Is "boobies" really an offensive word?

Everytime I put "boobies" in a story I get a bunch of bounces when the nightly email goes out. Tonite I posted a story "from the Pleanty-Of-Boobies-For-You dept." and got a few bounces, e.g.

MailMarshal Rule: Content Security (Inbound) : Block Unacceptable Language
Script Offensive Language (Basic) Triggered in Body
Expression: boobies Triggered 1 times weighting 5
Script Offensive Language (Extensive) Triggered in Body
Expression: boobies Triggered 1 times weighting 60

I'm really suprised that just ONE booby (or is it boobie?) is enough to trip any kind of language filters. So, really, is that offensive??

Comments

well yeah

it isn't harsh like some (mostly juvenile) but any non-clinical term, or even a clinical term used out of context, of female or male genitalia is generally impolite in public conversation.

Boobies north, naughty bits south

I am getting you a copy each of Gray's Anatomy and Our Bodies, Ourselves, for your birthday, Greg. Besides, boob is one of those terrific multipurpose words.

Re:well yeah

I used the word penis at work Friday. I work for a big accounting firm, no one thought it was unusual. It was a perfectly legitimate discussion in which the word was used; we were talking about newborns.

I personally like boobies, two in particular, but I do like them all. Heck I've probably seen 40K being an RN, but I am able to - without any conscious effort- separate my professional boobie observation from my personal boobie observation.

Oddly we also used the term 'nice rack' in conversation at work Friday but it was in relation to an automobile's bicycle carrier.

Re:well yeah

Breasts are not genitalia. They are not sexual organs at all. And using the correct, latinate terms for body parts is impolite (read offensive) only to reactionaries and the ultra-self righteous.

No, it is not

"There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere." --Michael Nellis

There are people too stupid to educate who would be horrified at any mention of what they think is sex and sexuality, but that isn't, including speech about medical disorders of the breasts. This arrant crap about boobies being offensive is a sop to the hyper-sensitive and a lot of PC bullshit.

Re:Boobies north, naughty bits south

Point taken about the north bit, I shouldn't have used the word 'genitalia', how about 'gender package'? And the word wasn't 'boob' it was 'boobies' which may also be multipurpose, but much less so.

Re:well yeah

"I used the word penis at work Friday. I work for a big accounting firm, no one thought it was unusual. It was a perfectly legitimate discussion in which the word was used; we were talking about newborns. "

That's why I said 'used out of context'.

it's not offensive...

It's just sort of juvenile. Maybe it's the "ies" version of it that bothers me, boobs is more to the point, but breasts is the best. Now that's a lovely word.

Hey Rochelle, can I have "Are Men Necessary" for my birthday? (coming up...)

Re:well yeah

Unless, of course, you're talking about the birds. Or politicians. By the way, who sets the rules for "polite company" and where are they written down? Is there a Robert's Rules for Polite Company. If not, I volunteer to write it.

Re:it's not offensive...

Which reminds me.. Inspector Morse's favorite word was "unbutton". No particular reason why that occured to me in this conversation.

Re:well yeah

you're the logical author...hope Ms. Manners has no objection

Not Sexual Organs???

Well, I take issue with that contention. Of course Boobies are sexual organs; I used to play a pair very well myself when married and quite enjoyed the music we made while playing those organs. Heck, skin is a sexual organ, not just around the thighs either....I rather like the word boobies; but the reality is even better than the word.Funny how boobies is a word parent's often teach young kids when explaining what breasts are. I guess typing boobie is a boo-boo to search engines...

Re:well yeah

I didn't say 'polite company', I said 'public conversation', not that there's really a difference but the second phrase might be easier for some around here to understand.

One question

Just how often do you use "boobies" in a story? Is there something you need to talk about, Blake?

Re:well yeah

Oooops. My bad. Actually, that becomes even more puzzling. The only rules that govern public conversation is the First Amendment and some narrow constrictions on what may be said in public such as "fighting words." Last I saw, boobies wasn't a fighting word.

Re:One question

Maybe it's part of the "Librarians Gone Wild" video.

Re:well yeah

I didn't say it was against the law either, I said it was impolite.

Re:well yeah

LOLOL, I seem to be having a bad reading day.

very mild

It's mild slang for breasts.

Try writing about thte "blue footed booby" in a mailing and see what happens.

