login
Are you really outraged? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-06-01 4:28 PM in reply to: #4239518 |
Master  1890     Gig Harbor |  Subject: RE: Are you really outraged?mrbbrad - 2012-06-01 11:05 AM When I first saw the picture and read the OP (I didn't read the attached link) I didn't realize the hullabaloo was about breastfeeding while wearing a military uniform. It would have been very helpful if OP had made that clear distinction. Come on Musky, do I have to actually read stuff? I've never served in the military, but I understand and respect the ideals behind the UCMJ. It wasn't about this. Now we are on to talking about men exposing their penises while performing a "natural" act, so I figured it was easier to just let it go than to try to correct it. "Come on Musky, do I have to actually read stuff?" - This made me laugh. |
My original question was about breastfeeding in general, not about breastfeeding in uniform. This thread just kind of morphed into the uniform issue. The article is primarily about the "breastfeeding issue" and it says that the uniform adds a new dimension to the "breastfeeding issue". My questions were geared towards breastfeeding in general - not towards the uniform angle. I guess I should have used a different breastfeeding pic. I can see how this one was confusing.| 2012-06-01 4:33 PM in reply to: #4237354 |
| Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? This thread is almost better than celebrity deathmatch! I still have one question, however. Since someone else brought up the subject of male genitalia. What is the plural of penis? Penises? Penii? |
| 2012-06-01 4:39 PM in reply to: #4239921 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ironultrared - 2012-06-01 3:33 PM This thread is almost better than celebrity deathmatch! Anyone? I still have one question, however. Since someone else brought up the subject of male genitalia. What is the plural of penis? Penises? Penii? Not sure. I have only ever been concerned about one. |
| 2012-06-01 4:43 PM in reply to: #4239293 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? DanielG - 2012-06-01 11:20 AM mr2tony - 2012-06-01 10:25 AM Goosedog - 2012-06-01 8:56 AM Big Appa - 2012-06-01 9:50 AM Goosedog - 2012-06-01 6:37 AM jcnipper - 2012-06-01 9:04 AM You are an adult, and, presumably, have control over your bodily functions. Children, particularly infants, do not. When they get hungry, they are hungry. So what? If I need to urinate, why should I have to wait to find a restroom so I can do so away from the public eye? I mean, it's natural. Right?
So peeing in a pool and brest feeding in public are the same thing? Not peeing in a pool, that's gross, but peeing in a water bottle on the sidewalk. For this purpose, yes. They are both perfectly normal bodily functions using body parts for their intended purpose. One is illegal, while the other is protected by law (in some places). Point being, it doesn't make sense, to me, to protect breast feeding in public solely because it's natural or because it uses a body part for it's intended purpose. Because, so is peeing in a water bottle on the sidewalk. I think there are other reasons. Mainly, necessity.
OK, but you CAN pee while wearing a uniform. People are suggesting that before breastfeeding one should change out of uniform into civvies yet nobody is suggesting that one should change out of uniform before defacating or urinating. If they're one in the same as you say, perhaps the UCMJ should be expanded to say that if someone wants to use the restroom then they should change out of uniform, go to the restroom, do their business and then get redressed. Or is that too much of a stretch? You, however, apparently do not get it. If the ladies want to step in the rest room to breast feed, it would not be in violation. If you want to make that parallel then that's the proper parallel, not your scenario. If the ladies want to sit in their car with a feeding blanket over them in uniform I wouldn't even have an issue with that especially if it were a van/suv with the tinted rear windows. No one would have an issue with it. It's the uniform, not the act. I was responding in a cheeky manner to Goosedog's tongue-in-cheek response about comparing peeing and breastfeeding, which I think is a ridiculous comparison. You can't compare using the restroom with breastfeeding. It's apples and oranges. Which is why I said ``Or is that too much of a stretch.'' You obviously didn't get the sarcasm because I certainly don't think anybody should have to change out of uniform to pee just like I dont think anybody should have to change out of uniform to breastfeed. If the rules state that a woman must not breastfeed in public in their uniform, then those are the rules, end of story. Follow the rules. I have no problem with that. I personally wouldn't give a rat's behind if I saw it in public even if I knew the letter of the UCMJ (which I don't) or felt very very uncomfortable with it (which I don't). Kid's gotta eat! But while we're on the subject, do you really think women should be relegated to a bathroom, even a clean one, to breastfeed their child? Or should the business, or in this case the government, provide its workers whether civilian or military, a private location to where they can retreat to feed their child? |
| 2012-06-01 4:48 PM in reply to: #4239927 |
| Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? powerman - 2012-06-01 4:39 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 3:33 PM This thread is almost better than celebrity deathmatch! Anyone? I still have one question, however. Since someone else brought up the subject of male genitalia. What is the plural of penis? Penises? Penii? Not sure. I have only ever been concerned about one. HAHA! Oh wait. That still doesn't answer the question. |
| 2012-06-01 5:14 PM in reply to: #4237354 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? Outraged at the outrage. |
| 2012-06-01 5:52 PM in reply to: #4239949 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ironultrared - 2012-06-01 5:48 PM powerman - 2012-06-01 4:39 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 3:33 PM This thread is almost better than celebrity deathmatch! Anyone? I still have one question, however. Since someone else brought up the subject of male genitalia. What is the plural of penis? Penises? Penii? Not sure. I have only ever been concerned about one. HAHA! Oh wait. That still doesn't answer the question. Yes the plural of penis is peni and yes some species have more than 1. |
| 2012-06-01 6:26 PM in reply to: #4238848 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? Goosedog - 2012-06-01 9:37 AM jcnipper - 2012-06-01 9:04 AM You are an adult, and, presumably, have control over your bodily functions. Children, particularly infants, do not. When they get hungry, they are hungry. So what? If I need to urinate, why should I have to wait to find a restroom so I can do so away from the public eye? I mean, it's natural. Right? The fact you are equating breastfeeding with urinating is quite telling. |
| 2012-06-01 6:31 PM in reply to: #4239949 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ironultrared - 2012-06-01 5:48 PM powerman - 2012-06-01 4:39 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 3:33 PM This thread is almost better than celebrity deathmatch! Anyone? I still have one question, however. Since someone else brought up the subject of male genitalia. What is the plural of penis? Penises? Penii? Not sure. I have only ever been concerned about one. HAHA! Oh wait. That still doesn't answer the question. The answer is "Richards." |
| 2012-06-01 6:44 PM in reply to: #4239480 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? Moonrocket - 2012-06-01 1:44 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-31 5:53 PM As a professional mom who BF and pumped, I actually think the extremists scare away a lot of borderline moms. They give the impression that it's over the top when it does not have to be. I think there needs to be a bigger message that you CAN nurse for a year + without ever nursing in public. That you don't have to want to attend nurse ins in the local target. That you can quietly and successfully provide the best nutrition possible for your baby. If anyone is on the fence about nursing and pumping while working I would be happy to share my very modest and non-controversial experience with you. It's a lot of work, but IMO well worth it. Every day makes a difference, so do it for a week or a month or three months. Three years if you want to, but if you don't, don't discount the benefit of doing it for a month!Aarondb4 - 2012-05-31 3:05 PM Agree that I doubt there is a lot of "outrage" over the picture. Sounded to me like the article was trying to drum up drama, it didn't point to any protests or breastfeeding women having stones thrown at them. However I do see this particular picture as a pretty cheap publicity stunt that is in poor taste. I have read enough regs on uniform to know that purposefully posing in uniform like that is against the spirit if not the exact letter of the rules. I think a lot of things (like breastfeeding in public) wouldn't be such a big deal if people who were for it would just shut up about it. Do we really need an awareness campaign for breastfeeding? I assume it has been going on for a few centuries. Why throw up a picture like this other than to stir the pot? Yo Aaron, I've gotta say I strongly disagree with that sentence. Without pot-stirrers, things don't change. More women breastfeeding = greater well-being for the future generation. More women breastfeeding in public = greater familiarity with the act = increased acceptance = less breastfeeding women being treated unjustly = positive cycle continues! As for the uniform issue, hey if they got permission through their chain of command, go for it. Moonrocket, you're a voice of reason...you remind me of my wife. I shaded the most important line of your post...every well-designed study proves it, but unfortunately, there are mothers that are able, but choose not to...and the reasons for their reluctance infuriate me. (yes, I'm easily infuriated. btw, Aaron, I do hear your point. Extremists typically do a lousy job getting a message out with good results...but in this case, I just never looked at this picture as "extreme." |
| 2012-06-01 7:01 PM in reply to: #4240138 |
| Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 6:44 PM Moonrocket, you're a voice of reason...you remind me of my wife. I shaded the most important line of your post...every well-designed study proves it, but unfortunately, there are mothers that are able, but choose not to...and the reasons for their reluctance infuriate me. (yes, I'm easily infuriated. btw, Aaron, I do hear your point. Extremists typically do a lousy job getting a message out with good results...but in this case, I just never looked at this picture as "extreme."
