Oh noes, mommies don't like boobies if there's no brat to be fed :td

Topless model on GQ magazine (who is actually posing very artistically in my opinion) have all the moo-moos in an uproar! This isn't like them at all! eyes2

Horribibble!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So.. We know that food and water are running out, with overpopulation and all... Yet people keep on poppin' out those babies! I guess they want to have their baby and eat it too...

My top reason is that parenting gives you a free license to be selfish based purely on the fact that you're being selfish for an emanation of your own self. The illusion that what you do to benefit your children benefits them solely is a fallacy. Every parent benefits from the benefits that their children receive. Henceforth, it gives one a license to perpetuate a dog-eat-dog mentality that I perceive to be amoral. Parents say that their children are their greatest loves, what they forget to add is that they are their ONLY loves and only because their children are a reflection of themselves. I prefer to be able to love multiple people and have lasting relationships of many types and possess the essential core value of empathy for all than to restrict myself to an echo chamber of ego-masturbation and self-serving chicanery.

In short: Not parenting makes you a better person.

And I want to add that they are all in an uproar over tits when there is an article for Craigslist murders right on the damn cover. Tits are worse than grisly murders apparently..

But it's ok for Olivia Breederific Wilde to pose with her brat attached to the tit for a magazine cover?

Um, ok moomoos.....

These moos, don't they realize that their baybay 14 year old sons are probably over at their buddy's house pouring over the good, dirty magazine's he pilfered from his Dad or older brother? Teenaged boys can't have changed that much since I was a kid.

It's a beautiful model, and a beautiful cover.
It shows a fit, toned woman with flat abs, normal hips and full breasts. Nowhere do you see stretch marks, flab, windsock udders, or bodily fluids.

No wonder they're in an uproar

Hilarious larious

I bet a number of those magazines, tossed with a snort and fury into the trash by fundie moms, were furtively retrieved by sons and husbands and stashed in secret locations.

Quote
yummynotmummy
But it's ok for Olivia Breederific Wilde to pose with her brat attached to the tit for a magazine cover?

Um, ok moomoos.....

SO very much this. I am sick to fucking death of their hypocrisy. They lap up all those damn beefing photos, those photo shoots showing naked moo bodies all ravaged by shitting out loaves and then throw a fucking fit over this.

Bite me.

Her nipples aren't showing - so what's the problem?

Or maybe that's it - Moomies only do nipples.

Or - and most likely - they have a "problem" with it because the model's breasts are in much better shape than theirs.

Yes breast envy exists believe it or not......

I agree with some of the previous posters. It's not about booblies.

