Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > Re: Butts and Breasts was: Ecological Nursing > > > >And, of course, no large amount of women are going to swoop in to >back me up, because those are not the women engaged in this >thread. (Or probably even reading it! :-) >Carol > Do you really think there's a soul on this list who's not reading a thread titled " Butts and Breasts " ?? Anyone who responds to this saying " I'm not " obviously is! Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 >>But wait a minute. Many of the gals were chiming in with bra sizes (IIRC you were one of them) when we were speaking about female anatomy, but now that we talk about lovely male body parts, the conversation has gone rather mute on the female side, except for some brave efforts. Deanna<< ~~~Well, I can tell you why that is. Breasts are talked about incessantly by both sexes, on TV and any and every where, because they are not 'THE' sexual female organ. They're much more 'familiar', and are 'paraded' about much more openly. We've been looking at them openly since we were children, in National Geographic. Also, they are used for other very sweet things, not just sex or pee. (Nursing sweet little babies.) Breasts have a much more wholesome connotation than the male organ. How often do you hear talk about vaginas? (About the same as talk about the penis.) I don't know how you could know you and I view sexuality differently. All I've been talking about are pretty well-known facts, not my sexual preferences or beliefs. :-) Besides that, you can't go by how people talk about sex. That's one of my points. Contrary to current popular belief, sex is a very private matter, even when it's batted about publicly. I am a much more open person than anyone else I've ever known in life, but I still don't publicly 'tell all' where sex is concerned, and I really doubt many people do. (Men do more than women, however.) Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 >>Do you really think there's a soul on this list who's not reading a thread titled " Butts and Breasts " ?? Anyone who responds to this saying " I'm not " obviously is! Suze Fisher<< ~~~Well, not many have, have they? I know a lot of women, who shy away from such talk so much, that they would definitely just delete these messages without reading them. (I delete a lot of messages on this List without reading them, even some of the ones that are sexually oriented, because it's so active, and I have other Lists too. :-) On top of that, my biggest point has been proven - not many will speak up, reading or not reading. I've also noticed that the guys have gone noticeably quiet about it now too! :-) Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 >How often do you hear talk about vaginas? (About the same as talk about the penis.) ***** Well, the " Vagina Monologues " come to mind instantly. >I don't know how you could know you and I view sexuality differently. *****You are correct, I couldn't know. But you did make a blanket statement on women's sexuality when you said to , " I'm sure there is the occasional woman who is more sexually oriented than the rest of us. " That may be where we differ. I do NOT view raunchy movies, nor I am bombarded with sexual images via media in general, but I am definitely a very sexual creature. Monogamously so at that. Funny, my Dad spoke to me about sexual appetites recently; it floored me somewhat. I guess it must be inherited, lol. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 At 02:01 PM 12/2/04 -0800, you wrote: >You mean 30 second men need not apply? > > 30 second men simply need to take up the proper resistance training regimen. MFJ Why not ... [all sorts of things]? ~ Anton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > >You mean 30 second men need not apply? > > > > > > > 30 second men simply need to take up the proper resistance training > regimen. > > > > MFJ > Why not ... [all sorts of things]? ~ Anton The late Byrnes, PhD has some helpful information on premature ejaculation and problems like this. http://www.powerhealth.net/articleguy-necology.htm Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 At 12:40 PM 12/3/04 -0600, you wrote: >> 30 second men simply need to take up the proper resistance training >> regimen. >> MFJ >> Why not ... [all sorts of things]? ~ Anton > > >The late Byrnes, PhD has some helpful information on premature >ejaculation and problems like this. > >http://www.powerhealth.net/articleguy-necology.htm > >Deanna Deanna, you're cracking me up. Current sig was a random choice, but seeing it quoted in this particular discussion makes me look at it with a whole new light and I think, well, I'd better stop that. But I think going back to " yeeeeeeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaaaa! " would be worse. Pardon me, I'm going to go find a different sig that won't make me laugh so hard. As soon as I catch my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > Deanna, you're cracking me up. Current sig was a random choice, but > seeing it quoted in this particular discussion makes me look at it with a > whole new light and I think, well, I'd better stop that. > > But I think going back to " yeeeeeeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaaaa! " would be > worse. > > Pardon me, I'm going to go find a different sig that won't make me > laugh so > hard. As soon as I catch my breath. , Oh poppycock! 