A thought here - if a mom is able to, but doesn't want to for one reason or another, wouldn't she be likely to resent the very act of breastfeeding? And if that's true, then I think that the best choice for the health of the mother and child are to not breastfeed. It about much more than the physical ability. Emotions play a huge role. And for the record, I believe it is the healthiest option for everyone involved. Except when it isn't. My example: I'm perfectly capable of being a housewife. But I don't want to. So if that was the choice that I was to make for one reason or another, I'd probably make everyone as miserable as I am. And I'm not saying that working is better than being a housewife. It's just the healthiest option for my family and our financial resources. |
| 2012-06-01 7:48 PM in reply to: #4237354 |
Extreme Veteran 1648 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? I agree that if it's making you miserable it's not worth it. I had friends who pumped for 6 months and were way happier when they stopped. I think they made a good decision for themselves. I think in 6 months their babies also benefited a lot. I would just encourage moms to try it before they make a decision. My goal was to BF through maternity leave. I ended up going 15 months. At that point I thought it was in the collective best interest of mom and baby to stop. I think everyone needs to make that decision. I really just wish that more women would try it and try and stick the first month out then decide. It's a lot like working out. Getting started is really hard. Then it just becomes second nature. I'm so glad I never had to worry about packing bottles. Oh, and I saved enough $$$ for a new bike :-) |
| 2012-06-01 7:49 PM in reply to: #4240151 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ironultrared - 2012-06-01 8:01 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 6:44 PM Moonrocket, you're a voice of reason...you remind me of my wife. I shaded the most important line of your post...every well-designed study proves it, but unfortunately, there are mothers that are able, but choose not to...and the reasons for their reluctance infuriate me. (yes, I'm easily infuriated. btw, Aaron, I do hear your point. Extremists typically do a lousy job getting a message out with good results...but in this case, I just never looked at this picture as "extreme."
A thought here - if a mom is able to, but doesn't want to for one reason or another, wouldn't she be likely to resent the very act of breastfeeding? And if that's true, then I think that the best choice for the health of the mother and child are to not breastfeed. It about much more than the physical ability. Emotions play a huge role. And for the record, I believe it is the healthiest option for everyone involved. Except when it isn't. My example: I'm perfectly capable of being a housewife. But I don't want to. So if that was the choice that I was to make for one reason or another, I'd probably make everyone as miserable as I am. And I'm not saying that working is better than being a housewife. It's just the healthiest option for my family and our financial resources. Well, people are going to do what they're going to do. But, my judgment (yeah I'm quite judgmental) depends on the "one reason or another." I would just love to hear what reasons are thrown out there not to provide the best possible nutrition to their children. The "choosing to work outside the home versus choosing to be a SAHM" argument is apples and oranges compared to "being perfectly capable of breastfeeding a child and choosing not to, versus being perfectly capable and choosing to provide the child with the best possible sustenance." In the first choice, depending on the circumstances, either could be the ideal choice. In the second, more often than not, there is a clearly better choice to be made...but often is not...agin, for the "one reason or another" you mentioned earlier. |
| 2012-06-01 8:37 PM in reply to: #4240192 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 8:49 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 8:01 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 6:44 PM Moonrocket, you're a voice of reason...you remind me of my wife. I shaded the most important line of your post...every well-designed study proves it, but unfortunately, there are mothers that are able, but choose not to...and the reasons for their reluctance infuriate me. (yes, I'm easily infuriated. btw, Aaron, I do hear your point. Extremists typically do a lousy job getting a message out with good results...but in this case, I just never looked at this picture as "extreme."
A thought here - if a mom is able to, but doesn't want to for one reason or another, wouldn't she be likely to resent the very act of breastfeeding? And if that's true, then I think that the best choice for the health of the mother and child are to not breastfeed. It about much more than the physical ability. Emotions play a huge role. And for the record, I believe it is the healthiest option for everyone involved. Except when it isn't. My example: I'm perfectly capable of being a housewife. But I don't want to. So if that was the choice that I was to make for one reason or another, I'd probably make everyone as miserable as I am. And I'm not saying that working is better than being a housewife. It's just the healthiest option for my family and our financial resources. Well, people are going to do what they're going to do. But, my judgment (yeah I'm quite judgmental) depends on the "one reason or another." I would just love to hear what reasons are thrown out there not to provide the best possible nutrition to their children. The "choosing to work outside the home versus choosing to be a SAHM" argument is apples and oranges compared to "being perfectly capable of breastfeeding a child and choosing not to, versus being perfectly capable and choosing to provide the child with the best possible sustenance." In the first choice, depending on the circumstances, either could be the ideal choice. In the second, more often than not, there is a clearly better choice to be made...but often is not...agin, for the "one reason or another" you mentioned earlier. Interesting, it's ok to choose to have an abortion just not ok to choose not to breasfeed |
| 2012-06-01 8:43 PM in reply to: #4240260 |
Expert 1416 San Luis Obispo, CA | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? trinnas - 2012-06-01 6:37 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 8:49 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 8:01 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 6:44 PM Moonrocket, you're a voice of reason...you remind me of my wife. I shaded the most important line of your post...every well-designed study proves it, but unfortunately, there are mothers that are able, but choose not to...and the reasons for their reluctance infuriate me. (yes, I'm easily infuriated. btw, Aaron, I do hear your point. Extremists typically do a lousy job getting a message out with good results...but in this case, I just never looked at this picture as "extreme."
