Military Moms Photographed Breastfeeding in Uniform: Inappropriate or Harmless?

Actually I disagree with that also. Radio talk show host Michael Savage some time ago, made a remark about taking a whiz (peeing) on a golf course, could land a man on the sexual predator list. Outrageous, how we are becoming such an insane police state. How long would it take? 20 minutes to get back to the golf course restroom? When you gotta go, you gotta go. It might be "in bad taste" to urinate in public, that isn't really so public, but it should NOT be a crime, at least not in some understandable cases. I saw some boy urinating in a parking lot once. I think what happened, is children have tiny bladders and don't plan ahead, and so he just couldn't make it inside the building before he would have peed his pants. Like most normal people, who don't believe in the police state, I went about my business and didn't have anything to do or say about it. Hypothetical situation: "Did you see what that man did out there in the golf course?" "No, I know nothing." "But I saw you looking over there a moment ago, how could you not have seen?" "So what? I respect the guy's privacy so shut up and don't make a scene." Of course, common sense isn't so common anymore.

To ask mothers to go to the restroom, to feed their baby, is just outright absurd. Who eats in the restroom? Mothers deserve nice cushy comfortable chairs, rocking chairs, or glider rockers for that, and not every place is some country club or Church, that has yet given much thought to such things, and has unlimited money for every possible need of the people who frequent it. Thus, we have mothers who think they have the right to breastfeed in most any public place. As a pro-life activist, I am inclined to agree, as I wish to welcome however many babies into the world, and so hungry babies, are just an understandable fact of life. There's nowhere to hide, for a breastfeeding mother on the crowded bus or airplane. She can't leave her place awaiting to board an airplane, or they may board without her and she miss her airplane. So people, please have a heart, and understand that breastfeeding in public, is common in developing countries with high birthrates, as breasts aren't even "sexual" there. Maybe in the Perverted States of America, breasts are sexual, but why can't we "overlook" it when there's a baby to explain for it?

Kenya. Africa. Perhaps even Europe? It's the Americans who are so prudish about natural breastfeeding.

Use a blanket. Duh? Now why didn't I think of that? Problem solved? What blanket? "I knew I forgot to bring something?" Maybe you'd rather that the Mom forgot to get her baby out of the hot car, than to forget that precious blankie? Okay, I guess that isn't fair, so I take it back. Or let's say the air conditioner on the bus is broken, and it's 100 degrees F.? Yeah, cover up with a blanket, right. I don't know why that mother didn't simply cover up, but what do I care. Maybe the baby is tossing the blanket off? Do I need to be so judgmental? And don't think we men "like it" when mothers breastfeed. As usual, we get the short end of the stick, as while a glimpse may be no big deal, it's not worth being suspected of "staring."

Seriously? Breast pump at home? You are just begging for some wacko feminist to unload on you? Some babies won't take a bottle. They know what's good. Pumped milk is no longer fresh. And one can be running late, forgot to pump, or the baby's still hungry or cranky, and the bottle has run out. What then? Oh, but there's more, but we can't use that, because it might "offend" somebody. What a bunch of American crybabies, always on the lookout for how they can feign to be "offended" as a way to shove their will onto other people?

So what exactly did you agree with? No need to "cover up" at home? Not even with company visiting? I recall my sister wasn't concerned about us company. I mean it's her living room. We could always leave I suppose, if we wanted to feign "offense," rather than politely look in some other direction? I even gave her a glider rocker, as is so popular for mothers with small children.

I think also the "community standards" aspect of this, are pretty lax now, and so it is NOT porn. Not if there's a baby to explain for it. Even in the case of a photo to promote breastfeeding, and not prurient sexual interests.

If you think that is porn, then don't go to a public swimming pool or beach, where bikinis all over, are the norm. You are sure to see some cleavage there, and can almost make out the shape of the vagina, in some of those spandex bikini bottoms?

Think I saw a definition of porn once, saying that to be considered legally "obscene," something must meet all 3 requirements:

1. Designed to arouse prurient sexual interests.
2. Lacks serious literary merit.
3. Violates community standards.

Is that not a proper limited legal definition? The photos in question, violate none of these, and yet to be "obscene," they must violate all 3.

Don't forget, if you have problems controlling your urges, you can always choose not to buy that magazine, right? If you already subscribe to it, you could turn the page?

But I would consider the Sports Illustrated swimsuit editions, to be possibly "soft porn." Since an entire magazine of hot women in bikinis, is probably something to do with sexual interests, it probably does lack serious merit, although it might not really violate community standards. It might be a reason not to subscribe to the magazine at all, since even if it passes the "legal" test, many men still have a problem with porn. I would NOT consider the old catalogs with an "underwear" section to be porn, as the old ones I remember, don't really seem to show much of anything anyway, and that's not the usual, or intended reason most people look at them? Presumably, they are just shopping for clothes?