Sunday, September 25, 2005

On Breastfeeding in Public

It's fascinating to me how the simple act of giving sustenance to a child through the mammary glands can be so divisive. Endless controversies seem to exist on when, where and how best to breast-feed a child, and some of those issues cropped up in the latest, "I-had-no-idea-this-post-was-going-to-explode" topic I blogged about two days ago, the Baby Wars. Over the past few days, I've seen many arguments on both sides of the parenting issue, but many of them seem to simplify parenting to "pro-parents" = "pro-women" and "anti-parents" = "anti-women". I'm of the belief that nothing is quite so simple, and part of me is even a little disturbed that we, as educated and thoughtful feminists, could so readily buy into the belief that parenting is still women's work with our discussion, and so any chastisement of parents automatically must be a criticism of women and feminism. First of all, I was not breast-fed as a kid. I was denied all those health advantages they go on and on about when it comes to breast milk because my mother, who developed the non-sexually transmitted form of Hepatitis as a teen (I always forget which letter it is) continues to be a carrier for the illness and so was warned against breast-feeding my sister and I. And so we made do with baby formula and, obviously, given my constant weight issues, I made do a little too well. Twenty some years later, I've been rather surprised at how inflammatory breast-feeding has become as an issue. Some argue that women should not breast-feed in public, that it creates a moral or public nuisance. They don't want to be faced with the exposure of breasts, which are still a hypersexualized part of the female body. The counter-argument made by breast-feeding mothers (or lactivists) is that mothers should have the right to breast-feed wherever they so desire because after all, who are we to deny their children sustenance? Taking it one step further are those who argue that breast-feeding is not done enough in society, and mothers can and should breast-feed as long as possible, until the child chooses to say no. Strangely, enough, I feel both of these vocalized arguments (pro- and anti- public breast-feeding) ignore my perspective on the situation. My issue isn't really about children, or mothers, or milk or breasts; my issue is about equality. It's a given that women face undue discrimination and oppression in today's patriarchal society: we are pressured into roles of motherhood, femininity and hypersexuality. We are told that if we are not exposing our flesh for the pleasure of men, we should keep it hidden away so as not to distract them. Women in the workplace are encouraged and encourage themselves to dress like men as if to hide their feminine form will hide the disadvantages they face on Wall Street and make them acceptable as "just one of the guys". Applying that to breast-feeding, my outlook is simple. As women, we cannot bare our breasts in public in case we flaunt our sexuality to the distraction of men... except to feed a child, in which case, public exposure of our mammary glands is acceptable. Why is that? As women who champion the rights of mothers to breast-feed in public, are we not setting our goals not at making life more equal for women but merely altering an oppressive social sanction (with the rationalization of an oft-time limiting socialized gender role) to benefit some women and not others? When we say to ourselves that it should be alright for mothers -- and mothers alone -- to remove their shirts, we say "it's okay that our breasts are hypersexualized, they should remain hidden, except for certain women who fulfill accepted feminine roles of motherhood". By making this our foremost argument, we are in essence aiding and abetting the very patriarchal regime that keeps us down. Moreover, by arguing this point of view, that mothers of infants, alone, should be given a pass to 'violate' the taboo of upper nudity, we are, essentially, saying that the nudity, itself is inoffensive. Devoid of circumstantial context, the act of baring one's breast is not offensive -- therefore, if the public sees the breast of a breast-feeding mother, there is no immediate issue. However, when we draw the line between baring breasts to breast-feed and baring one's breast because, for example, one is hot that day, we say that having children is more important than any other reason that one might have to remove one's shirt. What this tells non-parents is that having a child is better -- that any other choices we might make don't give us the privilege of waiving certain social sanctions. In a roundabout way, focusing only on the mothers in the breast-feeding argument perpetuates the existing social pressures women face to define their success by their fertility. Finally, what are we saying about mothers if we argue that breast-feeding parents should be able to bare their breasts in defiance of society's puritannical outlook on feminine sexuality? By arguing that the status quo should be maintained but that mothers should be able to breast-feed in public is to say that the hypersexuality of breasts that disadvantages childless women does not apply to mothers -- in other words, that mothers or their breasts are not sexy. I'm sure plenty of mothers and fathers alike would disagree with that. If feminists are about equal gender rights, then we should be about equal gender rights for all within the gender, regardless of our various, individual economic, social and religious backgrounds. This distinction that has been drawn by the pro-breastfeeding and anti-breastfeeding camps (as well as between other intra-women groups over primarily female issues) seems to over-simplify the issues and delineate more divides between women than solve any real problems that we face. Suddenly, no longer am I just arguing about the injustices that women face in comparison to men (or vice versa) but am also finding myself drafted into a war between parents and non-parents, pro-choicers and pro-lifers, married and unmarried, thin and not. And don't get me started when one of those sides starts questioning the feminism of the other (... although it's very easy to do, and I'm guilty of having done it myself. Just an indication as to how powerful these distracting issues can be in keeping feminists from finding real common ground upon which to act). To me, I am pro-breast-feeding in the sense that I believe that women should have the same rights as men to remove our shirts when we so choose, regardless of why we might choose to do so. Whether I have to feed my child or because it's 120F outside, my problem is with the taboos surrounding breasts themselves, not quibbling over under what circumstances baring them can be tolerated. And yet, I am anti-breast-feeding in the sense that, until all women are able to remove our shirts in public, in other words, until breasts, themselves, are not as limitingly hypersexualized, I don't think it's fair to argue for a "special pass" because it in essence asks that some women remain disadvantaged because they refuse to buy into society's genderized role for them. I don't feel comfortable with the line the pro-breast-feeding camp takes because I think it ignores what is a larger and more relevant issue to women. Coming from Toronto, I am able to remove my shirt in public if I want to -- we passed that law nearly a decade ago and my understanding is that it is still in effect. Strangely, our city did not fall into sin, and women were not removing their shirts willy-nilly. I knew of one woman who took advantage the summer following the passing of this new law, and I myself didn't join her because of the painful repercussions of attempting to play tennis with unsupported DDs. What the law did do, however, is give women a greater sense of equality with their male counterparts, giving us a choice that we may choose to waive but which does not legally bind our behaviour. As a feminist, my issues are more than just about my reproductive freedom, and just because I can have children doesn't mean that I can and should take the "children are great" point of view of every argument. So, to all the mothers out there, if you would like to breast-feed in public, you won't get any argument from me. After all, I don't know the first damn thing about child-rearing so I'm not going to presuppose to tell a parent when and where their child needs food. But, we both should understand that it's not always just about the children. For some of us crazy, childless, twenty something bloggers, it's also about the unjust limits society has placed on women at large.


