Lincolnite

I won’t lie.  “Anal cleft” and “discernibly turgid” made me giggle.

Ah, legislation.

Littering?

I am loving the comments.  There are only 2 in support out of 79 comments.  And of course they include scripture.

We should also consider that Mark Christensen thinks Victoria’s Secret should fall into that category.

I appreciate the precise definition of the semi-nude nipple. There’s no wiggle room there.

If anal cleavage is outlawed, there’s going to be a lot of illegal appliance repair men and carpenters out there…

If anal cleft is outlawed, only outlaws will have anal cleft.

So I’m guessing people don’t have a problem with breast feeding, just the showing of breasts. I’m pretty sure we’re alone in the industrialized world in this thinking, but I suppose that’s okay and doesn’t stop any of our other prude and strange midwestern hangups.

I’m not exactly sure which part I should be more offended to.. that you link a breastfeeding law in with a stripper law, or the fact that you don’t get that a child’s right to eat, when it’s hungry, is key essential and a liberty that 40 other states already protect.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

Apparently feeding a child is a lewd act that should not be performed by the sexual deviants in our society withing a quarter mile of a church, where no sexual deviancy happens ever. 😉

Your tone suggests you completely missed the point. I doubt this will be productive, but here goes nothing…

The obvious link between the two bills is that they both seek to regulate the circumstances under which boobs may be displayed on private property. I say that decision is best left to the owner of the property; Sens. Christensen and Dubas and you say the state should set those terms. The former is an exercise of liberty; the latter is an act of restricting that liberty—oppression, if you will.

Put simply, I believe in a person’s right to do darn near anything he wants to do with himself so long as his actions do not bring harm to others. If Bob the Property Owner is “harmed” by women breastfeeding on his property, well, sorry moms and kids. You may think there’s nothing harmful about breastfeeding—and you’re right, there isn’t—but that’s not for you or me to decide in the context of Bob’s property. We are, however, welcome to avoid his business and to encourage others to do the same. Now that is liberty.

I have no problem with the showing of breasts. In fact, I encourage it.

I’m all for boobs being displayed on private property. In fact, I encourage it.

What “harm” does this bring Bob the Property Owner?

I only ask because we’ve all agreed that there isn’t anything harmful about breastfeeding.

If “no breastfeeding” is a condition for being on his property, then a violation of that condition “harms” him.

So if Bob the Property Owner doesn’t want people to be Hispanic or African American on his property or in his business, should we allow that as well?

Nicely done, Gene. The race card is always a winner.  I’ll play along.  Do you think prayer in school is harmful?

I was waiting for that one 😊

From a pure libertarian perspective, that’s correct. Bob can allow whomever he wants on his property. Very few people actually go that far; I don’t. Everybody has their own collection of circumstance-based lines in the sand and their own reasons for drawing the lines where they do. They’re all arbitrary to some degree.

For me, one of the reasons I say it’s ok for Bob to bar breastfeeding but not persons of particular ethnic groups is that the former is a willful act with plenty of available alternatives, while race and ethnicity are unavoidable “conditions”. That may or may not make sense to you. Again, the lines are arbitrary.

Not really. If a mother is trying to establish breast-feeding, she doesn’t have many “alternatives” but to breast-feed when the baby is hungry. Introducing a bottle at that point creates problems. I suppose she can leave, go home, and come back but you’re implying that she lives close to whichever property and that she’s financially well-off enough to own a car. If the baby is a newborn, it will probably be hungry again by the time she takes the bus home and comes back.

“Breast feeding”? sounds like hippie talk for letting women get away with sucking on their boobs.

Milk should come from cows, and only should be consumed out of a glass. Get with the times folks.

And if a person wants to pray to themselves, I have no problem with that. If a person wants to pray five times a day while they’re at work, I have no problem with that either. 😊

And only 1%. Anything else is unnatural.

Breaking this out into a new thread…

<blockquote>Not really. If a mother is trying to establish breast-feeding, she doesn

What’s next door? How far away is home? What’s her mode of transportation? Did she walk to the grocery store in a town with one grocery story? Can she pump and use a bottle and cause nipple confusion? Does she own a $200 pump? Is the baby old enough for crackers? Can she spend $25 for a can of formula? Something tells me that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

True, plus, you can’t coddle these kids forever. 😊

Actually, pumping was helpful, in that it always allowed for us to have a little extra on hand.

Additionally, it’s very easy to feed even in a public place and simply drape a blanket over mom’s shoulder, breast, and baby. It won’t harm the child, and it should prevent any untended eyes from the glare of that bright, shiny, spherical object they should not gaze directly into.

