My body, my choice, unless it's a breast implant
No boobies for you
NOW seems to be lobbying again against silicon breast implants ignoring another 10 years worth of studies that show them to be harmless.
Why is it that they support a woman's right to abort with few/no restrictions at almost any age? Yet they want the government to restrict what grown women do with their own bodies. Most of these women also do it for esteem and image issues so if anything you would think that the woman, her mental state, and her choice would override just about anything. However in this instance they go against what the women want, what the science says, and just pursue an agenda that seems in opposition to what they should support.
What gives?
Nick
NOW seems to be lobbying again against silicon breast implants ignoring another 10 years worth of studies that show them to be harmless.
Why is it that they support a woman's right to abort with few/no restrictions at almost any age? Yet they want the government to restrict what grown women do with their own bodies. Most of these women also do it for esteem and image issues so if anything you would think that the woman, her mental state, and her choice would override just about anything. However in this instance they go against what the women want, what the science says, and just pursue an agenda that seems in opposition to what they should support.
What gives?
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by der Kopf
Maybe, just maybe, they consider a breast implant not so much something a woman would want for herself, as something a woman would want to fare better "in a man's world". I don't know. Boss over your own body, unless that "you" becomes entangled with über-personal factors, such as men's preference for overly large breasts, and men's overal near-dictatorial impact on current ideals concerning beauty. I mean, I try to infuse a bit of what I feel might be feminist rhetoric in the view I lay here before you.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
But thats the case I hope NOW will be slaughtered for using false arguments. If safety isn´t the issue for them then it boarders lying when they use it as the argument for their case
Originally posted by der Kopf
Maybe, just maybe, they consider a breast implant not so much something a woman would want for herself, as something a woman would want to fare better "in a man's world". I don't know. Boss over your own body, unless that "you" becomes entangled with über-personal factors, such as men's preference for overly large breasts, and men's overal near-dictatorial impact on current ideals concerning beauty. I mean, I try to infuse a bit of what I feel might be feminist rhetoric in the view I lay here before you.
That still seems awfully hypocritical. Sort of like I support free speech as long as you don't disagree with me.
If they support a woman doing as they wish with their body, that should also include things with which they do not agree or doesn't fit into their one world view.
Likewise not all implants are about getting overly large breasts. In fact I would bet that the average cup size for an implant is a "C" and not a "DD" or anything like that. If a woman has an "A" or just flat chest, which if anything would denote looking more male, shouldn't she be entitled to do what makes her feel fully like a woman, or female?
Likewise if men determine what is an attractive female, then who determines what is an attractive male? Gay men? Opposing something because it is oppressive is one thing. Opposing it because men might like it in addition to women is just silly.
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
Are your body a breast implant?
Is your body an abortion?
Obviously both are procedures done to your body.
Try again...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
That still seems awfully hypocritical.
Don't forget you're talking about NOW, the same group that raised funds to foot the legal bill of a woman (Andrea Yates) who drowned, yes DROWNED, her 5 children in a bathtub, because her boyfriend or whatever left her, and she went into "post-partum depression".
Originally posted by der Kopf
Don't forget you're talking about NOW, the same group that raised funds to foot the legal bill of a woman (Andrea Yates) who drowned, yes DROWNED, her 5 children in a bathtub, because her boyfriend or whatever left her, and she went into "post-partum depression".
1. She didn't have a boyfriend, AFAIK.
2. Her husband hadn't left her.
3. She had been diagnosed with a mental illness and was on psychiatric meds.
4. "Post-partum depression" (not sure why you have quotes around it - is not real?) is caused by child-birth and the aftermath, hence post-partum, not because your boyfriend leaves you.
5. Well, I guess I'll stop at 4.
SIB implant are better than saline implants. Saline implants have some big disavantages : they are subject to desinflation, and they have a lesser esthetic results. I have replaced some of the first breast salines implants i implanted some years ago, because of their failure. This failure won't have occured if i had the right at the time to use SIB at the time. SIB have a much better esthetic result, and a much longer life expectancy.
Since 2001 , i implante only SIB in esthetic surgery. And quite all my friends or any french plastic surgeon do the same. There is no comparison possible.
Most women wants breast implants for themselves. Some man love big breast, but not so many.
The breast is the symbol of feminity. When a woman lost a breast (or if the breast it really small) she thinks that she lost a part of her sexual identity. Thats why having breast is so important for her. 90 % of the women i see, for breast implants are doing this surgery for her and not for their husband or boyfriend.
Some husbands are even against the procedure : 'you don't need to do it, you are sufficiently nice for me : who do you want to seduce ? '.
Most of the time this pseudo feminist rhetoric is wrong. Perhaps is it a lesbian rhetoric, some sort of denial of the breast ? I guess it's not, but i don't understand this argument.
The plastic reconstructive surgery of the breast have been made under the pressure of women. It's the women who have asked the surgeon to proceed to a reconstruction. And it's not necessary a young ladies. Sometime a woman of 60 years ask for it, and a young mother refuse it, because she is more concerned by her kids rather than her breasts. Perhaps some years after, when her kids will be older she will ask for it.
So by what psychologist have said about the subject , and confirmed by my personal experience, the Feminist argument is a total bullshit.
Originally posted by BRussell
Hey, trumptman started a thread. IBL!
1. She didn't have a boyfriend, AFAIK.
2. Her husband hadn't left her.
3. She had been diagnosed with a mental illness and was on psychiatric meds.
4. "Post-partum depression" (not sure why you have quotes around it - is not real?) is caused by child-birth and the aftermath, hence post-partum, not because your boyfriend leaves you.