Blogger Elizabeth said...

Well, I think a lot of us breast-feeding advocates ARE saying that it's high time we stopped sexualizing the breast. Breasts are for feeding babies. Anything else is just side-benefit. This has been La Leche League's stance for many years. Of course, we should all have the right to take of our shirts in public; why should it only be men who can do that? But the absolute most important issue here is that babies get fed. The whole reason why breats should not be sexualized is that breast are for feeding babies. Anything besides that reason for taking off your shirt is side-benefit.

By the way, I never took off my shirt in public in order to feed my baby....and I highly doubt that more than a couple of people ever saw a nipple of mine in public, and those couple only for a fleeting split second. And that's in 5 years of combined breast feeding of two children.

9/25/2005 08:20:00 PM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

First off, I'd like to say great article, Jenn. This is exactly the impression that I got from your mention of breastfeeding in "Baby Wars", not the "omg breasts are teh eval so don't show them when you nurse teh babbeez" that some of the commenters seemed to take it as.

Secondly, I'd like to bring over some excerpts from comments I made on chesire's post:

I think women should have the right to walk around topless for any reason without being shamed or ridiculed. ... Part of the reason why I would like to be able to go topless if I so chose (at least anywhere a man could go topless) is to stop closeting female nudity/sexuality for the benefit of "not arousing" men. Screw that. My chest is no more or less inherently sexual than a man's. I should have the same rights and privileges as they do when it comes to exposure of my body.

Jenn said: And don't get me started when one of those sides starts questioning the feminism of the other (... although it's very easy to do, and I'm guilty of having done it myself. Just an indication as to how powerful these distracting issues can be in keeping feminists from finding real common ground upon which to act).

So very true. I'm still fuming that Dru Blood decided that anything that I said was worthless simply because I define myself as "childfree" and she has had some unfortunate experiences with childfree people. And my post was an attempt to highlight the common ground between your position and hers!

elizabeth said: Breasts are for feeding babies. Anything else is just side-benefit.

While we agree on the main point (we need to stop sexualizing the breast), I disagree with you here. Breasts are for feeding babies for you. My tubes are tied by my choice. No baby will ever feed from my breast. My breasts are for whatever I say they're for. No one, not you, not society, and not the government can define that for me. Just as I cannot define that for you.

