breastfeeding in church and in public
#11
(04-22-2014, 06:53 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(04-22-2014, 10:54 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Breasts certainly do play a part in human sexuality. Men are naturally attracted to them, even in Africa where the woman are topless. Nipples are erogenous zones. Breasts are a part of foreplay. However, we don't have to be ashamed or embarrassed about these things. That reaction comes from our culture's attempt to heighten the eroticism of breasts, as they did in burlesque and peep shows, Hugh Hefner and Playboy. They created this "peekaboo" attitude that makes sex (and breasts) "naughty."

That's not what I heard. I've watched the Discover Channel specials on these tribes and the men are not walking around with erections despite having all those breasts around them. I do agree with the last part though.

I may get in some trouble for this, but I at times am prone to think that modesty is sort of culturally relative.  Like when a missionary goes to tribal regions exposed breasts there carry a different connotation than generally breasts have in western "modern" culture.  At the same time i do wonder if our mother breast feed Christ in public.  i.e is this some sort of cyclical thing.  One era of time it was taboo to feed in public, next era it wasnt, then once again it is taboo?
Reply
#12
I remember how it is in terms of the difficulties, because Ive been where you are. I admire you, because your desire to discretely nurse your baby in church--regardless of the embarrassment--is so commendable!  The challenges involved with doing so are so worth it, because the benefits are worth it. As the baby gets older, and you both as a nursing pair are more established, the latch-on will get much, much easier. You won't even have to blink. But for now, it's a challenge. That's normal. Give it time. Even if it isn't your first, you are starting over with a brand new baby, so in a way, it's all new again. If you are uncomfortable, perhaps you may decide you simply leave the chapel and go and nurse in a more private place...It's up to you!

The more you nurse your baby, the more the milk will come in. That's what will keep the breastfeeding going, if that is what you most want. Right now your body is determining the milk supply by way of the baby's demand. The more you nurse, the more milk you will have. It is very hard to play "catch-up" later on in terms of building up the milk supply. So if it's what is best for you and your family, nurse as much as baby requires (by way of crying for your breast) and you will have enough milk No one should dare interfere with that unless you decide breastfeeding isn't the way to go. Baby nursing at the breast will be better than a pump. You will produce much more milk via baby than via pump. Pump is second best.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#13
(04-22-2014, 06:53 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(04-22-2014, 10:54 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Breasts certainly do play a part in human sexuality. Men are naturally attracted to them, even in Africa where the woman are topless. Nipples are erogenous zones. Breasts are a part of foreplay. However, we don't have to be ashamed or embarrassed about these things. That reaction comes from our culture's attempt to heighten the eroticism of breasts, as they did in burlesque and peep shows, Hugh Hefner and Playboy. They created this "peekaboo" attitude that makes sex (and breasts) "naughty."

That's not what I heard. I've watched the Discover Channel specials on these tribes and the men are not walking around with erections despite having all those breasts around them. I do agree with the last part though.

No, they’re not walking around with erections, overly aroused in public, but they are still naturally attracted to them. A woman’s long hair, for example, is a natural attraction for men. This is why in some cultures women cover their hair or wear it pulled back. Behind closed doors they wear it down for their husbands. Even in our culture where women’s hair is exposed, men still find it pleasing. It’s the heightened or “hyper” sense of sexuality, and the objectification of the human body, that we are seeing today, which offends some people so much that they take the extreme position and try to ban what is actually normal and inoffensive.
Reply
#14
(04-23-2014, 08:59 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: No, they’re not walking around with erections, overly aroused in public, but they are still naturally attracted to them. A woman’s long hair, for example, is a natural attraction for men. This is why in some cultures women cover their hair or wear it pulled back. Behind closed doors they wear it down for their husbands. Even in our culture where women’s hair is exposed, men still find it pleasing. It’s the heightened or “hyper” sense of sexuality, and the objectification of the human body, that we are seeing today, which offends some people so much that they take the extreme position and try to ban what is actually normal and inoffensive.

And you know this from experience? I'm a guy and to be quite honest the only thing that gets me excited about a woman is when she openly and sternly distances herself from the collective female think known as "feminism." Such is a sign of a reliable woman that cares more about the next life than this one. "Attractive" is subjective and physical attractiveness is fleeting.
Reply
#15
(04-23-2014, 09:48 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(04-23-2014, 08:59 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: No, they’re not walking around with erections, overly aroused in public, but they are still naturally attracted to them. A woman’s long hair, for example, is a natural attraction for men. This is why in some cultures women cover their hair or wear it pulled back. Behind closed doors they wear it down for their husbands. Even in our culture where women’s hair is exposed, men still find it pleasing. It’s the heightened or “hyper” sense of sexuality, and the objectification of the human body, that we are seeing today, which offends some people so much that they take the extreme position and try to ban what is actually normal and inoffensive.

