Breastfeeding

in our country, it's very common to breastfeed and i don't think men find it triggering
but then, i'm not a man, hehe
sometimes, it's the woman or the kid who wants to retreat in a less crowded place

 

There are lots of reasons a woman might have to want to breastfeed a baby and not use a bottle. The bonding between mother and child for example. I think it is unfair to try make something that is so natural be seen as inappropriate to do in public. What message does that send to the women? That their bodies make us uncomfortable so please hide somewhere else, like the toilets, where someone is laying logs a few feet away. Good luck telling that to the next woman you see breastfeeding!

 

If we are telling mothers they shouldn't breastfeed in public we are in a way attaching shame to the act of breastfeeding in my opinion. And before someone comes along and compares it to taking a dump in public, they are in no way comparable.

 

Are you really comparing public sex with breastfeeding? Common man. And I didn't say public toilets are unsanitary, I said people usually lay logs in them. And you know, shit smells....

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Good luck friend.

 

Your attitude seems almost misogynistic to me. I do not know, of course, but I am made to wonder if you have ever had a wife who needed to nurse your children. Because our culture has sexualized breasts does not mean that it is correct to do so. The truth is that when one sees something frequently, one is less attracted to it. Perhaps the women have hidden their feeders for too long--to the point where they are taboo to see. In some cultures, there is no such response to the sight of breasts. Women in some parts may even toss their breast over their shoulder to the baby they have tied on their back while they continue hoeing the field. For any man to be lustfully drooling at such a sight would indicate a high level of perversion, in my opinion. I have to agree that breasts are natural and functional, and not something that should be stigmatized. In some cultures, of course, a man might be turned on at the "immodest" view of a woman's ankle. Does that mean that women should always be covered up, head-to-toe, so as to prevent one of that culture from seeing anything too tantalizing?

While I do not especially root for the "lactivists," I do not feel it's quite proper to put so many restrictions on nursing mothers. Nursing should be encouraged. The oxytocin released during breastfeeding bonds mothers with their children, likely increasing the children's intelligence and sense of security. Should children be deprived of this natural right because of the possible exposure to a pervert's ogling eyes? I think not. Let the perv deal with his own mess. Most babies also find a blanket over their heads while nursing to be stifling and uncomfortable. They often like to look around while nursing--until they fall asleep.

If you want to compare feeding in public to having sex in public, by all means, why not you just make sure to take your restaurant food into the bathroom to eat it? As for me, I wouldn't even want to have sex in the bathroom, much less force my wife to feed an infant there!

ADDED: My own opinion on seeing a breastfeeding woman is that, depending on the situation, it can be a little uncomfortable. I'm not particularly turned on at the sight--that's not the reason of the discomfort for me. I'm just very self-conscious that someone might see me looking that direction and think I was a perv! On account of this, I tend to look elsewhere, when possible. So it's not a trigger for me, at least, no more of a trigger than seeing two lovers holding hands.

 

Very obvious that @All For One is not a parent, I think.

Babies are VERY particular about what they want, they have no patience or self restraint and if they don't get their needs met immediately, they scream.

If mother refuses to feed baby, whether because she feels uncomfortable or because some repressed man-child nearby can't handle it, baby won't wait patiently until she finds a nice private spot away from your poor innocent eyes, nor will he wait until a bottle has been sterilised, filled and warmed to the appropriate temperature (and getting a baby used to taking a bottle takes weeks of hard work, screaming, tantrums etc.) During the first few months of life they feed 10-20 times a day, and are more likely to feed when they are stressed - eg an unfamiliar situation (out and about in public, for example).

 

Sounds like some people need a lesson in biology and evolution.

 

Yes, it seems so, doesn't it. I certainly agree that breasts are "secondary." If females must hide them, what about men hiding their beards or Adam's apples? (Obviously, I do not mean to equate beards and breasts, but the comparison is made to provoke some thought.) If we start talking about voices, it would be awfully difficult to hide one's voice, now, wouldn't it? There have been times in my life where just a woman's voice seemed highly seductive to me--a trigger, if you will. Naturally, I never asked her to be silent.

Those who bottle feed instead of breastfeeding, when the latter was a viable option for them (there are rare cases where it isn't possible), are depriving their children of far more than they might realize. They also deprive themselves and may have higher risk for things like breast cancer later in life. According to one study, for every 12 months of breastfeeding among mothers who breastfed, they reduced their risk of breast cancer by 4.3% as compared against those mothers who did not breastfeed their babies.

Of course, if you're not wanting your children to have the chance of being as intelligent as their parents, don't let them breastfeed. They may also lose out on a degree of emotional stability, have a lesser attachment/bond with their parents, especially their mother, and will likely be more sickly and/or weaker in constitution. Plus, it will be a lot more work for the mother to find bottles, sterilize them properly, and warm them to the correct temperature before popping them in the baby's mouth. All that work and expense of buying bottles, storing them properly, washing them, etc. is entirely avoided if doing things nature's way. Some women vainly think that nursing will damage their figure, and therefore deprive their children of their natural right. It makes me very sad to see this.

If the child has a cleft palate, a latched tongue, or if there is some other medical reason why a mother cannot properly nurse her baby, and if there is no way for her to pump and bottle her own milk, then I would have no objection to providing the baby with a good formula. However, finding a decent formula is not such a simple task.