A thought here - if a mom is able to, but doesn't want to for one reason or another, wouldn't she be likely to resent the very act of breastfeeding? And if that's true, then I think that the best choice for the health of the mother and child are to not breastfeed. It about much more than the physical ability. Emotions play a huge role. And for the record, I believe it is the healthiest option for everyone involved. Except when it isn't. My example: I'm perfectly capable of being a housewife. But I don't want to. So if that was the choice that I was to make for one reason or another, I'd probably make everyone as miserable as I am. And I'm not saying that working is better than being a housewife. It's just the healthiest option for my family and our financial resources. Well, people are going to do what they're going to do. But, my judgment (yeah I'm quite judgmental) depends on the "one reason or another." I would just love to hear what reasons are thrown out there not to provide the best possible nutrition to their children. The "choosing to work outside the home versus choosing to be a SAHM" argument is apples and oranges compared to "being perfectly capable of breastfeeding a child and choosing not to, versus being perfectly capable and choosing to provide the child with the best possible sustenance." In the first choice, depending on the circumstances, either could be the ideal choice. In the second, more often than not, there is a clearly better choice to be made...but often is not...agin, for the "one reason or another" you mentioned earlier. Interesting, it's ok to choose to have an abortion just not ok to choose not to breasfeed You don't need to workout. Lugging that gas can around with you to throw on nearby fires should suffice. |
| 2012-06-01 8:56 PM in reply to: #4237354 |
| Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Edited by ironultrared 2012-06-01 8:56 PM |
| 2012-06-01 9:05 PM in reply to: #4239027 |
Expert 1566 Prattville Insane Asylum San Antonio | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? mrbbrad - 2012-06-01 9:31 AM mehaner - 2012-06-01 10:00 AM Goosedog - 2012-06-01 9:56 AM Big Appa - 2012-06-01 9:50 AM Goosedog - 2012-06-01 6:37 AM jcnipper - 2012-06-01 9:04 AM You are an adult, and, presumably, have control over your bodily functions. Children, particularly infants, do not. When they get hungry, they are hungry. So what? If I need to urinate, why should I have to wait to find a restroom so I can do so away from the public eye? I mean, it's natural. Right?
So peeing in a pool and brest feeding in public are the same thing? Not peeing in a pool, that's gross, but peeing in a water bottle on the sidewalk. For this purpose, yes. They are both perfectly normal bodily functions using body parts for their intended purpose. One is illegal, while the other is protected by law (in some places). Point being, it doesn't make sense, to me, to protect breast feeding in public solely because it's natural or because it uses a body part for it's intended purpose. Because, so is peeing in a water bottle on the sidewalk. I think there are other reasons. Mainly, necessity.