'twasn't me this time. You're it. Now YOU are the one seeing things, lol. You know, Masterjohn started all this when, speaking of diet and erections, said in a whisper, " (Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope...) " Now we're screwed all righty. Even Kaja's " Wheeeeeeeeee " takes on a whole new life. I know, be brave and use Chris's quote! Heee heeee hee! Oh, I need to go for walkies now with , the old brood bitch whom I adopted after she had an accident with an English Setter and got fixed! Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 At 02:08 PM 12/3/04 -0600, you wrote: >Oh poppycock! 'twasn't me this time. You're it. Now YOU are the one >seeing things, lol. Okay, you're right. In my own defense, though, at the time I read your post where you *conveniently* included the sig, I had just finished talking to a good friend about his, errr, frustrations (with his SO, not me lol). So it was sorta on my mind. My bad. Oops, did I just admit having frank sexual discussions? No, doesn't count re THIS discussion, wasn't " da girls " or " da guys " . >I know, be brave and use Chris's quote! Heee heeee hee! Okay. You heard it here first. (Actually, it's a good quote for other uses, too.) MFJ Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > MFJ > Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn YES! Way to go, ! Deanna, calmer after walkies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 At 03:32 PM 12/3/04 -0600, you wrote: > > >> MFJ >> Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn > >YES! Way to go, ! > >Deanna, calmer after walkies I live to serve. MFJ Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 I'm not sure what you are hoping about, with willing hands and lips I would imagine you have very happy (and pliable) husband <weg> - -------------------- , Are you psychic? How did you know about my husband? Yes, he is happy, and his pliability is in direct proportion to my flexibility. Deanna " There is something so sweet about making up :-) " - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > > I live to serve. > > > > MFJ > Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn <snort> heeeheehe. Wonder what the Masterjohn is gonna think? Oh dear, now I'm in fits again every time I see it under your monogram. Tehee! Thanks a lot. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > This thread reminds me of a fairy tale book my Dad had, > from his childhood times in Germany. It had all kinds of > stuff you would NEVER see in a kids book today ... it was > cartoons, and they always made sure to show the little > anus of the dog when it was seen from behind, for instance. > Which to be sure is THERE when you see a dog, but I never > see it portrayed in cartoons today, which made me realize > we really do edit out more stuff than we think. They also tended to > show kids being eaten by ogres and stuff like that. - Heidi Jean Interesting about the fairy tale violence and illustrations you mention. Now I'll have to search out these old books, if I can. But perhaps western versions aren't as graphic. Certainly it will be a good research topic next time I hit the antique shops. And this leads me to think of violence in children's cartoon shows and the big deal made about it. Certainly, the good old stories had the witch baking the kids, etc. Symbolism must be big here but lacking in me modern head, as I can't figure it. But Bugs Bunny and the like are obviously unreal in their depiction of violence. Hmmm. Deanna " We ought to think that we are one of the leaves of a tree, and the tree is all humanity. We cannot live without the others, without the tree. " ~ Pablo Casals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 >Symbolism must be big here but lacking in me modern head, as >I can't figure it. But Bugs Bunny and the like are obviously unreal in >their depiction of violence. > >Hmmm. > >Deanna The old fairy stories dealt a lot in childhood anxieties ... kids were afraid their Mom would die (lots of Moms did) or that they would be kicked out of the house (Hansel and Gretel: that happened too) or sold off. Kids probably were afraid of getting baked too ... I mean, kids today are afraid of going down the drain with the water (the concept of " how big I am " takes a long time to develop, little kids actually seem to think they CAN fit in a toy car). The " witch " is thought to be the " bad Mom " ... kids have a love/hate thing going with their folks, they love them but they also get very angry at them. So they kind of divide Mom in their minds to the " good fairy " and " bad witch " . Kind of like guys think of women as " pure and virtuous and nurturing " AND as " sluts " . But a lot of kids DID have step-moms who favored their own children and a lot of kids had abusive parents in general (as today). Bugs Bunny doesn't deal with real life at all ... well, maybe he's our answer to the Indian Coyote/Trickster stories. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > And, of course, no large amount of women are going to swoop in to back me up, because those are not the women engaged in this thread. (Or probably even reading it! :-) > Carol Carol, I agree with you. In my experience, close friends might talk about sex one-on-one, but not groups. And women aren't likely to be waiting for the guys to leave the room so they can discuss penis size. Aven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 " How > can they tell this is a male without the glance underneath - where > nothing exists in the painting - unless MAYBE they have been raised by > horsie-type folks who know other ways to tell a boy horse from a girl, > which ain't unheard of in these here parts. But there is no way the > general kid population can tell. Nor could I, quite frankly, and > perhaps she should have forgotten the whole " as you can see " bs. Thus > my interest. I keep expecting someone else to mention it, but no one does ... Male horses don't go around with their members hanging out all the time. When they do hang out, they're very noticeable, but when they're pulled in, you have to look more closely to tell the girls from the boys. Aven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 > I keep expecting someone else to mention it, but no one > does ... Male horses don't go around with their members > hanging out all the time. When they do hang out, they're > very noticeable, but when they're pulled in, you have to > look more closely to tell the girls from the boys. > Aven Aven, Not true. Male horses and even lactating females have evidence of such. No duh they don't go hanging out constantly. Even when the penis is retracted, there is still very clear evidence of gender upon glance, thanks to the scrotum in males (but I am ignorant of the horse name for this anatomy). Gosh, I can even tell with cats at 4 weeks, even without a penis visible (as I did with cat #7, Diablo, now 9 weeks old). I live across the road from horse breeders and can tell the filly from the colt pretty readily within four months of birth. No peeing required. There is a bump ... And poor Whistlejacket - sire of many, and racehorse extraordinaire, was stripped of any hint of stud capacity and is in all realistic rendition - a mare. Do you see horses that often first hand, up close and personal? I do. Everyday. I live in rural Texas. Oh, and the longhorns too. I keep meaning to photograph them when I walk. They are a old chaps, I think, but very meat worthy. Oh heck, they are good watch cows and moo when anyone comes near their ponded pasture. And I can tell male from female by the little bloop as well. Nature rules, Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 ke-nutrition , Deanna <hl@s...> wrote: Even when the > penis is retracted, there is still very clear evidence of gender upon > glance, thanks to the scrotum in males (but I am ignorant of the horse > name for this anatomy). So you disagree that you have to look more closely when it's retracted? I've seen plenty of horses up close AND from a distance, and there are plenty of angles and distances where the sex of the horse is not evident. I haven't seen the paintings that started this conversation, so I can't say whether or not I think the genitals were left out deliberately. Aven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 So you disagree that you have to look more closely when it's retracted? I've seen plenty of horses up close AND from a distance, and there are plenty of angles and distances where the sex of the horse is not evident. I haven't seen the paintings that started this conversation, so I can't say whether or not I think the genitals were left out deliberately. Aven --------------------------- Aven, Everyday when I go outside, I see these horses in varying degrees of age at the neighbor's ranch. In the spring it is so fun to see the foals just born, romping with their mamas. Even at a distance of some 75 feet as I walk or drive by, I can tell pretty quickly as they grow, which is a colt and which is a filly. Many are eventually sold, I suppose, as it is the business for them. We have goats down the street, and I could actually raise my own livestock here, as we are zoned for it. So yes, I would disagree. It's much like looking at a large dog. For instance, I have a German Shepherd dog. Seeing her profile at a glance some several feet away is enough to see she is not a male. And whether males are castrated or not, they are easy to spot gender without coming up close and lifting up a hind leg. Whistlejacket is a huge painting - 115 x 97 inches - and was actually supposed to carry his owner and have landscape behind it. But when Stubb's finished the horse, the Marquess of Rockingham decided it should be left as a horse portrait. This is the first time this painting has left London, and it is breathtaking to view in person. But then, England is breathtaking and I would love to go back and live near Newmarket, as I once did. Now, I could be mistaken about this painting's positioning and anatomy that might be hidden. Check it out here: http://www.kimbellart.org/exhibitions/exh_file.cfm?id=106 I guess for me it was a matter concerning the anatomy of horse books he produced. He has some posterior pictures with all the musculature of the anus present, but he mysteriously left out any penis anatomy, and horses are unique I believe in this area. But then again, maybe he did describe it in some of his work, I certainly haven't seen it all. I think had it right - it was penis envy. Those books were not a thing " the ladies " would be viewing, as they were technical and for purposes of breeding and racing, which were men only activities in the day. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 In a message dated 12/2/04 6:36:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > I haven't met a straight guy yet who was interested in looking > at other males, and most women seem to be with you, they > think males are kinda funny looking totally nude. ____ ~~~~> I'm straight. I don't get any sexual stimulation from looking at a man's penis (with certain exceptions that all include girls being in the same depiction), if that's what you mean, but I like looking at a ripped and muscular male physique. I think a mans chest and back, in particular, are pleasant to look at, and I appreciate the hard work that goes into forming them. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 In a message dated 12/2/04 7:07:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, cah@... writes: > ~~~Well, one of you saying that, I could ignore, (deciding to let you live > in your happy delusion), but two of you is too much. :-) You guys just love > to think sex is on the minds of us women as much as it is on the minds of > you men, but it simply doesn't compute. It has been proven that men think of > sex too many times a day to count, whereas women go lots of days never > thinking of it at all. _____ ~~~~> Carol, you must not listen to the radio, watch tv, or associate with young or culturally liberal women. Women talk about sex all the time. They talk about sex when men ARE present, so I find it hard to believe that they don't talk about sex when men leave! Radio shows with women talk about sex all the time. In my experience women are more open to talking about sex than men are. When I was going to school, I had plenty of conversations about sex with groups of female study partners. _______ > I know I could be starting a new hot debate here, from both sides, and if > that should happen, I'll let the rest of you have at it, because I'm really > too old to care, but I'm going to be VERY honest here, just 'cause. :-) I'm > plenty old enough to have had quite a bit of experience talking with other > women about lots of stuff. (Probably more than most women on this List.) In > all these years, I can't remember one time when the conversation turned to sex > when the men left the room. If they're going to talk about men at all, it's > more apt to be in ways the men wouldn't think was so neat. :-) On the > other hand, I do suppose men talk about it alot, when women leave the room, since > that's what men think about so much of the time anyway. _____ ~~~> Do you think it's possible that your age may affect this in other ways than giving you more experience talking to women? Like, perhaps the fact that you tend to talk to women who are your age? And the fact that younger women would naturally be more reserved in the presence of an older woman? Are you considering the generation gap that exists between people currently in their 40s and younger and people currently in their 50s and older? (rough age estimates) _______ > > But, go ahead, dream on. :-) I'm sure there is the occasional woman who is > more sexually oriented than the rest of us, (or more open when the subject > has been broached), but for the most part, even those women, don't talk about > it much when only with a group of other women. And, if they do talk about > it, it's much more apt to be in pairs than in larger groups of women. I have > actually been 'shut down' by other women, if I've brought up the subject, once > or twice in my life. I will admit that, nowdays, there are more uninhibited > young women who like to talk about it openly in group settings like > this.....in a sort of party atmosphere, and I'm doing it myself. But, that's totally > different from what it's like when it's only women in the group. In that > case, I've never once witnessed a group of women talking about sex. Maybe > you're watching too many raunchy movies. :-) _____ ~~~~> Well I'll just ask some young women the next time I go out how often they talk about sex when there are no men around. I think it would be pretty weird that women would be perfectly comfortable talking about sex when guys are around and suddenly inhibited when they are not. I'd think women would have some things to say about sex when their partners or potential partners aren't there! _____ > And, of course, no large amount of women are going to swoop in to back me > up, because those are not the women engaged in this thread. (Or probably even > reading it! :-) ____ ~~~> Plus it's probably past their bed time. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 In a message dated 12/3/04 10:30:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > Do you really think there's a soul on this list who's not reading a thread > titled " Butts and Breasts " ?? Anyone who responds to this saying " I'm not " > obviously is! ____ ~~>Well, for the record, I'm not reading this thread. Really. Funny you say that... this guy at work a couple weeks ago was getting made fun of and he put his hearing protection on. A guy says, " Woody, can you hear me? " He shouts, " No! " Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 In a message dated 12/3/04 12:19:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@... writes: > >How often do you hear talk about vaginas? (About the same as talk > about the penis.) ____ ~~~~> Daily. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 In a message dated 12/3/04 10:14:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, twyllightmoon@... writes: > Carol, I agree with you. In my experience, close friends might > talk about sex one-on-one, but not groups. And women > aren't likely to be waiting for the guys to leave the room so they > can discuss penis size. ____ ~~~~> I think guys are the opposite-- more likely to talk about sex the more people are there. But when I said " when the guys leave the room, " I just meant what women would say to other women not in the presence of men-- I didn't necessarily mean a large group. And I guess more broadly I meant what women really think, whether they talk about it or not. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.