That’s supposed to be “unintended.”

Mr Wilson, I think you found another way to up the comments! Just talk about boobs!

I think there’s a legal difference between Bob’s house and Bob’s business, and that difference is related to the word “public”.  Bob’s business would be more like a public school where Bob doesn’t get to discriminate regarding boobies, either pro or con.

<blockquote>Something tells me that you really don

“Spherical”? Somebody had surgery.

I think the difference here is that we don’t want “breast feeding” whether you’re covered or not.

Something tells me that you really don

And we can settle this like men at the Coleen Seng parking lot at high noon. 😉

You’re on the right track, Matt, except that “public” doesn’t mean the same thing in all those places. The “public” in public schools is different from the “public” in public park, and both are different from the “public” that applies to a “public” place like a business (even though the business is, in fact, private). Laws and court decisions often trip over themselves trying to differentiate among the different concepts of a “public” place.

And we can settle this like men at the Coleen Seng parking lot at high noon.

I am so there! Well, no, not today. I’m pretty busy. And I’ve kind of had a cold this week, so I’m not really feeling all that great. Maybe next week…

Actually, we could turn this discussion into a nice interactive lesson on property rights by just taking it to various locations around the city and talking as much as possible about breasts. I’ll bet we could get ourselves kicked out of a few spots around town just by our repetitive use of the word “breast” and its many euphemisms. The question is, which places can legally kick us out, and which cannot?

Field trip!

A “Where In Lincoln” series with boobs? Sounds like a winner!

Okay, you aren’t really being serious are your Mr. Wilson.  You are honestly advocating giving a newborn a cracker?  Or giving a child who’s allergic to ingredients in formula the formula, which could ultimately cause an allergic reaction.  You are seriously advocating telling an infant, who’s only form of communication is crying, to “suck it up”, and hope that it understands, shuts up and stops disturbing those around them?

I’m agreeing here with Gene.  Your reply simply demonstrates that you really don’t have much experience with breastfeeding or the requirements that it creates for both mother and child.

LOL. Ophelia, chill out a bit. You’re being extremely irrational. Look back at what I wrote. Did I actually advocate infanticide or abuse anywhere in there? If you say yes, you’re seeing the world through a lens so distorted nothing I say will matter. If no, then let’s move on.

Still here? Fantastic. The key here, of course, is the last sentence in my comment above. Some of the alternatives I proposed are more or less appropriate for any given mother and child. Think about my comment in that context and I think you’ll come to a modified conclusion about my sadistic tendencies.

As for my experience with breastfeeding, it has no bearing whatsoever on my argument. The issue here is one person’s right (to bar certain activities from his property) versus another person’s right (to perform a natural human act). Both of those are legitimate rights. We’re merely disagreeing over which one “weighs more” in a specific context.

And I think praying in public is just fine, so long as you’re praying about boobs.

Some of the men folk in this town have no business going shirtless.  They’ve bigger boobs than some women.

GROSS!!

Okay, new thread time. Gene, isn’t the objection to public breatfeeding that someone may see something they don’t want to see? Why is simply covering the act not a solution. A mom that’s been breastfeeding for any longer than about 2 days can quite deftly cover herself first, then get the child in position, then open up and let the kid fill his/her tank, all with what seems to be relative ease (note, I said “relative” - they make it look easy when it probably isn’t).

If someone would have an objection to that, I fail to understand why. There would be no skin being visible to the eyeballs of anyone else. It’s subtle, it’s quiet, and the mom and child are fine.

I always thought the hulabaloo about breastfeeding is that 5-year old Timmy may accidently be exposed (no pun intended) to a quick peek at a boobie, thus corrupting him for life.

I like the way Gene is thinking here. In fact, I encourage it.

As a woman who has breast fed - yeah, most of the time it’s pretty easy to just cover up your baby and breast and get the kid fed without upsetting anyone. If the breast isn’t visible, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem.

However, there are sometimes problems in getting settled in, or finishing up the breastfeeding, or dealing with a fussy baby, and the blanket can slip off briefly. So you can try to keep covered, but you can’t guarantee that someone won’t get a glimpse of bare breast.

I totally agree with you. And, I think if a mom is cognizent of her surroundings, and does everything within reason to keep it as a private act, if there’s a slip, it’s just an accident. People don’t need to be so prudish in those cases. I’ve never heard of permanent harm from seeing a bare breast for 2 seconds. Hell, most of the nation saw Janet Jackson’s (okay, bad example).

With all of that said, and back to the original intent of the thread, I fail to see the need for a law. Can’t common sense just prevail?

This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!

Gene, isn