5. Well, I guess I'll stop at 4.
Well whatever. No, let me refrase that: WHATEVER. I hope some kindred organisation will foot my legal bill once I decide to off my wife and kids in the bathtub because I'm, you know, hungover or something.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Well whatever. No, let me refrase that: WHATEVER. I hope some kindred organisation will foot my legal bill once I decide to off my wife and kids in the bathtub because I'm, you know, hungover or something.
there are not enough "rolleyes" smilies to address that particular post (but that won't stop me from using at least one).
Originally posted by rok
there are not enough "rolleyes" smilies to address that particular post (but that won't stop me from using at least one).
I realise I may sound harsh, but I just don't see any reason for what NOW did there. It can and will be interpreted by many as some kind of, if not justification, at least minimalisation of Andrea Yates' crime. In some warped way, their fund-raising seems to voice their support for "post-partum depression" induced killing (and BRussell, I put that between quotes because I don't think ANY depression warrants the killing of an entire set of siblings).
Your rolleyes make clear some of what you may be hinting at, but I think it'd be helpful if you'd actually express your thoughts.
Originally posted by der Kopf
I realise I may sound harsh, but I just don't see any reason for what NOW did there. It can and will be interpreted by many as some kind of, if not justification, at least minimalisation of Andrea Yates' crime. In some warped way, their fund-raising seems to voice their support for "post-partum depression" induced killing (and BRussell, I put that between quotes because I don't think ANY depression warrants the killing of an entire set of siblings).
I agree that depression is not (and in reality never has been) a legitimate insanity defense. The question in her case was not depression, it was psychosis, which is and should be a legitimate defense, IMO and in the opinion of most legal analyses. She had been diagnosed with psychosis and was on anti-psychotic meds prior to the killings.
I think NOW was funding her defense because post-partum mental illness is serious and under-acknowledged. And of course everyone is entitled to a defense. It was TX, though, so it was pretty obvious they were throwing their money away.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I can't understand why the NOW is against SIB implants. As a plastic surgeon who practiced this type of surgery, i cannot understand such an attitude.
Hey PowerDoc, did you know that there's a new TV show in the US about plastic surgeons, called Nip and Tuck?
not all women celebrate their boobs as a part of their sexuality (that they did not ask for)
Originally posted by Giaguara
Powerdoc, how about breast removals? How often are they asked for? I'm not talking about the reduction of size but just plain removal (or 'reduction' to be like in the pre-adolescence state) . How do the doctors react to a request for removal?
not all women celebrate their boobs as a part of their sexuality (that they did not ask for)
No women never asked me this procedure. Only men who suffer of gynecomastia (women type breast) ask for this procedure. There is a lot of request for reduction, but not so much for removal.
However, if it arrive i would be extremely cautious, remove breast without any medical reasons is considered as a mutilation. I could be sued for that and will probabily loose this kind of trial. I think if a woman ask for such a procedure, a psychiatric advive will be wellcome.
Originally posted by BRussell
Hey PowerDoc, did you know that there's a new TV show in the US about plastic surgeons, called Nip and Tuck?
No i don't. However i consider my job, alike any other medical job : i am a doctor and i try to apply the same guidelines code that any other MD.
Esthetic surgery is only a part of my job : plastic esthetic and reconstructive surgery. A good 50 % of my activity is to remove skin tumors, most of them being skin cancers. There is also surgery of the sore scars, burn ...
In a general way, i hate TV shows speaking of esthetic surgery. I avoid to watch them, at least for the last 4 years. Most of the patients i see in my town are normal people : i find normal that a woman with a pre-adolescent breast wants more, that someone with senile type lids, wants a cure in order to have a more healthy looking face, that a girl with a large butt, wants a more normal one. I don't find normal to do surgery on youngs ladies who wants to look like someone else, TV shows are full of this example, i am against this.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
[..]However, if it arrive i would be extremely cautious, remove breast without any medical reasons is considered as a mutilation. I could be sued for that and will probabily loose this kind of trial. I think if a woman ask for such a procedure, a psychiatric advive will be wellcome.
What are the MEDICAL reasons for making the breasts larger then? If even the whatever-size (aaa?) is enough to breastfeed a child, to the breasts to function = feed, there is no need to have any kind of implant in them. Why is making them bigger with implants ok and taking them away not? Of the reductions instead, do they have to be of at least some certain size or is the annoyance / impracticality etc enough motive? E.g. if a "b" is annoying when doing sports etc, can it be sucked to aa or is that seen as mutilation too? (just curious)
Originally posted by Giaguara
What are the MEDICAL reasons for making the breasts larger then? If even the whatever-size (aaa?) is enough to breastfeed a child, to the breasts to function = feed, there is no need to have any kind of implant in them. Why is making them bigger with implants ok and taking them away not? Of the reductions instead, do they have to be of at least some certain size or is the annoyance / impracticality etc enough motive? E.g. if a "b" is annoying when doing sports etc, can it be sucked to aa or is that seen as mutilation too? (just curious)
1) implants do not improve the function of the breast : make milk
2) taking away is a mutilation definitively. Reduction is not. Nobody never asked me to remove a breast for esthetic reason. I think that if someone ask for this, i 'll think that she will have a psychic problem. The size , that want a woman may vary, but they never asked to remove it entirely.
3) b is rarely annoying when practicing sports, larger sizes are.
4) i consider that the normal size are belonging to the b and c range.
5) (just curious) ---> Really ?