9/26/2005 12:39:00 PM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

It is surprising how inflammatory parenting, breastfeeding and its analogues are. I even found it a little disturbing.

I find it a lot disturbing. I do my best to avoid the conversations because of it, but I've seen both sides frothing at the mouth over these issues and being completely unwilling to understand the other side. I can see the superficial problems that divide the sides, but in truth I just don't get the extremist positions. Isn't this exactly what we feminists have been fighting for years? The ability of the patriarchy to turn us against ourselves and divide us so that we're unable to provide a united front against its oppression?

As an anthropologist, I'm still not convinced that this problem is not conflated with the general American ethos (disaffection) and structural behaviors regarding child-rearing.

I agree with you, although I think I said as much on your blog. The simplistic version of how I see the problem is that America worships baby making but devalues baby raising.

9/27/2005 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

*Evolutionarily speaking* breasts are for feeding babies. Can anyone dispute this? Really?

I support your choice to not have children. In some ways, I think it may be better to not have children, for the health of the planet. Environmentalism is why my husband and I chose to stop at two--we only replaced ourselves, and no more.

However, I've been thinking lately that perhaps you'd really miss out if you didn't have any children. When you don't have children, you see the world only through your own eyes. You only have to look out for yourself. Which isn't to say that you are selfish--even if you do care for other people, you don't have a biological urge to make sure that this person gets along in this world. But when you have a child, it's different. You have another human being that is truly dependent on you. Something kicks in that wasn't there before. You will fight for someone else to make his/her own way in the world.

This feeling is evolutionary--it's built into our organism. The very urge to reproduce is built in. The mechanism to feed babies is built in--they're called breasts. You can use them for other purposes, of course, but evolutionarily, breasts are for feeding babies.

9/27/2005 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

"You can use them for other purposes, of course, but evolutionarily, breasts are for feeding babies." - Elizabeth

I'm sorry, Elizabeth, I really don't mean to offend, but why does this matter? I don't have children or breasts, and I don't see why the imperative to feed children trumps all other concerns for some public breastfeeding advocates. To me, the logical next step from the 'evolutionary purpose' of breasts you speak of (as if their is only one evolutionary purpose, or that one breast function can supersede all others)is that breastfeeding, a natural and useful function, should not be hindered by malleable cultural restrictions. (I apologize in advance if I have mischaracterized your views, Elizabeth.)

While I'm sure that perspective is justifiable, I think the 'evolutionary purpose' perspective on breasts only serves to divide women on the grounds Jenn and Tekanji have spoken about - mothers v. non-mothers. The entire idea that any body part has a singular evolutionary purpose does not take into account the multifunctional benefits of evolutionary adaptation, in my opinion.

During this entire debate, I've failed to understand why the maternal instinct to care for helpless children continues to be the prevailing or singular or most important issue for some people. Whatever reproductive mechanisms some people indulge, I don't see why our whole society should revolve around procreation advantage.

9/27/2005 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger solitaire said...

Hello Missy Miss! Check your an invite in there for you.

9/28/2005 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

Hmm....I'm left wondering what purpose you all think breasts have. If we say we want to de-sexualize the breast, and you don't want to say they're for feeding babies, then what else are they for? I can see saying that you're not using your breasts for feeding babies. But that is their original purpose. I mean, breasts don't serve a function like the hand does, like grasping things....I am mystified.

If I have a salt shaker, but I'm not using it for salt at the moment, it is still a salt shaker. Maybe some would say it's for looks (like sexualizing the breast). Maybe at the moment I'm using it for a paperweight. But it still is in the form of a salt shaker, and it is it's primary purpose.

If you have an alternate usage of breasts, I'm happy to entertain the thought. I dunno....bludgeon? cup holder? Please tell.

9/29/2005 01:30:00 AM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

If we say we want to de-sexualize the breast, and you don't want to say they're for feeding babies, then what else are they for?

How about removing the idea that a breast must be for something entirely? Do we argue about the functionality (or lackthereof) of a man's breast, or agonize over what the men's breasts are for since they aren't for suckling babies? No. So why do we need to rigidly define a woman's breast by her status as mother?

You're using one possible use of a breast to define what it is for all women. Why do you get the right to define the purpose of a part of my body? Is my vagina for having babies now, too? Your line of reasoning isn't too far off from one that says that that a woman's purpose is for motherhood.

What I'm saying is that your definition shouldn't step on the toes of my right not to be a mother. If you find baby feeding to be of primary importance for your understanding of your breasts, then that's cool. It is of no importance to me, however, and I resent the notion that I have to be defined by a role I will never be in.