Re: generally impolite

I'm generally impolite in real life, though I seem to try to be generally polite online, which seems to be the opposite of most people. And by impolite I mean honest, which is generally impolite.I also tend to push the boundries on colorful language, or so I'm told. I guess I don't think much about it.But I'd never worry about boobies being even close to "generally impolite", I could see myself saying it in a meeting, around my family, just about any place. It just seems stupid/silly/immature to me.But I'm socially awkward, so whaddaIKnow

Re:well yeah

When you write the rules, be sure to approve boobies, plural, but not singular.

Re: There is nothing that cannot be found....

Sometimes you're a smart fella.

Re:it's not offensive...

To me, boobs would be more offensive, adding an IES on there makes it juvenile, and there for not offensive.

Re:very mild

I won't like to it, but doing a Google Image Search turns up mostly birds! Somehow that makes the word even less offensive.

Re:Not Sexual Organs???

Of course Boobies are sexual organs; . . .

No they aren't. The mammaries do not play any role in sexual reproduction. They might be erogenous, and even erotic, and, of course, they are constantly sexualized, but they are not sexual organs. Sex organs are those that allow for reproduction; the testes and ova, the vagina and penis, the uterus, and probably a couple of others that don't come to mind right now.

Come to that, by the logic of your supposition, one might as well ban images of face because of the practice of oral sex.

Re:Not Sexual Organs???

Sexualized? What on earth doest thou mean? All this language is so sterile, and strictly "biological" as though biology had an edge over philosophy,language, theolgoy, experience(romance) in terms of definining the enjoyment of procreation.Breasts were created by a good God partly for pleausure between a husband and wife; check out the great love song, Song of Songs.... Also, how can one cut out the "sexual organs" as distinct from the Body? The body is a unit, and especially the hormones of a woman link the breasts to other areas, and arousal of the breasts causes nice things to happen chemically, which all helps in the procreation process. Having children -- just having sexual relations is a symphony; not an operation on a table.So it's a Clinton thing: it all depends on how you define "sexual organ." The "textbook" definition of a thing does not, greatfully, restrict the many-layered and interconnected reality and deepness of that thing.I agree with old Sol:Proverbs 5:18-19 May your fountain be blessed,
              and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.A loving doe, a graceful deer—
              may her breasts satisfy you always,
              may you ever be captivated by her love.

Re:Not Sexual Organs???

Sexualized? What on earth doest thou mean?

As in imputing a sexual function to them that should not be imputed.

Breasts were created by a good God partly for pleausure between a husband and wife

See, you've sexualized them. Number one: God created breasts so new borns would not starve to death while growing enough to eat solids. Number two: whether nor the breasts in question are used for sexual pleasure is not a man's choice. It's her body, it's her choice, and it's nobody's business but hers.

. . . and especially the hormones of a woman link the breasts to other areas, and arousal of the breasts causes nice things to happen chemically, which all helps in the procreation process.

Walter, this comes across as a totally egregious piece of bovine scatology from start to finish. In effect, you are centering a woman's sexual pleasure in her breasts. It is, I will grant, not incorrect as a statement, but it is sure is a ham-handed way of putting it.

The body is a unit, . . .

Yes, which, in the philosophy you've stated, makes the whole body a sexual organ. It's just that some parts are more equal than others in that regard. Under that philosophy, the entire body is pornographic/obscene/a dirty perversion and everybody needs to hide all of it under a burqa.

Or we can do what is rational and understand that "sex" or "sexual" organs are those whose hormones and primary functions are the conception and nuturing to term of a fetus.

Oh, and don't cite the bible to me. There is nothing in the bible that proves anything; it's all too vague and overbroad and subject to misinterpretation. That bit from the Song of Songs, of instance? It doesn't speak of sexual gratification; one could be satisfied merely with the beauty of the sight.

Re:Not Sexual Organs???

