Be that as it may, a couple had their children taken away because of a photo wherein the mother was breastfeeding where 12 month old; it took the mass media and certain organizations to change things. I remember reading elsewhere that creators of baby formula have pushed the idea that breastfeeding is a bad idea and certain christians believe that a woman who is aroused while breastfeeding is sinful. The danger ancientregime is talking about is real.
Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest?
- Thread starter ancientregime
- Start date
- Status
Be that as it may, a couple had their children taken away because of a photo wherein the mother was breastfeeding where 12 month old; it took the mass media and certain organizations to change things. I remember reading elsewhere that creators of baby formula have pushed the idea that breastfeeding is a bad idea and certain christians believe that a woman who is aroused while breastfeeding is sinful. The danger ancientregime is talking about is real.
Well, I'm sure you won't until it become socially acceptable to see an 18 year old suckling his mother on a poster that says: Have you molested your mother lately.:jawdrop: Forget about that. You don't need that. Write us up a law lawman, then back it up using reasoning of how it is proven to cause physical/emotional/psychological abuse in some way.
When x happens, y abuse occurs. That all you have to provide. But don't commit the fallacy of cause. It really has to cause the abuse you claim.
I know they don't use oxytocin in their defintion of incest, but it can be used as scientific evidence with broad legal phrasing that criminalizes touching that is sexually stimulating. Oxytocin is evidence of sexual stimulation.
In your adrenaline analogy, the purpose is to get a chemical rush. The two differences are the way that it is carried out. Skydiving; no one is hurt. Murder; someone is hurt.
When oxytocin is released in breastfeeding; no one is hurt. When two unrelated adults have sex and oxytocin is released; no one is hurt.
When someone is hurt, it is clear there is a crime. But with wording in the law that allows activity that can be interpreted as sexual, because sexual chemicals are release during that activity, situations where there is no harm occurring can be interpreted as rape/incest, such as breast feeding and bathing.
ancientregime:
Clearly not, because oxytocin is released in non-sexual situations too, apparently. Moreover, correlation does not imply causation.
Your argument in your opening post seems to rely on two things:
1. There are laws that say that oxytocin release proves incest.
2. Children have "skin hunger" than is equivalent to a sexual desire.
One problem I can see is that you have made these claims as if they are facts, but you have nowhere supported them. Questions:
Can you quote a specific law that satisfies premise (1)?
Can you provide any actual evidence of claim (2)?
Clearly not, because oxytocin is released in non-sexual situations too, apparently. Moreover, correlation does not imply causation.
Your argument in your opening post seems to rely on two things:
1. There are laws that say that oxytocin release proves incest.
2. Children have "skin hunger" than is equivalent to a sexual desire.
One problem I can see is that you have made these claims as if they are facts, but you have nowhere supported them. Questions:
Can you quote a specific law that satisfies premise (1)?
Can you provide any actual evidence of claim (2)?
Bells
Staff member
Ask any woman who has breastfed and her experiences right at the start when she was still learning how to do it and trying to teach the baby how to attach.. the horror stories are endless. Mine are nothing compared to what some other women have experienced.
All affectionate touching? So a pat on the back from a parent, friend, family member, etc, is sexual?
There are limits. I think if a parent is becoming aroused when bathing an infant.. in that the act of bathing said infant is the direct cause of the arousal and attraction to said infant, then that parent obviously has some issues and the child can be in danger if the parent acts out on those feelings. But I do not believe that all affectionate touching is intrinsically sexual. If that were the case, or if someone attempted to make that case, then parents would be barred from picking up their newborn baby and ever touching said child.
If you are claiming that science views all affectionate touching as being sexual, then writing things solely with science in mind could cause more issues.. if we are to follow your line of reasoning in this thread.
Nonsense. What do you think court's do? What do you think judges do in each case they hear? They interpret the law and apply it to each situation or case that comes before them.
They are meant to be followed but within reason. If laws are not to be interpreted, if they are to be taken at face value, then life as we know it would cease. Laws are constantly being interpreted by the courts and if a case comes before a judge which has no precedent to lead the judge in his/her decision making process, then that judge has to interpret the law to apply it to the case at hand and hand down a decision. Saying that laws are accurate is misleading. Their interpretations are meant to be accurate so long as they apply to each individual case. For example, there can be a law that says sexual touching of a child is illegal and anyone caught doing so will be jailed. But if you are claiming that all affectionate touching is sexual, then if we were to apply said law, no one would ever be able to touch their child.. not to feed them, dress them, bathe them, etc. So a judge would look at that law and interpret it to each case at hand.. so a parent touching a child when feeding it or bathing it would not be viewed as having broken the law because they are doing what they should be doing to be a good parent.. that is taking care of a child as it needs to be taken care of. That same judge could then jail another parent for sexual molestation because said parent actually did touch the child in a sexual manner (ie penetration, fondling of their genitals, etc).. Can you see how the law can be interpreted to apply to each case?
You would need to prove that all affectionate touching to a child is inherently sexual and thus harmful to said child. In that case, you would need to prove that a parent bathing, feeding, dressing, carrying, holding, hugging a child is touching that child in a sexual manner and therefore, it is harmful to that child. The rebuttal would be that it is virtually impossible to not touch a child to maintain the child's health (eg feeding, bathing, carrying, etc). So where would you draw the line? How can a parent care for a child if they don't touch it at all and offer it no affection? On the contrary, not offering or giving any affection to a child is almost tantamount to abuse and parents who fail to care for their children are often jailed for neglect.
Thing have been clearified since the op. I have already addressed number one. I have already addressed number two. I have supported them. You may want to reread.
I will gladly defend address argument against those two points I addressed.
They injected it into a rat and out came the wiener, strong and hard. It is clearly a sexual chemical.
It's also been shown to increase it's prescence toward orgasm.
Last edited:
really? Orgasms? A lot huh? How many is a lot?
I have no idea what that is.
Compared to what that you don't know?
When people to speak Trolleander in return do you always act this way?:bugeye:
I don't mind joking around, but I'd like to get back on topic sometime.
sorry, I won't ask any more questions or tell you that I don't understand.
Bells
Staff member
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a woman breastfeeding her child or a parent bathing or cuddling a child can be viewed as being incestuous by the law and you're calling Orleander a troll?
Heh!
Funny..
Yes to question one, but not by me.
Second question. I never called him a troll. That is a blasphemous distortion of what I was actual said. I said he was speaking Trolleander.:shrug:
Not the troll calling wars again >.<
Bell: As I mentioned previously in this thread, a woman was arrested and her children taken away because of a picture wherein she was breastfeeding her 12 month old. So ancientregime has a point that the law is dangerously ambiguous as to what is and isn't lawful.
ancientregime: Even though Orleander has apparently put me on ignore, it doesn't make her a troll. I don't think anyone's a troll per se. This, in my view, is a troll:
People aren't trolls; some may be socially awkward and even banned from a community, but even though I recognize that sometimes this is inevitable, I still feel sympathy for them.
Here are a few lines that I have used before and I will probably use again, from one of my favourite movies, "The Last Unicorn":
Schmendrick: I shouldn't be here. But quickly, tell me what you see.
Don't be afraid. Look at your fellow legends and tell me what you see.
Unicorn: What he calls a manticore looks to be no more than a shabby,
toothless lion. And she has them believing that poor old ape with a
twisted foot is a satyr! Illusions! Deceptions! Mirages! Your Mommy
Fortuna cannot truly change things!
Fortune can be cruel; kindness can cure many ills. I live by the motto, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". If you believe that everything is connected (as I do), you can even shorten it to:
"There go I".
Technically Bell didn't say you were a troll either. You both implied though.
Ok. Maybe we have different definitions. I don't think he's Troll. Trolls enter for the sole reason to disrupt. Speaking Troleader means acting like a Troll. Lot's of one liners that don't contribute too much and have a satirical tone.
- Status