I am not, will not, and never want to be a mother. And I would kindly like you to acknowledge that I have a right not to have any part of my body defined that way.

9/29/2005 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Sheldiz said...

Elizabeth -- i hear ya, sister. i can read in your words that you're not trying to make a broad social or political statement about what women should or should not do with their breasts. you're not trying to crush the feminist ideals or embrace a patriarchal society. I get you. You're just sayin' that biologically we are mammals. Mammals have mammary glands. mammary glands produce milk to feed little mammals. our mammary glands are in our breasts. hence, that's what our breasts are designed for. I get you =) no worries.

9/29/2005 02:57:00 PM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

sheldiz - If you have criticisms with my words, I'd prever you direct them to me. I'm offended that, rather than start up a discussion with me, you instead chose to imply in your post to elizabeth that I accused her of "trying to crush the feminist ideals or embrace a patriarichal society." Discuss my words with me, please.

And, to address your points, I am in no way, shape, or form questioning elizabeth's feminism, or her commitment to feminist ideals.

I am merely pointing out that her semantics reinforce the concept of mandatory motherhood even though that's not her intention. I have stated time and time again that it is not her choice to define her own breasts that is in question, but rather that applying her definition to all women is taking away mine.

I fail to see how fighting for my right to bodily autonomy, even in such a small area like semantics, translates into me attacking elizabeth's feminism.

9/29/2005 04:43:00 PM  
Blogger Sheldiz said...

tekanji: if i had been speaking directly to you, i would have used your name. elizabeth was responding to comments made in general throughout the discussion and i was responding to her general thoughts. second of all, i'm not looking for a fight nor am i implying that anyone is questioning elizabeth's feminism. i'm merely saying that i understand her point and don't feel it has anything to do with feminism or forcing beliefs on anyone else. scentifically, evolutionarily (that's so not a word, but...) breasts are for producing milk. if you disagree, that's your prerogative. and if i was calling you out, you'd know.

9/29/2005 08:43:00 PM  
Anonymous theory_slut said...

I agree with tekanji... Arguing based on the use value of our body parts verges on biological determinism. Yes, other mamals have mamary glands and use them to feed their young, but other mamals do not have breasts all the time. In a sense, the fact that humans have evolved such that our breasts are ever present after puberty is totally random, as are many evolved attributes.
But yes ... the argument that breasts are FOR feeding babies is quite close to the "vaginas and penises are FOR making babies" argument. And that's a deeply problematic framework, not to mention that it tends to stagnate us in a position of extreme heterosexism. I mean, if I'm queer, and will never make a baby unless I go out and specifically, via some sort of process outside of my day to day life, choose to, are my breasts for feeding babies? I mean, sexuality is as at least as much a part of a person as physical reproductive capacity, so if one happens to be sexually positioned to not make babies, at least not by accident, then what purpose do breasts serve? Not to mention women who are naturally barren, but still have breasts. Their breasts are not for feeding young. You could argue that these represent "flaws" - blips in the overall evolutionary process - but that is, to understate dramatically, a very marginalizing famework. Many women with breasts do not fit into the reproductive framework for various reasons. And their breasts are not negated.

9/30/2005 12:25:00 AM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

I won't fight with you, but I will say that what made me feel that I was indirectly attacked was the overall implication of "I get you" (implying that one or more people on this thread don't) with the sentence I quoted in my previous reply, and especially this part: i can read in your words that you're not trying to make a broad social or political statement about what women should or should not do with their breasts. which was you explicitly disagreeing with the point I've been making. So, I did have reason to feel that you chose to address elizabeth instead of coming to me with your criticism of my words.

i'm merely saying that i understand her point and don't feel it has anything to do with feminism or forcing beliefs on anyone else.

Well, seeing as the breastfeeding debate was set in a feminist context, both elizabeth and I are feminists (as are you?), and the conflating of womanhood with motherhood are all directly relating to feminism, I'd have to disagree strongly on the first point.

As for the second, I think I've made my stance pretty clear. Like I said, it's a small point, but I think sometimes the smallest points are the most insidious. It's not always about pointing a gun to someone's head and saying, "You will be a mother or you will die". Most times, I'd argue, it's about the subtle ways that we speak and interact that reinforce the idea that a woman is nothing if she is not (or will not be) a mother.

scentifically, evolutionarily (that's so not a word, but...) breasts are for producing milk.

In a scientific setting, I probably wouldn't object to the terminology. But this is a social setting, and we're not talking about the mechanics of our bodies; we're talking about the way breasts are viewed in society.