Dear "Rationalist,"It's too late now to delve into this matter with both hands, but I do have some thoughts. I wish you had read what I wrote more carefully, as from your reply you are sometimes arguing with things I did not say nor imply.As to Scripture, that is precisely what "modern" man needs to hear, as the wisdom therein speaks to all areas of life. The beautiful verse I quoted from Proverbs is in no way pornographic, but rather conveys the idea rather clearly that husband and wife have bodies that were made for sexual pleasure, NOT merely procreation. One happy fact that naturalistic evolutionists have a hard time explaining (among many hundreds) is the way in which man and woman have orgasms, and do not merely have plumbing that "evolved" for the continuation of the species, albeit that is ONE purpose for holy sex.I was quite clear in saying that mutual pleasure was "partially" the reason for breasts (you implied I was ignoring the obvious beauty of what is pictured in most Madonna and Child paintings, the baby Jesus suckling at his mother's breasts). Regarding that pleasure -- I never implied that ONLY men receive pleasure. Indeed, my original post, which gloried in the sacred nature of marital relations, not pornographic degradations, mentioned my former wife and I playing her sexual organs. I don't know, maybe you have never been happily married, so you can't relate to this joy?Ah, yes, and that ridiculous argument (I am not calling you ridiculous, dear Sir; just the argument as so often phrased) that a woman's body is her own! What a sad, selfish, and scandalous preposition; and one that flows from the same well of poison that dooms so many marriage covenants. You may not wish to acknowledge the authority of the Bible, but then again you are free to pursue a philosophy that leads to death. But since God wrote the manual on sexual relations, and calls the marriage bed holy (Hebrews 13:4 (KJV): Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.), the truth of it cannot be sliced from discussion merely because one does not recognize the authority.And here is perhaps one of the chief biblical thorns in the puritanical flesh of so many zealous feminists, who go on and on about the sexualization of women's bodies (I will agree that women's bodies and identities are very often improperly "sexualized" in modern, anti-Christian cultural situations, but that is a different topic, though related). That thorn I refer to, which cuts against the corrupt grain of the philosophy you so clearly enunciated, is this:1 Corinthians 7: 3-5 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.â€A single woman's body is hot her "own" either (nor is a single man's), but let's stick with husband and wife, as my original post upheld the glory and joy of marital relations. It is a most-disastrous idea to tell young women that their bodies will be "their own" when married! And the same applies to a young man. It is a canard to say that this marital goal of self-giving to the other is the root of abuse in marriage either; that comes from the heart and mind, only to find expression in the physical, and it is a denial of the very principles outlined here. Since marriage is a holy covenant, attitudes that uphold the supposedly holy notion of the great INDIVIDUAL, are dangerous rocks that cause the shipwreck of many a union that starts off in smooth seas and rocky beds.Oh how I love that traditional wedding vow from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where the man vows something to the effect "With my body I do worship Thee!" Wow, talk about being a Goddess!!!! How many wife’s wished for husbands who worshipped their bodies, and beings!!!All of this ties in rather nicely with the Proverb that you seemed to imply has no relevance to a modern discussion on sexual relations, the holy and pleasurable music played on holy instruments.May your fountain be blessed,
              and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.A loving doe, a graceful deer—
              may her breasts satisfy you always,
              may you ever be captivated by her love.Ah! What wife would not desire a captivated husband! One whose eyes and hands and lips do not stray to another! This is what makes me wonder if you have ever been happily married… for just as most mothers have great joy in having their children feeding at their breasts, it is natural for a wife to have joy when a husband is “feeding†on her breasts in a different way.I confess to not understanding how what I wrote, in praise of a wife’s breasts and a wife’s sexual and emotional desires for her husband, can in any way be construed to lead to the idea that “the entire body is pornographic/obscene/a dirty perversion and everybody needs to hide all of it under a burqa.â€I don’t know where that came from, and can only imagine that the topic gets you so heated that your rationality slips in this instance, and you are attacking something you perceive in the opinions of others, which you mistakenly attribute to me.Do I think public moderation is a good thing, absolutely. But pointing out that human skin was created with marvelous nerve endings that are capable of feeling magnificent and magical arousals, and pointing out nipples become erect when a husband’s lips touches them, so they were intended not just for a child’s “physical†needs, is hardly equating the glorious female body with obscenity! Of course it is obscene when flashed across a screen for all the world to see; but I am talking about the naked truth of private intimacies, not public perversions.If, Mr. Rationalist, you become unglued and see my words as leading to those ideas I quoted from your response, it once again gives me evidence to consider the possibility that you have never been happily married (many have been married, but not happily!)?You could send 5,000 citations from medical journals and 6,000 citations from ultra-feminist readings, and you could try to argue with graphs and quotes and statistics that a woman’s breasts are not sexual organs, but such idolatrized and ignorant “reasonings†would never drown out the lovely music that husband and wife play upon each other’s breasts, and which sings from the very beginning of creation.That the tune has become gross and discordant is the fault of men and women who no longer understand that life and marriage is a symphony best enjoyed when using the Master’s score.By the way, you conceeded part of my point for me when you agreed that:"Or we can do what is rational and understand that "sex" or "sexual" organs are those whose hormones and primary functions are the conception and nuturing to term of a fetus," as nurturing to term is certainly one of the splendid functions of a mother's breasts.P. S. How did you mean the term “Bovine,†when reacting to my description of the mutual joy which breasts can bring to wives and husbands? I wrote: “and especially the hormones of a woman link the breasts to other areas, and arousal of the breasts causes nice things to happen chemically, which all helps in the procreation process,†with my tongue planted half-way in my cheek, and half quite seriously, and you wrote:“this comes across as a totally egregious piece of bovine scatology from start to finish. In effect, you are centering a woman's sexual pleasure in her breasts. It is, I will grant, not incorrect as a statement, but it is sure is a ham-handed way of putting it.I just found this informative entry in Wikipedia, but it was spelled differently than the way your word was:“The biological subfamily Bovinae (or bovines) includes a diverse group of about 24 species of medium-sized to large ungulates, including domestic cattle, Bison, the Water Buffalo, the Yak, and the four-horned and spiral-horned antelopes. The evolutionary relationship between the members of the group is obscure, and their classification into loose tribes rather than formal sub-groups reflects this uncertainty. General characteristics include a cloven hoof and usually at least one of the sexes of a species having a true horn.â€Ah, I see the trouble, that is the UK edition. Another dictionary says of bovine: “a. pertaining to cattle; apathetic; stupid. bovicide, n. killer of cattle; butcher. boviform, a. having shape of cattle. bovoid, a. like cattle.â€I suppose “ham-handed†was not related to “bovine,†else you might have called me a sexist pig! And if you mean to imply I was talking about the term, often derisive, “fat cow,â€â€¦.well, I can say that the milk-fat breasts of a wife feeding one’s own offspring is truly one of the most wondrous views a man can experience on earth!Another dictionary has “Moo†--Noun. An objectionable woman. Derogatory but also jocular. Essentially the same as 'cow' but using the children's onomatopaeic name for a cow. See 'silly moo.'I am being jocular, as the topic we are discussing is joyous – not something out of a medical dictionary!Got Milk? God does!Isaiah 66:10-13"Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice for joy with her, all you who mourn over her; That ye may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breasts; that you may drink deeply and be delighted with the abundance and brightness of her glory. For this is what the Lord says: I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem."

