So Relentlessly On Brand I Am A Parody Of Myself

The Little Slave, The Little Queen, The big Villains, The Little Farmer, the Little Princess, and a Little Happy ending,,,

Happy Star Wars day!!!! and happy birthday to me...Veeery late on the day, but I had 6 hours of no electricity nkjs. Anyways, I'm happy i took my time with these <3

"Free the nipple" never meant "free to not wear a bra" or "free to breastfeed." Those were adjacent conversations that of course "free the nipple" supporters would boost, but that was NEVER the core of free the nipple.

The core of free the nipple was always that the breasts of people perceived as women ("female-presenting nipples" to use some Tumblr speak) are in no way different than the breasts of people perceived as men. And that since the chests of people perceived as men are not sexualized and are allowed to be exposed, so too should the breasts of people perceived as women. If men can be topless, so can women. If it's inappropriate for women to show their chests, neither should men. It isn't sexual assault for a woman to walk around barechested, because it isn't sexual assault for a man to do so either, and breasts are NOT sexual organs.

Claiming breasts are inherently sexual organs is factually and morally wrong, it is sexist and controlling, it is a tool of oppression, and it defines normal body parts (and bodily functions) as sex which leads to inherent sexualization of people with those parts. It leads to 12 year olds with large breasts being accused of seducing 40 year old men or trying to distract and corrupt their classmates.

"Free the nipple" doesn't mean "free the nipple in a god-fearing way." It means FREE THE NIPPLE, full stop, end of sentence. It means to free the nipple of the faulty social constructs that cast it as a sexualized, malicious force of seduction instead of a normal body part that should be free of expectations of shame or "modesty."

Breasts and nipples aren't shameful, sexual, immoral, porn-adjacent, kinks, a distraction, or things to be feared. They are a part of your body just like your elbows and ankles, and being afraid of them, thinking they will corrupt some innocent person or that being exposed to them is trauma akin to sexual assault, is the entire fucking problem.

Free the nipple, not just for breastfeeding, not just from bras, but from the fucked up social constructs that cast them as malicious instead of innocent. Stop trying to sanitize "free the nipple" for puritanical, conservative audiences who already hate you and the rest of us. You aren't helping anyone.

Breeding livestock animals and selectively culling to improve stock or end suffering is completely different than practicing eugenics on humans, yes.

I don't know enough about human baby medical conditions to say if failure to thrive is caused by the same things as in quail, but it seems likely that there's at least some overlap.

With humans, we have advanced medical care to work to fix some problems (like organ transplants for organ failures) and the ability to reduce or eliminate suffering (like pain medication), as well as (eventually) the ability to explain the situation to the person experiencing it. None of these things are available to a 1 week old quail. Hard culling it IS the kindest treatment available, on top of being the most practical consideration for the improvement of the flock.

People having human babies are not doing so in an attempt to improve the stock of the human race, they're doing it to make a family. This is not the goal of raising livestock. Most livestock is being raised for food (or use, like riding horses or shearing sheep etc), and most humans don't participate in cannibalism, nor do most people feed their dead to animals. The cultures that do participate in these things still aren't raising humans specifically for this purpose.

Lastly, humans DO sometimes make the call to end a life before nature would, though we don't think of this as culling. Abortions do happen where something has gone very wrong with the fetus to where it won't survive, and a choice must be made, particularly in instances where the mother's life is in danger. Even a healthy fetus could endanger a mother's life and a worse choice must be made. Abortions happen for many other reasons, too, by the choice of the mother (or in situations where she may be unable to make the call, the other parent, a relative, or a doctor). We also have (in some places) protocols for allowing patients to end their own lives in hospital settings if they choose- DNRs are a thing, but we also have euthanasia cocktails that terminal patients can choose in order to take control of their own suffering and end. But these are almost always welfare considerations made for (and by) the people they concern (the mother, the patient) rather than a measure of selective breeding.

The missing piece is just like that Terry Pratchett quote, " It starts with treating people like things". People are not livestock. I mean, obviously. But then that leads to the question of "why do we do this to animals then?"

As a city-slicker who hasn't had a huge amount to do with livestock, I really appreciate you speaking on the thought process that goes on as a breeder and carer.

The thing I didn't mention, and something that people rarely consider from this perspective, is that nature culls. In the wild, FTT animals will suffer and die slowly. They might be lucky enough to be caught by a predator and ended violently but swiftly. Animals not suited for their environment will suffer and die off at some point. Sick animals will suffer until their body gives out and they die. Injured animals will suffer, often rotting on their feet, before succumbing to the injury. If they make it, they may recover fully or they may be lame in a way that causes them to suffer hunger or pain for the rest of their lives with no way to abate it. It will probably mean their (slow, painful) death at some point. Predators may assist with swifter but violent ends. Even healthy animals may die to accidents, predators, etc. Survival of the fittest and all that. This is natural, sure, but also horrific. The two are not mutually exclusive. And it's necessary, for this balance to exist, or animals would overwhelm their environments and none of them would get to live.

In an artificial environment (ie, domestically-kept animals), humans are acting as nature, and I feel it cannot be stated enough that we are far far far FAR kinder about it all than nature will ever be. Well-kept domestic animals experience a life of luxury that their wild ancestors could never hope to have dreamed of. They get rich foods, endless clean water, a safe place to live and sleep, health care as needed, and a swift, gentle end. Their progeny will produce progeny which will produce progeny which will produce progeny, into time everlasting as far as they're concerned. For creatures whose goal in life is to pass on their genes, that's a pretty damn successful life

But the other side of that is that the domestic animals (as a whole) ARE wildly more successful at reproducing, and those offspring are wildly more successful at surviving, which means there are far more of them than would exist in nature. Humans must act as nature in this case; and this means that responsible keeping involves pruning the animals not suited for the environment they are in (in order to make animals that do not suffer in this environment), gently putting to rest the animals that are suffering (particularly in ways that cannot be healed), and, yes, pruning the excess to feed ourselves, in return.

But the logic breaks down because what makes a human better is impossible to define. A better livestock animal is bred for a small handful of characteristics: more efficient conversion of feed to meat, larger frame, docile temperament, etc. (And most of those are compromises at best.) A better human??? You can breed for height or coloring or muscle mass/body composition. You can even ostensibly breed for temperament but human temperaments are much harder to anticipate. You can't breed for intelligence, for compassion, for moral certitude, for ability to endure stress. None of the things that make humans human are purely heritable traits.