Re: breast feeding outside my house!
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:15 pm
and a rusk for the baby
Page 2 of 3
Re: Paula Radcliffe!
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:16 pm
Now she is seriously fit!!
Re: Paula Radcliffe!
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:56 pm
at least some are having a laugh about it .... was quite surprised at magoo being so angry about my post .... was only saying about the observational humour of the situation etc etc.
and at the end of the day (baby well and truly NOT in the equation) a fit woman with her tits out is just that .... a fit woman with her tits out, no?
dave
and at the end of the day (baby well and truly NOT in the equation) a fit woman with her tits out is just that .... a fit woman with her tits out, no?
dave
Re: Paula Radcliffe!
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:05 pm
You probably caught him on a bad day! uranus is on the cusp...
Re: Paula Radcliffe!
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:53 am
hopefully that's all as the last thing i want to do is offend folk 
dave
dave
Re: Attn Cheekie Chappy
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:18 pm
'Just because the breasts are eroganous zones surely doesnt mean that therefor anything involving them is sexual'
A human eating the food of another human. And it's not sexual?(That well known surrealist) Desmond Morris I think had a theory that kissing started from a mother softening the food to give to a baby - this was passed by mouth. So lactation of a female is not a turn-on? There are some lactation vids out there that appeal to no-one?
Of course not everything breast-related is 'sexual', but feeding is from a spectators point of view a possible means of a 'sensual experience'.
A human eating the food of another human. And it's not sexual?(That well known surrealist) Desmond Morris I think had a theory that kissing started from a mother softening the food to give to a baby - this was passed by mouth. So lactation of a female is not a turn-on? There are some lactation vids out there that appeal to no-one?
Of course not everything breast-related is 'sexual', but feeding is from a spectators point of view a possible means of a 'sensual experience'.
Re: Attn Cheekie Chappy
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:30 pm
There's a common onomastic confusion here between 'sensual' and 'sexual': the former, properly covering all sensory input nice, neutral and nasty, is conflated with the latter.
And almost any sensual experience can be sexually-linked if you squeeze psychoanalytic theory hard enough. Which is why of course it's a busted flush.
And almost any sensual experience can be sexually-linked if you squeeze psychoanalytic theory hard enough. Which is why of course it's a busted flush.
Re: Attn Cheekie Chappy
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:12 pm
jj wrote:
> There's a common onomastic confusion here between 'sensual'
> and 'sexual'...
or, in the case of self-justifying paedophiles, an onanistic conflation of convenience.
the same muddled relationship exists vis-a-vis race/culture: that a gun culture exists within an element of a certain racial group does not make it a race issue, otherwise all people of that racial grouping would use guns. it's a cultural issue - or, rather, a micro-cultural issue, as it's only young men living in a few inner city areas who participate.
the same analysis pertains to the 'english disease' of travelling football hooliganism. although, no one ever defines that social issue in terms of the racial origin of the participants. strange, that...
> There's a common onomastic confusion here between 'sensual'
> and 'sexual'...
or, in the case of self-justifying paedophiles, an onanistic conflation of convenience.
the same muddled relationship exists vis-a-vis race/culture: that a gun culture exists within an element of a certain racial group does not make it a race issue, otherwise all people of that racial grouping would use guns. it's a cultural issue - or, rather, a micro-cultural issue, as it's only young men living in a few inner city areas who participate.
the same analysis pertains to the 'english disease' of travelling football hooliganism. although, no one ever defines that social issue in terms of the racial origin of the participants. strange, that...
Re: Attn Cheekie Chappy
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:23 pm
....the basic conclusion being: no generalisation is true.
Not even this one.
Not even this one.