that's because so many women sexualize penises in society today So I get the sarc font, and realize that a penis is genitalia and breasts are not, but I think it's shortsighted to decry the sexualization of the female breast. It's part of human DNA for men to be sexually attracted to and by breasts. The human male animal has a natural sexual response to certain female features just as any male animal has a sexual response to certain features of the female of that species. I'm pretty sure I first learned about secondary sexual characteristics in 10th grade biology class, but I was stoned much of the time. I know for sure it was covered in a human sexuality class I took in college. My grandmother always said "If a man remembers what color your eyes are after your first date, your breasts aren't big enough." THAT was when I was in High School, and about the time I remember never making eye contact with any of my dates. |
| 2012-06-01 9:08 PM in reply to: #4240283 |
Expert 1566 Prattville Insane Asylum San Antonio | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ironultrared - 2012-06-01 8:56 PM Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Agreed, I have some matches! |
| 2012-06-01 9:09 PM in reply to: #4240283 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ironultrared - 2012-06-01 9:56 PM Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Has PMS been mentioned yet? |
| 2012-06-01 9:16 PM in reply to: #4240299 |
Expert 1566 Prattville Insane Asylum San Antonio | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 9:09 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 9:56 PM Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Has PMS been mentioned yet? Whoa, you wanna go there huh, women and PMS? Well anyone of these apply during that time: Potential Murder Suspect Pass My Shotgun Puffy Mid Section Pardon My Sobbing Pass My Sweatpants Plainly, Men Suck Pardon My Sobbing
Edited by ecozenmama 2012-06-01 9:16 PM |
| 2012-06-01 9:22 PM in reply to: #4240308 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ecozenmama - 2012-06-01 10:16 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 9:09 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 9:56 PM Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Has PMS been mentioned yet? Whoa, you wanna go there huh, women and PMS? Well anyone of these apply during that time: Potential Murder Suspect Pass My Shotgun Puffy Mid Section Pardon My Sobbing Pass My Sweatpants Plainly, Men Suck Pardon My Sobbing
You forgot Putting up With Men's "stuff" |
| 2012-06-01 9:24 PM in reply to: #4240315 |
Expert 1566 Prattville Insane Asylum San Antonio | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? trinnas - 2012-06-01 9:22 PM ecozenmama - 2012-06-01 10:16 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 9:09 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 9:56 PM Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Has PMS been mentioned yet? Whoa, you wanna go there huh, women and PMS? Well anyone of these apply during that time: Potential Murder Suspect Pass My Shotgun Puffy Mid Section Pardon My Sobbing Pass My Sweatpants Plainly, Men Suck Pardon My Sobbing
You forgot Putting up With Men's "stuff" Yes, but this is ALL month long, not just every 28 days or so. |
 2012-06-01 9:32 PM in reply to: #4240319 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2012-06-01 9:34 PM in reply to: #4240265 |
| Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? blbriley - 2012-06-01 9:43 PM trinnas - 2012-06-01 6:37 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 8:49 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 8:01 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 6:44 PM Moonrocket, you're a voice of reason...you remind me of my wife. I shaded the most important line of your post...every well-designed study proves it, but unfortunately, there are mothers that are able, but choose not to...and the reasons for their reluctance infuriate me. (yes, I'm easily infuriated. btw, Aaron, I do hear your point. Extremists typically do a lousy job getting a message out with good results...but in this case, I just never looked at this picture as "extreme."
A thought here - if a mom is able to, but doesn't want to for one reason or another, wouldn't she be likely to resent the very act of breastfeeding? And if that's true, then I think that the best choice for the health of the mother and child are to not breastfeed. It about much more than the physical ability. Emotions play a huge role. And for the record, I believe it is the healthiest option for everyone involved. Except when it isn't. My example: I'm perfectly capable of being a housewife. But I don't want to. So if that was the choice that I was to make for one reason or another, I'd probably make everyone as miserable as I am. And I'm not saying that working is better than being a housewife. It's just the healthiest option for my family and our financial resources. Well, people are going to do what they're going to do. But, my judgment (yeah I'm quite judgmental) depends on the "one reason or another." I would just love to hear what reasons are thrown out there not to provide the best possible nutrition to their children. The "choosing to work outside the home versus choosing to be a SAHM" argument is apples and oranges compared to "being perfectly capable of breastfeeding a child and choosing not to, versus being perfectly capable and choosing to provide the child with the best possible sustenance." In the first choice, depending on the circumstances, either could be the ideal choice. In the second, more often than not, there is a clearly better choice to be made...but often is not...agin, for the "one reason or another" you mentioned earlier. Interesting, it's ok to choose to have an abortion just not ok to choose not to breasfeed You don't need to workout. Lugging that gas can around with you to throw on nearby fires should suffice. Who needs gasoline there are lighter, smaller, highly flammable materials to use. *note can't do sarc. Font from the iPad. I have never softballed a question or statement to CD. I may not alway agree with him but I do respect him and I think he can handle himself. I also think he is more than capable of articulating why he does not see these two ideas as incompatable. |
| 2012-06-01 9:37 PM in reply to: #4240319 |
| Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Are you really outraged? ecozenmama - 2012-06-01 10:24 PM trinnas - 2012-06-01 9:22 PM ecozenmama - 2012-06-01 10:16 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-06-01 9:09 PM ironultrared - 2012-06-01 9:56 PM Wait wait wait!!!!!! I think we missed a few women's issues! And we haven't offended everyone yet! Has PMS been mentioned yet? Whoa, you wanna go there huh, women and PMS? Well anyone of these apply during that time: Potential Murder Suspect Pass My Shotgun Puffy Mid Section Pardon My Sobbing Pass My Sweatpants Plainly, Men Suck Pardon My Sobbing
You forgot Putting up With Men's "stuff" Yes, but this is ALL month long, not just every 28 days or so. ah well I always liked: PMS is a women's excuse to, once a month, act the way men act all the time. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK