Re: Butts and Breasts was: Ecological Nursing

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>>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

[Guest guest]

>>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> >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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> MFJ

> Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

YES! Way to go, !

Deanna, calmer after walkies

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 :-) " -

[Guest guest]

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

" 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

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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