SweetFeetFan (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-10-30 06:37:36
Eh, not to get into a political debate, but I don't see much problem with it. I mean, after all, that's what breasts are for.
Templar97 (user)2014-11-03 02:02:42
@SFF- Totally agree. Breasts are beautiful, of course, but were intended to feed and cushion babies. They were later perverted into a male sex object. Don't you just love America's unashamed objectification of women's bodies? Not saying I don't like titties. I do. However, I recognize their true purpose, unlike some guys I've seen. :)
SweetFeetFan (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-11-23 23:25:18
"Don't you just love America's unashamed objectification of women's bodies?"
I hope you appreciate the irony of this.
BackInBlack60 (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-11-24 07:14:00
As sexual objects, they should not be exposed in public. For feeding babies, perfectly fine and very natural.
@T97- Breasts are dual-purpose, just like reproductive organs. *One* purpose is feeding (or making) babies, the other is giving sexual pleasure to the husband and wife (which entices them into making & feeding babies). They're meant to be appreciated by men (e.g. Song of Solomon 4:5, 7:3)
celebs (user)2014-11-24 07:31:55
I fully agree with BiB & I Feel that feeding in public is just to draw an extra attention, nothing else
Templar97 (user)2014-12-12 16:05:14
@BIB60- "Dual Purpose" Yes. Good description. It's not wrong to like breasts anymore than it's wrong to like feet. The visual attraction is important, of course.. Otherwise there would be no furtherance of the species. I've always thought that the baby-feeding purpose of breasts takes precedence over sexual pleasure. After all, guys who aren't into breasts still manage to make babies. It's just one of the many choices we're given when deciding our preferences for the female body. We're lucky, really.
Templar97 (user)2014-12-12 16:06:30
@SweetFeetFan- Not sure what you mean. The statement wasn't meant to be ironic... I'm trying to see the irony.