And you know this from experience? I'm a guy and to be quite honest the only thing that gets me excited about a woman is when she openly and sternly distances herself from the collective female think known as "feminism." Such is a sign of a reliable woman that cares more about the next life than this one. "Attractive" is subjective and physical attractiveness is fleeting.
it may be fleeting but it is a real thing nonetheless.....

Reply
#16
I hope you will check out La Leche League. See if they have any meetings going by you. I found the mother to mother support was really helpful.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#17
(04-20-2014, 05:13 PM)JubilateDeo83 Wrote: Since baby bottles and pacifiers didn't exist until modern times, what did nursing mothers do at mass?  It seems like most of the moms at my parish use a nursing cover or bottle feed but I can't get my baby to latch on with a blanket on her head.  Nursing is not easy for me and I usually can't get it to work without seeing what I am doing.  And it has to be in a specific position.  Last year, I was on an Institute of Christ the King retreat in Chicago and mentioned that I'd love to establish a nursing corner at our oratory and one of the women said "Oh, we just nurse them out in the open, right during Mass." It made me think of the times before pews, parish centers, bottles, breast pumps, a woman's breast was all she could offer to console a fussy infant.  What is normal at your parish?  Do you think it is immodest for a woman to nurse without a cover?

Feed your baby, and don't let the people who want to turn breastfeeding into a sexual act (which is what they're doing when they say it's immodest) stop you! See the gallery of "Maria Lactans" I have on the FE site (with a folder full of paintings to be added):  http://www.fisheaters.com/marialactans.html

As to what mothers did before the pumps and bottles and all that:  they fed their children.

Reply
#18
(04-22-2014, 06:53 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(04-22-2014, 10:54 AM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Breasts certainly do play a part in human sexuality. Men are naturally attracted to them, even in Africa where the woman are topless. Nipples are erogenous zones. Breasts are a part of foreplay. However, we don't have to be ashamed or embarrassed about these things. That reaction comes from our culture's attempt to heighten the eroticism of breasts, as they did in burlesque and peep shows, Hugh Hefner and Playboy. They created this "peekaboo" attitude that makes sex (and breasts) "naughty."

That's not what I heard. I've watched the Discover Channel specials on these tribes and the men are not walking around with erections despite having all those breasts around them. I do agree with the last part though.

Most men, at least in the West, are attracted to breasts, and are attracted to other female body parts that don't need to be covered. The neck is an erogenous zone, the inside of the forearm's an erogenous zone, the lips are erogenous, etc., but they're not hidden away and don't (necessarily or typically) cause erections in men or the complementary physical reaction in women upon seeing them. IOW, something can be erogenous without its being immodest to display, and without causing an overt sexual reaction in the average person looking at it.
Reply
#19
(04-22-2014, 08:00 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: I may get in some trouble for this, but I at times am prone to think that modesty is sort of culturally relative.  Like when a missionary goes to tribal regions exposed breasts there carry a different connotation than generally breasts have in western "modern" culture.  At the same time i do wonder if our mother breast feed Christ in public.  i.e is this some sort of cyclical thing.  One era of time it was taboo to feed in public, next era it wasnt, then once again it is taboo?

I think any one who thinks modesty isn't, to a point, culturally relative isn't using his brain. One can see that just by looking at Victorian culture's definition of modesty relative to what's considered "modest" or "immodest" now.  To my mind, the bottom line standard is the covering of the genitals. The rest is culturally determined, at least to a huge degree.

Reply
#20
(04-29-2014, 07:47 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Most men, at least in the West, are attracted to breasts, and are attracted to other female body parts that don't need to be covered. The neck is an erogenous zone, the inside of the forearm's an erogenous zone, the lips are erogenous, etc., but they're not hidden away and don't (necessarily or typically) cause erections in men or the complementary physical reaction in women upon seeing them. IOW, something can be erogenous without its being immodest to display, and without causing an overt sexual reaction in the average person looking at it.

And this is why God made us naked.....its so much simpler than having to worry about what to wear! :-P
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)