Blessed Breasts- Merck Agrees

My last word here on boobies is that Merck confirms that my calling breasts sexual organs is not only theologically, romantically, experientially, poetically and linguistically appropriate, but it is also medically accurate.Merck knows a thing or two about science and medicine, and one of their online dictionaries says (http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch241/ch241a.html ):The female reproductive system consists of the external and internal genital organs. (The breasts are sometimes considered part of the reproductive system (see Breast Disorders: Introduction).) However, other parts of the body also affect the development and functioning of the reproductive system. They include the hypothalamus (an area of the brain), the pituitary gland (located directly below the hypothalamus), and the adrenal glands (located on top of the kidneys).As for Boobie being the polite word to use in company, I suppose that depends on the company. Will have to check was Miss Manners says in her new book on manners. Need to read "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" first before I buy a book that I know will depress me because I break so many of the "rules" found therein.

Re:Not Sexual Organs???

Dear "Rationalist,"

You write that is if it were a smear. Do you see something wrong with attempting to apply rationality? If so, what would you replace it with? Blind faith in authority?

If you want to participate in a discussion, by the way, then attack the message, not the messenger.

I wish you had read what I wrote more carefully, as from your reply you are sometimes arguing with things I did not say nor imply.

I don't merely interpret words, I also judge context and tone of "voice". Where voice is a literaray device. Perhaps that's a failing I have as a writer of creative fiction, but it's something used to illustrate character in fiction writing, and it's something I'm sensitive to. Still, it is also useful, since human beings are so self-deluded that what they say is frequently at variance with what they mean or actually believe.