In other words, it's one thing to say that the biological function of a breast is to produce milk, but it's quite another to say in a conversation about de-sexualizing the breast in a society that all women's breasts are for feeding babies. The former is talking biology, the latter is making a social commentary whether it's intended or not.

All I want is for the right to define my breasts outside of the context of motherhood. I spent the first 19 years of my life being defined by some mythical "biological clock" that would eventually turn me into a mother, and the remaining 4 years facing criticism from some of my friends and family for my choice to get my tubes tied, and I am so sick of being lumped into "all women" when it's a motherhood specific issue.

It is so very frustrating to come to a feminist forum and have a well-intentioned poster marginalize me with vocabulary that necessitates all women to carry around two round badges of motherhood, whether or not they will ever have a baby suckling from them. I just don't see why it's so hard to say to me, "Yes, tekanji, you have the right to define your body as you see fit. You have the right to be seen as a person, rather than a not-mother."

9/30/2005 12:48:00 AM  
Blogger Sheldiz said...

tek -- okay, agree to disagree. thanks for the clarification. i think we're understanding each other, but maybe missing each others' initial intent. you totally have a right to do whatever you want with your breasts. all good. i was merely saying that i don't think anyone here was trying to take that right away from anyone or make it less important than the right to breast feed. and i agree completely that no one should feel less than female if they don't breast feed and/or have kids. i don't know if i'm a feminist b/c i'm not actually sure what the definition of feminism is. (i'm not trying to be ignorant here, i've just never given it any thought relative to my own beliefs.) But anyway, i get what you're saying didn't mean any disrespect to your opinion, i was just backing up an opinion (of a scientific angle) that i understood and felt was misrepresented. is early and i haven't entirely woken up yet, so excuse any inevitable typos. to place both of our points in a scientific context that i am comfortable with: i will say that while breasts are scientifically made to produce milk, i will entertain the idea that as a species we have evolved past that necessity. what makes us different from other mammals is our ability to reason. and anyone that wants to can choose what to do with their body. so yes, boobs are for whatever we damn well please.

9/30/2005 08:24:00 AM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

sheldiz - thanks for your clarificiation. I think that all of us are mostly on the same page, but I'm a stickler for semantics. I guess I should have been more clear early on that I wasn't disputing science fact (boobs evolved on mammals to feed babies), but rather social "truths".

And as for what feminism is, well, at it's most basic level, feminism is about achieving equality for everyone. It's also about getting recognition in societies that women are 100% people (and lately, most of the movement strives to show that all people are 100% people despite gender, race, sexual orientation, etc). Another important point is that we strive to give personal choice to everyone - the right to express themselves as they see fit without being shamed if they don't fit societal "norms".

Of course, interpreting those basic ideas and applying them to our own lives means that the feminist movement is made up of a diverse and plural set of ideologies with many different focuses and goals. We often don't agree with each other, but I think that's great; when we have polite debates I think it helps all involved learn and grow.

But I think the best way to get an idea of the feminist movement isn't to listen to me rattle on (I am only one voice afterall), but to hang around the feminist blogsphere and just read.

And don't be surprised if you disagree with some of the posts you read, especially in the beginning; I remember my first month or so reading the feminist LJ was me alternating between "yeah, I get that! I so agree!" and "wtf??!! that's so off base! grr." It takes a while to settle in, partially becuase we use a lot of terms (patriarchy, privilege, heterosexism, etc) that have been given hostile connotations by society that they really don't have. But I guarantee that the experience will be worth it.

Jenn has some good links, and I have most of my feminist blogs in their own section, as well as linking to a few feminist LJs, on my blog. Good luck to you ^_^

9/30/2005 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

i'm a little out of the loop since this is my first visit to my blog since this post (busy, busy, busy) but just to piggy back off tekanji, i agree with as much feminist thought as i disagree with. feminism, like all social movements, are made up of diverse people with diverse backgrounds and diverse outlooks all trying to find a common means of expressing what can be disparate and dissonant goals and political beliefs.

i don't agree with everything i read on a feminist blog, and neither will you. it's important, however, to be able to understand what you think and why, and, as a feminist to not only be able to articulate and defend your perspective to other feminists and non-feminists alike, but to also recognize that just because you disagree with another feminist on a feminist issue, doesn't mean that one of you is more or less feminist than the other.

oh, yeah, and just to tack it on as a non sequitor, i don't think being a woman automatically makes you a feminist, and automatically being a man makes you suspect.