It's about young, perky, beautiful breasts with no stretchmarks and tiny, cute, pink areolas.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Moos sure are jealous, resentful, hateful bitches.

~~~~~~~~~~~
I miss my little feather baby.

Damn it, don't you people understand? Boobs are only ok it they are saggy, flabby flapjacks, long empty tube socks, veiny, deflated or similar AND are attached to or in near proximity to a drooling shitsack. If they are undamaged or being used for something fun than they are BAD! Simple, yes? eyes2

Quote

And a lot of those parents got the mag after ordering school uniforms -- many of them for religiously affiliated schools.

larious

Remember: sex and the human body are evil and shameful.

If these parentals who got the magazine in question after ordering k-crap for religiously affiliated schools have chyldrun, then, ahem, how were said chyldrun conceived? Was it an immaculate conception, or was it teh bigue bad sexe after all? What total hypocrisy!

But I thought they said breasts WEREN'T supposed to be sexual? Or is that only the case when it fits their Moo Agenda?

I have to laugh every time I hear or read stories like this. Moos are such hypocrites! They want the right to show off their disgusting windsocks, yet they are appalled and disgusted when a model shows off her beautiful breasts?

It's jealousy, folks. Moos are a bunch of jealous bitches and they are trying to control everyone in the name of da chyllldrunnn.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm not keen on seeing women's breasts, no matter their Moo/non-Moo status. Maybe that makes me weird, I dunno. Still, I realize I don't have to buy (or look at) said magazine. Don't assume all non-childed women have big perky breasts! Or is it still okay to laugh at smaller ones?:eh??

It takes a child to raze a village.

Sounds like Moo logic. Nudity and tits are only bad and sexual and filthy when it involves something unrelated to breeding. Swimsuit issues, porno mags, fitness, modeling, etc. are all horrible forms of sexualization that will scar the children for life. BUT if it's a photo of a naked, wrinkly, stretch-marked heifer with hip-length tits, marmalade thighs and a brat sucking on each nipple, that's fine because it demonstrates the strength and bravery of a mother. Her breasts? Not sexual. Beautiful, natural springs of nourishment. Her body? Not hideous. Natural and gorgeous, bearing the beautiful scars of pregnancy and childbirth as this strong, brave woman sacrificed all things superficial in order to partake in the miracle that is creating life and childbirth. Women who are fit and wear makeup? Shallow and selfish. They only care about their appearance in order to use their tarted-up bodies to have sinful recreational sex. Mothers? Selfless heroes throwing vanity to the wind all for the sake of the future world changers they carried in their bodies. eyes2

That's how they all fucking think, which is why they bitch about non-Moo nudity out on side of their fat mouths and praise Moo nudity (Moodity?) for being empowering to breeders out the other.

Jealousy? Thy name is Moo.

Naked with loaf (or more likely these days, a toadler) on each chewed-up nubbin of a nipple = powerful symbol of how great motherhood is, especially if in public

Naked without loaf, filthy, discussing (sic) porn that will corrupt the kyds and make duh stray (or more likely, realise what he's missing and escape).

Yes, it is the green eyed monster indeed!
This thread is awesome!

Wtf is there so much concern trolling creeping in, sheesh!

LOL!!!

Quote
cj
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not keen on seeing women's breasts, no matter their Moo/non-Moo status. Maybe that makes me weird, I dunno. Still, I realize I don't have to buy (or look at) said magazine. Don't assume all non-childed women have big perky breasts! Or is it still okay to laugh at smaller ones?:eh??

Small and perky are fine too.

*OK, smiley isn't quite what I want (too low) but a quick look...)

Quote
cj
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not keen on seeing women's breasts, no matter their Moo/non-Moo status. Maybe that makes me weird, I dunno. Still, I realize I don't have to buy (or look at) said magazine. Don't assume all non-childed women have big perky breasts! Or is it still okay to laugh at smaller ones?:eh??

Perky's partially a matter of genetics, although I'm pretty sure sudden gain and loss in size related to breastfeeding in no way helps retain perkiness.

Size is also genetics, although being pregnant makes them swell up.

Mine are large and non-perky (perky and large is not so common) but I don't read the comments as bashing my breasts because they aren't perky. They'd look a lot different if they'd gotten some miles on them from a kid attached (the very thought of which makes me want to clutch them protectively) and because of that they're different from moo breasts.

What I find ridiculous is that so many of them seem to believe breasts can never be sexual, they are only functional...and yet, they don't like breasts being displayed unless it is in a clearly non-sexual context. So maybe there is something sexual about our breasts, which are far larger than they need to be to simply lactate? They have to insist that breasts are non-sexual to counter objections to them showing theirs, yet at the same time, they have to push non-loaf infested breasts as disgusting. It must be a lot of work to maintain such ridiculous contradictory opinions simply as a cover for jealousy.