As to Scripture, that is precisely what "modern" man needs to hear, as the wisdom therein speaks to all areas of life.

What every person needs, in any age of history, is the ability to interpret the bible/scripture/dogma for his- or herself. Not to have it crammed their throats as One Real Truth. The stories of the Old Testament in particular are allegorical and poetic and in no wise literal.

And the funny thing about invoking scripture is that only the Old Testament is ever called upon as "proof", never the New Testament, which contains the words of God Almighty Himself, speaking as Jesus Christ. The odd thing is, so many of Christ's teachings directly repudiate the hatemongering in the Old Testament.

The beautiful verse I quoted from Proverbs is in no way pornographic,

Whether or not something is pornographic is entirely subjective. I can look at something and see art, someone else can look at it and see pornography. Where's Waldo has been challenged for being pornographic, and the material in question was an illustration of single breast and nipple seen in profile. You may, however, rest assured that the same person who thinks Where's Waldo is pornographic will not say the same thing about their own holy book.

Oh, and since there are no objective criteria by which something can be determined to be art or porn, then such determinations are, of necessity, entirely non-rational.

In any event, the entire point of my argument, which I pointed out to Blake above, is that there is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

but rather conveys the idea rather clearly that husband and wife have bodies that were made for sexual pleasure, NOT merely procreation.

And my point is that just because a person enters into a partnership, neither one gives up control over their own body. Neither one has any right to the other's body. They share their bodies and sexual pleasures with each other, but at their sole discretion, and keep the right to refuse to engage in sexual pleasures as well.

Plus, you do know, don't you, that there are christo-fanatic sects which maintain that procreation is the sole purpose of sex and it must not be engaged in for any other purpose?

By the way, your consistent harping on conjugal relations raises the question: Why do you intimate that sexual relations are restricted to married couples only. If sex is so holy then why can't single people worship by having sexual relations as well?

(That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know that the only way to answer it is to quote some line from the bible. Don't bother.)

One happy fact that naturalistic evolutionists have a hard time explaining (among many hundreds) is the way in which man and woman have orgasms, and do not merely have plumbing that "evolved" for the continuation of the species,

Bullshit (which I find I must use since you are unable to understand the "polite" phrase "piece of bovine scatology"). I don't hold much with Natural Selection alone, but if sex is more fun for some specimens than others, then those specimens will have sex more often than those for whom it is not so much fun and therefore procreate more often; eventually being the sole evolutionary survivor. This conclusion is so immediately obvious to anyone who has studied Darwinism that your statement raises questions about your rationality; suggesting a lack thereof.

In any event, human beings are not the only species that experiences orgasm. Would you care to try explaining how it is, if sex is so holy, that even apes engage in sexual congress for pleasure?

albeit that is ONE purpose for holy sex.

If sex is so holy then why are so many religious fanatics so opposed to it?

Oh, wait! I forgot! It's only holy when it's done under their rules.

I was quite clear in saying that mutual pleasure was "partially" the reason for breasts

No, you were not quite clear on that point. You stated that God created breasts for sexual pleasure. You might have meant that one purpose breasts serve is sexual excitation, but you didn't write what you meant. See my statement above about how and why I interpret efforts at communication.

Indeed, my original post, which gloried in the sacred nature of marital relations, not pornographic degradations,

Yes, and that is one place you went wrong. Sex is fun, but when you make it holy you degrade it into a neurosis and turn it into a fetish if not an outright perversion. I'll forgo turning sex into an obsession and just keep it fun, thank you very much.

Ah, yes, and that ridiculous argument (I am not calling you ridiculous, dear Sir; just the argument as so often phrased) that a woman's body is her own!

If you do not own yourself who's property are you? What makes you -- or anyone -- a free person is that you have sole authority over and responsibility for your ownself. As Terry Pratchett put it in Feet of Clay, you own yourself. If you do not own yourself, then you are someone or something's property. What does that make you?

If, Mr. Rationalist, you become unglued and see my words as leading to those ideas I quoted from your response, it once again gives me evidence to consider the possibility that you have never been happily married (many have been married, but not happily!)?

Right. Just because I don't kiss your ass and blindly agree with what you say then I must be insane or some kind of deviant. Sure.