I do believe that when @All For One becomes a parent, his views will evolve in this area. Whether or not they do, no porn-damaged perspective, however commonplace it becomes in our society, should be allowed to deprive our children of their mothers' care. I do appreciate that most mothers attempt to be discreet. Having made the attempt, let no mother feel guilty if some minor exposure occurs in a public place. She should feel more guilty if she deprives her child instead. Let the child have first priority; the concerns of others should be secondary.

 

Real quick, I just want to point out that something being a sex characteristic does not imply that it is sexual. A sex characteristic is something that distinguishes a male from a female - A primary sex characteristic would be penis/vagina, etc. The article mentions several secondary sex characteristics, ie. Adam's apple. But Adam's apples are not sexual - meaning they are not seen as arousing. So just because something is a sex characteristic does not necessarily mean that it is sexual. In terms of whether breasts have always been sexual, or if we have sexualized them, I will not offer an argument.

 

When I referenced "porn-damaged perspective," I was not addressing you specifically. Certainly, if the shoe fits, you may wear it, but I was not thinking in singular terms here. This is an entire forum where most participants will admit to having been damaged by porn. I'm one of the lucky few here, perhaps, to have escaped the snare, having only been addicted to orgasms, never to porn. Nor are you the only person expressing views here that might be understood by women in a way that will make them uncomfortable to feed their babies in public. I address my thoughts, therefore, toward both perspectives, and I think I have been clear enough where I stand on the matter.

Tell me, if you were a woman, a nursing mother, and you read what you posted here about feeding the baby in public, what would you think? Would you be encouraged to continue feeding your child? Or would you think all men were prone to ogle your breasts? Try to put yourself in the woman's shoes and see how your thoughts might come across to her. For example, you said:

But the breast is the natural bottle that keeps the milk at the right temperature, requires no refrigeration, and, frankly, will leak milk when the baby cries--perhaps any baby, for that matter--and if the milk is not released, the woman can be in for a painful case of mastitis. Use a bottle when out? The woman, just as much as the baby, needs to nurse. How about you hold your pee when you go out, and only pee when at home? But then, that's not even a fair comparison, as most men can go virtually all day without emptying their bladder, whereas a woman needs to feed every few hours at least. I'm not a woman, but I do have children, and I know what it was like for my wife. She got mastitis a time or two when nursing schedules were interrupted for one reason or another, and it was definitely not fun. Here's a little more on the topic:

https://www.healthline.com/health/mastitis#types

You also said:

Your attitude toward children comes across rather plainly: "the d... child." . . . and ". . . I find it easier to ignore than to punch the cigarette out of their hand. Same thing with some lady breastfeeding in public." I do hope you don't truly think about punching a child out of a woman's arms--for ANY reason, and that this implication by association was far from what you actually meant.

Feeding babies is a necessity. Smoking isn't. I think we can safely dissociate those two activities entirely.

 

Wait so you're saying just because something is sexually triggering to someone doesn't mean the person being triggering has to restrict their own freedom of expression? But that only applies to voices and beards, not to naked breasts and asses? But still you're going to argue that naked breasts are only sexually arousing because of social/cultural conditioning? Your logic is very flawed.

 

This has turned into such a low-IQ thread, my god

 

Doesn't sound like something that would get me aroused. On the other hand it wouldn't be the first time I consider something not to be arousing and after seeing or imagining the right scene I'm totally into it. But nahh, I really don't see myself getting aroused by a woman breastfeeding a child.

 

Thank you for just repeating what the article already said as for the definition of sex characteristics. Not all sex characteristics have the same function though, as it is also said in the article which you seem to have missed. And breasts definitely function to display fertility and therefore trigger sexual arousal in men, which is a natural reaction to prepare their body for mating with a fertile mate. Already in ancient Greece and Rome women were dancing naked in front of audiences of men, Baroque paintings show women in dresses with exposed cleavage, because big news flash: the female body is arousing to men, because it needs to be attractive for sex, because it needs to be able to nurture the developing child, which is the result of combining genetic material, which is the purpose of biological life, which can only be fulfilled by combining genetic material, which only happens during sex, which only happens if the pp is erect. And no, the male body does not have the same effect on women as the female body has on men, in terms of sexual appeal, which is why your Adam's apple argument is flawed. When a woman has sex, biologically/evolutionarily speaking, she has to commit to sacrificing her body for 9 whole months, becoming vulnerable during that time and after, when raising and taking care of the offspring. Her readiness for sex is not dependent on a man's physical appearance only and is also not required for reproduction. When a man has sex, he just has to be efficient in finding a healthy, fertile female body and releasing his genetic material as often as possible to increase the chances of continuing the species. These biological instincts are hardwired into our brains, they have nothing to do with social or cultural conditioning.

 

of course. But you talk about 'training' a baby as if can be done in an afternoon. It can take weeks or months for a baby to be able to use a bottle, pacifier, etc. It can take a long time for a baby to get used to breastfeeding behind a shawl, for that matter. This period is very stressful and difficult for a mother, and she can't just put her life on hold while she trains the baby to behave itself in public.

You may as well ask why is the baby wearing diapers, why not just train it to use the toilet? Well, yes, we do train it to use the toilet as soon as they are able to. But it takes time!

I read what you said, and you don't understand babies or parenthood. It's not your opinion that I don't understand, it's reality that you have a problem with. If babies acted the way you think they do, we would be in complete agreement!