9/30/2005 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

.... and... having read backwards a little bit, i'd like to also agree with tekanji in saying that i, too, feel a disconnect between arguing that feminism and womanhood must entirely encompass motherhood as, in many senses, the same thing. i am a woman, and i have the potential to become a mother, but that does not mean that my vagina requires me to champion mother's rights. i am a believer in woman's rights but i don't think i have either the proper perspective, inclination or authority to talk about the rights of parents.

and moreover, i, too (and still, since i said this in the original post), find it highly sexist and suspicious that parental issues are defined, by some feminists as a feminist issue. as a woman, my breasts are not for feeding children. as a parent, they might be, but that doesn't mean that as a childless woman, i should treat them as such and define them only in the context of being a mother.

if we do that, how can we then argue against the patriarchy that would define us as intrinsically care-givers (categorized by nature as the parents) and force us to be only that? I argue gender rights because I think nothing about my biological makeup makes me better or worse than a man at performing certain tasks, and that there should be no social limitation placed upon what I choose to do with my life.

If we argue we are naturally more inclined to be parents, by adopting parent issues as feminist issues, then I think I'd be forced to see a huge disconnect between feminism and the goals of gender equality.

9/30/2005 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

You know, I after reading all this stuff, I decided to blog on this topic too. Take a look at

(Shameless plug!)

9/30/2005 10:00:00 PM  
Anonymous tekanji said...

and moreover, i, too (and still, since i said this in the original post), find it highly sexist and suspicious that parental issues are defined, by some feminists as a feminist issue.

I definitely see your point, Jenn. I would like to point out, however, that sometimes parental issues are feminist ones, even for the non-parents.

For instance, the idea of woman as care-giver/man as breadwinner has, with second wave feminism's achievements, created a problem of a woman who "wants it all" - meaning that they want to balance a career and kids. Men have been doing this for years, but we still haven't suceeded in changing the role of partners and parents to be equal. In many dual working relationships it's still the woman who comes home from a hard day at work and is expected to cook, clean, and take care of the kids.

I'd say my example definitely covers a parental issue that is also a feminist one. I also think the struggle for more governmental support for parents is a feminist one because it would help more women balance work and kids if they want, instead of feeling they have to choose one or the other.

I guess all I'm saying is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I firmly believe that they should not be conflated, however, since I think it's equally harmful to define a woman using motherhood - not all women want to be mothers. Period. That should be enough in the feminist spheres to keep motherhood out of the "all women" category.

10/01/2005 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger Jenn said...

tekanji, i agree... i may have been unclear, but that was what i was trying to say. just because an issue is a parental issue does not mean it is a feminist issue.

10/01/2005 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

Geez, I think this is being way overthunk. My point was soley that biologically breasts serve the function of feeding babies. That's what they're there for. What each woman chooses to do with them is her business! I totally respect the decision of each individual woman to have or not have children as she chooses.

10/01/2005 04:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nearly every gadget you can think of today has a
little bit of skin. He went over the green and into the fashion
Week section of the particular brand name. It is actually
not at all hard to find.

Here is my website Blackberry

5/22/2013 09:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Βеyond just cоlοг variety, boωling
polo shirts. The seсret іs to take a stab at fаshiοn.
By bеing equірρеd with thе rіght tеch, ѕome ѕcissoгs, а
nеedle anԁ thгead it is ρoѕѕіble tο create an іmage that really talκеd
about ωοol іn thе language of Fаshion.
Whether you maκe уour fіnal purchaѕе at Mаry Francеs handbags checκ out the time оf the day.
Οnе of the most important pагt of theiг cultuгe
and еνen as fashiοns change they ωill ѕtill
гetain thesе imρortant ethnic qualіtіеs and workmanѕhip.

Ηеre is my hοmepage Τhoi tгang nam

6/07/2013 11:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It suppoгts video сοnferencing, hаs a 10" tablet, it's compromised as a laptop.

Feel free to visit my site: may tinh bang

6/08/2013 12:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Team it with a skinny jeans and fitting trousers.
All of the garments are made from recycled water bottles
and recycled cotton. For a more casual look, or the accelerometer could be used to
accessorize your outfit. Iconic Design The only phone with Live Tiles, Windows
Phone has a clear, differentiated vision and the consumer experience has been widely recognized as being groundbreaking, innovative and fresh.

Additional courses offered aside from the regular areas of discipline, is
the Scottsdale fashion Weeks fashion show.

My blog: Ao so mi nam

6/08/2013 07:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home