"You’re surprised/upset that someone called you a slut/whore/hoe? I mean, you’re naked for strangers all day and masturbate to make money, what did you expect?"
You don’t have to respect my job, or anything that I do, but being a jerk to someone (no matter who they are…
H&R Block tax tip: pay your taxes in fake money gospel tracts.
wow trying too hard much??
lmao youre not even trans
what a fucking joke
WOW HE'S SO BRAVE BREAKING THE GENDER BINARY!! WOW SO HOT OMFG!!!!!!
Breasts shouldn’t be shown in public because they are sexual, just like penises.
In fact, the two are not comparable. Penises are genitals—that is, they are part of the reproductive system. Breasts are not genitals, because they are not part of the reproductive system. Scientifically speaking, breasts are erogenous zones—that is, an area of heightened sensitivity that can be stimulated to achieve sexual arousal. Genitals, since their primary functions are sexual, are legally considered obscene and cannot be shown in public. Erogenous zones are not primarily sexual and thus are not obscene.
Furthermore, if you really believed that breasts and penises should be treated alike, you would have to treat fake breasts designed to fill the role served by real breasts (which is all that pacifiers and bottles are) the same way you treat fake penises designed to fill the role served by real penises (in other words, dildos, butt plugs, and vibrators). If you don’t consider bottles sex toys, you don’t really consider breasts to be obscene.
But you admit breasts can be used for sexual arousal! Doesn’t that make them inappropriate to display in public?
Mouths, necks, and fingertips, are also erogenous zones frequently used for sexual arousal; however, like breasts, their primary biological functions are not sexual. Unless you want to argue that none of those should be shown in public, either, this isn’t a valid reason to declare breasts inappropriate for public view.
Incidentally, men’s nipples are not only erogenous zones but structurally no different than women’s nipples. They are likewise attached to breast tissue, which is why men can get breast cancer. In fact, there have been documented instances of men who have managed to breastfeed, yet men are allowed to show their nipples without any outcry. There is no logical reason why men’s bare breasts and women’s bare breasts should be held to different standards of public decency.
But breasts are “secondary sex characteristics,” doesn’t that make them sexual?
A secondary sex characteristic is simply any non-reproductive-system feature that distinguishes males from females within a species. In humans, that includes beards, Adam’s apples, and even height differences between men and women, none of which anyone would call sexual. Thus, simply being a secondary sex characteristic isn’t enough to make breasts sexual, either.
But teenage boys or pervy men could see you and get aroused, doesn’t that make it sexual?
No. Legally, conduct is only lewd if the person acting actually intends to arouse onlookers, not just whether the person who sees it is aroused. This is also common sense, as almost anything can be a turn-on for someone passing by. Foot fetishists consider women in sandals provocative. Orthodox Jews consider a woman’s arm above the elbow provocative. Pubescent teenagers consider just about anything that moves provocative. However, a woman wearing short sleeves and sandals walking past a group of teenage boys isn’t inherently sexual nor inappropriate for public view.
My intent when breastfeeding is to feed my child, not to make some stranger horny. If someone walking by finds my breastfeeding arousing, that’s no more my problem than a teenage boy’s being aroused by a pretty girl walking past is that girl’s problem.
Urinating/defecating is natural, too, but you can’t do that in public.
Urination and defecation in public are banned for two reasons: because feces and urine are unsanitary and because the act of urination or defecation require the genital area to be exposed. Breastmilk is not unsanitary, nor does breastfeeding expose any genitals. Thus, the reasons for banning public urination/defecation don’t apply to breastfeeding.
If breastfeeding is such an “intimate” thing, like I hear a lot, why do you want to do it in public in the first place?
Hugging and kissing are also intimate, but no one considers it inappropriate to hug or kiss one’s child in public. Intimate acts are just acts that foster emotional closeness between people. Emotional closeness can happen anywhere.
Also, this particular intimate act provides free, convenient infant food. If my child is hungry while we’re out in public, I think wanting to feed him then and there is a perfectly logical reaction.
There’s no need to breastfeed in public to feed a baby. You can just pump/give a bottle.
There’s also no need for you to buy coffee at Starbucks, because you could always make some at home and take it with you. We all do things in public that we don’t “need” to do, but as long as those things are appropriate for the public sphere, whether we “need” to do them or not doesn’t matter.
Additionally, breastmilk from the source is free, convenient, and doesn’t require lugging extra equipment or taking extra time to extract the milk and feed the baby separately. Formula and pumped milk don’t have all those advantages. There’s no reason for me to inconvenience myself in order to avoid doing something appropriate in public.
Once babies are eating solids, they don’t need to be breastfed in public. They don’t need the milk for nutrition.
Children don’t need to eat meat for nutrition, either, but they’re still allowed to eat it in public. See the previous answer regarding “needs.”
Breastfeeding where children can see is inappropriate. They shouldn’t be exposed to that.
It’s impossible to breastfeed where no children can see, since breastfeeding requires the participation of a child. If it were inappropriate for children to see breasts, then no one could ever breastfeed, publicly or privately, because the child being fed would see them in either event. Thus, unless you believe that all breastfeeding is inappropriate, you have already admitted that children seeing breasts isn’t a problem.
But how can I explain that to my children when they ask what you’re doing?
Tell them I’m feeding my baby. If they ask further, tell them that human mommies can make milk for their babies just like cows do. It’s a simple but complete answer.
Why can’t you be considerate and use a cover/go somewhere private?