Quote
yurble

Quote
cj
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not keen on seeing women's breasts, no matter their Moo/non-Moo status. Maybe that makes me weird, I dunno. Still, I realize I don't have to buy (or look at) said magazine. Don't assume all non-childed women have big perky breasts! Or is it still okay to laugh at smaller ones?:eh??

Perky's partially a matter of genetics, although I'm pretty sure sudden gain and loss in size related to breastfeeding in no way helps retain perkiness.

Size is also genetics, although being pregnant makes them swell up.

Mine are large and non-perky (perky and large is not so common) but I don't read the comments as bashing my breasts because they aren't perky. They'd look a lot different if they'd gotten some miles on them from a kid attached (the very thought of which makes me want to clutch them protectively) and because of that they're different from moo breasts.

What I find ridiculous is that so many of them seem to believe breasts can never be sexual, they are only functional...and yet, they don't like breasts being displayed unless it is in a clearly non-sexual context. So maybe there is something sexual about our breasts, which are far larger than they need to be to simply lactate? They have to insist that breasts are non-sexual to counter objections to them showing theirs, yet at the same time, they have to push non-loaf infested breasts as disgusting. It must be a lot of work to maintain such ridiculous contradictory opinions simply as a cover for jealousy.

This! I've always been on the large size myself, I used to be a double d (not sure what I am now after this weight loss) and VERY flabtastic. Now they are more round and seem a lot less saggy. I can say that I am very proud of my assets. Now if I had a kid the would probably look absolutely disgusting. The mere thought.. (Shudder) ::brbl

But yeah, I'm pretty sure that moos are only ever disgusted by actually nice looking breasts. To them, nice breasts seem pornographic and tempt hubby far too much. Hell! At our community festival here where I live, Comfest (where it is legal to be topless), only moos ever show their flabby ass biddies. I know for a fact that If I lost a little more weight and showed myself like that (even if I looked good, my biddies are sacred, so NEVER, lol!) they would flip total shit and start lowing on about me tempting hubby to touch. Jealousy thy name IS moo. eyes2

Quote
cj
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not keen on seeing women's breasts, no matter their Moo/non-Moo status. Maybe that makes me weird, I dunno. Still, I realize I don't have to buy (or look at) said magazine. Don't assume all non-childed women have big perky breasts! Or is it still okay to laugh at smaller ones?:eh??

You're post illustrates what I was just planning to post here:

Personally I don't mind GQ- I'll read it in the hairdresser's because the articles are sometimes good and the women's magazines are mindless and unreadable, plus there are FAR worse men's magazines out there. That said I still think a copy of GQ is a totally inappropriate free gift as there are plenty of people who wouldn't want pictures of naked women sent to their homes for various reasons. The problem I have here is that the "...but I'm a MOOOOOO and it might warp Bratley and Bratlina's fragile little minds" seems to be treated as the only valid excuse for not wanting to see naked women- every other woman is "just JELUS" or "a feminazi who wants to spoil things for the men".

Here in the UK a similar thing is happening with the No More Page 3 campaign against The Sun, which features a topless model on the third page every day. There are many reasons why this is objectionable but most of the protests are met with insulting put-downs- "you're just jealous because you're an ugly bra-burning feminist", "lighten up, this is PC gone mad" etc. Again, the only one which isn't argued against so much is "I'm a MOOOOO, and this shouldn't be in a FAMBLEEEEE paper".

Interestingly, Facebook is the other way round- they allow plenty of borderline pornographic photos to be posted but delete breastfeeding pics (where the nipples are hidden by a sprog's head), pics of mastectomy scars (where the breasts aren't even there, and photos of body art (where the breasts are covered by tattoos or body paint), tasteful artistic nide photos, etc. Their view is that female nudity is only acceptable if it's sexual and can give men a boner, otherwise it's icky and wrong. People need to act with a bit of consistency here! Boobs are either bad or they're not!

Quote
screaming sausage
Interestingly, Facebook is the other way round- they allow plenty of borderline pornographic photos to be posted but delete breastfeeding pics (where the nipples are hidden by a sprog's head), pics of mastectomy scars (where the breasts aren't even there, and photos of body art (where the breasts are covered by tattoos or body paint), tasteful artistic nide photos, etc. Their view is that female nudity is only acceptable if it's sexual and can give men a boner, otherwise it's icky and wrong. People need to act with a bit of consistency here! Boobs are either bad or they're not!

Oh really? You've never seen the Fb page The Leaky B@@b , now have you?

FB removes what they feel are nudity or semi-nude photos, EXCEPT the udder feeding photos, because in the past they caught hell from a moo group for deleting titfeeding photos.

Really? That's news to me... I guess they finally caved in to the Breastapo then! :gross