Perhaps I should use your passive-aggressive smear tactic against you and intimate that you are a witch- and book-burning ultra-conservative, biblical literalist? Or should I raise the question: If I am a "rationalist", then doesn't that make you an "irrationalist"?

Re:Blessed Breasts- Merck Agrees

Merck is a pharmeceutical company, try Gray's Anatomy.

The one generally considered to be the authority on body parts. Then too, there is the Blackinston-Gould Medical Dictionary.

And keep in mind that, that "sometimes" in Merck's definition leaves the subject open to personal interpretation. When would breasts be sexual? As I point out above: only when the owner of the breast(s), the women to whom they are attached, decides they may be used for that purpose.

Merck Agrees -- Gray's doesn't

The entry for breasts in Gray's Anatomy (http://www.bartleby.com/107/271.html) does not contain the word "sexual", it specifically calls them "accessory glands of the generative system". Which I interpret to mean: linked to it, but not a part of it. The entry appears to be dated 1918.

Re:Merck Agrees -- Gray's doesn't

From previous posts on other topics you don't seem like the kind of person who can't admit he is wrong, so what's with the boobies? Is Gray's the only, one superior source for "medical" knowledge. And as has been mentioned -- and this is my last post on the topic -- there are other layers and realities to consider besides the supposedly rational scientific. I accept that not every medical authority considers breasts part of the reproductive system; why can't you accept that some do (and there were plenty of others I noticed who do).A teacher at my school today said "What is his problem," when I tried to explain to her your insistence that breasts cannot properly be considered sex organs. She got, and liked, the joke about playing sexual organs, and agrees that they are part of the reproductive system -- HER reproductive system. She ended the conversation, as I shall, pointing to her breasts and saying "I have two, I ought to know!"

Re:Merck Agrees -- Gray's doesn't

"I have two, I ought to know!"

That's Aristotelean logic. By that logic, I ought to know, because I have two as well. Mine might not be operative, but I've got them.

Aristotle, by the way, supposedly went to his grave asserting that men have more teeth than women; "Of course, men have more teeth, it stands to reason ." But he never once asked his wife to open her mouth so he could count hers.

Breasts are not necessary to the process of reproduction. A woman can conceive, carry to term, and deliver without them. Therefore, they are not sexual/reproductive/generative organs.

As for why a scientific approach is pertinent, the topic under discussing is not breasts per se, but the appropriateness of the word boobies as suitable for polite conversation. The U.S. Supreme Court defines indecent as speech about or depictions of sexual organs (genitalia) or excretory organs. If the breasts are, scientifically, reproductive organs then they can be considered to fall under the rubric indecent. If they aren't, then the software is a sop to sniveling hypersensitivity (which it is anyway). And the question must be addressed under objective conditions because: there is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. If you want to define breasts under subjective conditions, then off course they indecent/obscene/pornographic; just like everything.

Neither Scientific nor rational

My second last word is that you are being neither scientific nor rational about boobies.By the way, if a man looses his "little tail" the sperm in his gonads is still capable of impregnating a women, therefore, the penis is not necessary of reproduction -- according to your exacting and taxing logic.By the way, unless you are female, you do NOT have the same happy boobies as my teacher friend. I'm going to go with her reality, the admitedly minority opinion in the medical world, and my own happy memories of playing sexual organs -- not what some dead white Greek male might say.I have little use for the unscientific, but interesting, theories of Mr. Freud, but your repeated insistence that breasts are not part of the reproductive system seem to indicate some hang-up about breasts.I'll stick with Solomon over the Supreme Court, thank you. (And I did not see the citation for the case in which these divine legislators ruled on the this matter.)

Re:Neither Scientific nor rational

My second last word is that you are being neither scientific nor rational about boobies.

ROLFLMAO!

Oh, my goodness, Walter, ths is just too hilarious. A dude who has been insisting that romantic and poetic viewpoints about tits constitute definitions of them is insisting that I'm not scientific and rational.

HAH!

And are you sure that it isn't a double standard that you are turning a blind eye to what some dead, white, Greek guy said in favour of what some dead, semitic, Jewish guy had to say?

I leave you the last word. Use it well.

Re:Neither Scientific nor rational

Sorry, adding a third last word would be inappropriate.

Syndicate content