person who was extolling on the joys of nature......
>>
>> Bizarre......
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>
> Agreed.  How would HE like to eat his meals in the men's room?
>

It was a she but still agreed. It was the absolute disconnect between the
words extolling the wonders of nature & the "oh look the little
baby manatee is suckling..how lovely..." to "you can't "do
that" here".

It's OK to watch a manatee suckling but not even use the word when ref'ing
human babies & people don't want to see human mothers & babies
doing what's "natural".

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5