Because there’s no reason to. As already proven above, there’s nothing inappropriate about breastfeeding in public. Would you ask someone eating a burger in the food court or someone talking on a cell phone in the parking lot to either cover up or go somewhere else? Of course not, because they’re doing nothing that’s inappropriate or infringes on anyone else. Would they be rude or inconsiderate to refuse such a request? Again, of course not—if anything, the person asking would be rude and inconsiderate for harassing them for no reason in the first place. Since breastfeeding in public is likewise neither inappropriate nor intrusive, the same logic applies.
Breastfeeding in public is exhibitionist and immodest.
Tell that to the Puritans, who despite their exacting standards of modesty saw nothing unusual or sinful about women breastfeeding outside the home. Or to the Christians of the Middle Ages, who required women to cover far more than our society but commonly hung icons of Mary breastfeeding Jesus with her entire breast exposed in their churches. Or even to observant Muslims in the present day—many women who fully cover their bodies, hair, and faces to comply with Islamic modesty rules still breastfeed in public. The idea of breastfeeding being immodest is less than a century old—it didn’t become commonplace in the Western world until formula became the norm, never became commonplace outside the Western world, and is no longer commonplace in most of the Western world today.
In any case, this is irrelevant. Women are allowed to walk around in skimpy bikinis in public. There is no law against immodesty as long as it isn’t obscene—and as there are no genitals involved, breastfeeding isn’t.
But I don’t want to see that! It makes me uncomfortable.
You have the right to feel uncomfortable. Likewise, I have the right to feel uncomfortable when I hear people preaching on street corners or see men wearing socks with sandals. But unless you want to also ban everything else from the public sphere that could possibly make anyone uncomfortable, this argument carries no weight.
Judy Guth doesn’t care if you have great references, pay your rent on time, or are as quiet as a mouse.
Without a dog or cat, you’re not getting one of her cherished apartments that come with new carpeting — in lieu of a security deposit — for an extra $100 a month.
When it’s paid off — usually in about a year — the carpeting is yours. If you decide to move, which few people do, you can take it with you. Nobody ever has, though.
Most of Judy’s tenants in her 12-unit apartment house have lived there over a decade — a few more than two. If a pet dies, she takes the tenant to the animal shelter to adopt a new one. It’s either that or move.
No pet, no apartment. Those are the ground rules at Judy’s place.
“This is the first I’ve heard of a landlord renting to only people with pets,” says Terri Shea, operations manager of the 3,000-member Apartment Association of Southern California Cities, based in Long Beach.
People have accused her of discrimination, and maybe she is biased, Judy says. But she doesn’t care.
“My experience has told me you get people with a lot of love in their hearts when you get pet owners,” she says.
A spokesperson for the L.A. City Attorney’s Office says there is nothing in the law that prohibits someone from refusing to rent to people with or without pets.
The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, and disability, but pets are given a pass.
Mary Rickettshas lived at Judy’s place for almost 25 years. Sadie, a shepherd mix mutt she bailed out of the shelter, is her second pet since she moved into this quiet, well-kept, neighborhood of single-family homes and nicely landscaped apartment buildings in North Hollywood.
Mary lived in one of the large, one-bedroom apartments upstairs that now rent to new tenants for $1,200 a month (two-bedroom’s go for $1,500), but Judy noticed her having trouble getting up the steps one day.
The next week she invited Mary to lunch and a movie, then they stretched it to dinner and a long dessert. Judy was stalling for time.
While they were gone, Jerry Schiess, whose been managing the building for nearly 12 years, got a couple of guys to help him move all of Mary’s furniture and personal belongings to a newly refurbished apartment on the ground floor with a little patio area.
“How many landlords would do something like that for one of their tenants?” she asks. “She’s a very unique woman.”
Maybe, Judy says, but it’s really a no-brainer. More landlords should wise up about pets, she says. If you want people with a lot of love in their heart, who pay their rent on time and seldom move, make sure they’re carrying a leash or bag of cat litter under their arm.
“I’ve talked to other rental property owners about it, but they just laugh,” she says. “They’re stupid. The only vacancies I’ve had are when people had to move because the economy forced them out of state for a job.
“Within a day or two, there’s a new dog or cat moving in. I can’t remember all the people, but I can remember their pets.”
When I first met Judy 11 years ago, she was sharing an apartment with her German shepherd, Jezebel, a rescue. He’s since died and her new roommate is an Australian miniature terrier she’s named “I Love Sushi.”
“He’s my man,” says the 84-year-old, Hungarian-born, widow, and extremely sharp owner of the apartment building at 5053 Cartwright Ave. that she bought 40 years ago for $260,000. A couple of weeks ago she got an offer for more than $2 million.
She started her “pets-only” policy shortly after she bought the place and saw one of her tenants — a retired school teacher — hiding her cat because she thought the new owner would evict her. Judy told her not to worry.
“The next time I walked by her apartment, her cat was sitting in the window sunning itself. It wasn’t hiding anymore,” she says.
Each tenant is allowed one or two dogs of any size (she’s had Great Danes), but they must be vaccinated, and wear an up-to-date ID tag. Incessant barking or bad behavior is prohibited. They actually “interview” the dog before the person to check for that.
Dogs have to be on a leash when they are outside the apartment. As many as three cats are allowed, and they must be neutered.
Every day, Schiess, the apartment house manager, gets a few phone calls from people asking if anyone’s planning to move soon? He has to tell them, “sorry, no.”
Schiess owns a shepherd-mix named Shadow who was rescued after Hurricane Katrina, and wound up in an L.A. animal shelter. The first time they met, Shadow bit him.
“I thought to myself I better take this dog because nobody else will. He’s changed a lot since then. A little love goes a long way around here.”
Dennis McCarthy’s column runs on Friday. He can be reached at email@example.com.
WE ONLY USE LEASHES BECAUSE DOGS CANT HOLD HANDS