breastfeeding in church and in public
#41
Okay Vox mentioned "discretely feeding" in publick...would Vox please care to clarify; because I think we're talking over each other.

What men are saying is "we have no problem with a woman breast-feeding her child in public, but if she could do it discretely"....cause no matter how much people wanna cite cultural stigmas and all that jazz....men are aroused at the sight of breasts, arousal will lead to erections and erections could lead to sin (provided the man struggles with adultery).

Me being a boob-man (I know TMI) I would have problems if women just started whipping them out with no concern for others....just like when women wear yoga pants or those thin cotton shirts with no bra....sorry I'm visual and while I look down...it only takes a glance for it to stick.

What women are saying is "I shouldn't have to hide, or feel ashamed because my breasts were designed to feed and my child is hungry" which they shouldn't...they should be able to feed without either being stigmatized or having hounds of horny men salivating over her.
Reply
#42
(05-21-2014, 08:07 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Okay Vox mentioned "discretely feeding" in publick...would Vox please care to clarify; because I think we're talking over each other.

What men are saying is "we have no problem with a woman breast-feeding her child in public, but if she could do it discretely"....cause no matter how much people wanna cite cultural stigmas and all that jazz....men are aroused at the sight of breasts, arousal will lead to erections and erections could lead to sin (provided the man struggles with adultery).

Me being a boob-man (I know TMI) I would have problems if women just started whipping them out with no concern for others....just like when women wear yoga pants or those thin cotton shirts with no bra....sorry I'm visual and while I look down...it only takes a glance for it to stick.

What women are saying is "I shouldn't have to hide, or feel ashamed because my breasts were designed to feed and my child is hungry" which they shouldn't...they should be able to feed without either being stigmatized or having hounds of horny men salivating over her.

By "discretely," I mean with an awareness that the female breast is hyper-sexualized in this country at this time (which has to change) and then going about feeding the baby in a manner that exposes the breast as little as necessary to get 'er done.

The typical nursing mother won't just "whip it out" and sit there, with a breast fully exposed as she's reaching into the diaper bag to get a cloth, checking her watch, brushing her hair, texting a friend, etc., before she pick ups the baby and get him to latch on. Most women get the baby up in the right position, undo the least amount of clothing needed to get the job done, and try to cover up as much as possible (and note that some babies will NOT eat when they're covered up, so the all-purpose response to "just throw a blanket over your boob and the baby" isn't feasible for a lot of women. And sometimes it's 95 degrees out, and covering a kid with a blanket would be vicious).  To my mind, if a woman does that, then she's doing all she can and doesn't deserve any nastiness.

I'm sure there are "those types" who go about it in the way Divine Silence described -- as exposed as possible and with an "F.U." attitude to any man around. Their attitude's nasty and man-hating and shows a lack of concern for causing lust in their brothers (on the other hand, though, the more they do that, the more breastfeeding will become "normalized," I think. But that doesn't justify their means.) But really, most women wouldn't dream of just "whipping it out" and lollygagging around, putting on a show before she picks up her kid. The "FEMEN" type of chick likely would take great pleasure in something like that, but those broads are pretty rare overall.

Now, I understand you're a boob man, and that's fine, but lots of women are into forearms, and men aren't told to cover those up. I'm a leg/butt/collar bone/shoulder/lips/eyes/hands/Adam's Apple woman myself, but men with fine legs walk around in shorts all the time, and I've never heard of a man worrying about his clavicles or Adam's Apple showing. KWIM? I mean, at some point, our turn-ons are our own problems after the basic standards of modesty have been met.

Just a glance at the Maria Lactans paintings I've posted in this thread -- and there are TONS more on the website proper -- shows that the female breast hadn't always been viewed how it is today in the West. I even posted one in this thread that shows -- I forget now, St. Joseph and another male Saint gazing at Our Lady nursing Our Lord, in the way that Divine Silence was talking about the beauty of breastfeeding, the "miracle" (as it were) of it all. We need to go back toward that, and one good way of doing it is for women to breastfeed without shame, letting their sons be in the room with them when they do, for women to stop running off to upstairs bedrooms at parties to nurse, as if they're doing something shameful, etc. At least it might make a dent in the problem of how boobs are viewed...

Mind you, being in possession of a couple of 'em, I know the female breast is erogenous, but, like I said in a recent thread somewhere, so are the soft side of the forearms and the lips and the backs of the knees and the back of the neck, etc. Erogenous doesn't mean "it should be covered up," IOW. Lips are extremely erogenous, but few people watching another person eat normally would think, "Be still my heart!" But those same lips getting closer to yours -- that's a different story. It's the same sort of thing with the breast when it comes to breastfeeding. A baby getting his nutrition is just that, but your wife's breasts in your candlelit bedroom -- that's another story.

Breastfeeding is SO good for babies that I want as little standing in the way of it as possible. I want women to consider others and be aware of how some men in our culture at this time might react -- but I don't want them to stop themselves from giving their babies what those babies need -- or to be shamed, or "forced" into dirty bathrooms in the process. And I wish that men would think about this topic with a lot more empathy than some do (i.e., while trying to imagine themselves having to feed the baby in that way, how they'd want to be treated when going through that, whether they'd be happy feeding their BABY in a dirty public bathroom, whether they'd want to be told -- even if just by body language -- that what they're doing is "gross" or all "ewwwwwwwww-inducing," how they'd feel if they were told that feeding their babies without hiding in a toilet was akin to being whorish, etc.)

To all the women who breastfeed (and God bless all those who want to but can't) and go about it like a conscious Christian person, with concern for your brothers, and who go about it with a line in the sand, too, I salute you! :P

Reply
#43
(05-22-2014, 12:15 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I'm sure there are "those types" who go about it in the way Divine Silence described -- as exposed as possible and with an "F.U." attitude to any man around. Their attitude's nasty and man-hating and shows a lack of concern for causing lust in their brothers (on the other hand, though, the more they do that, the more breastfeeding will become "normalized," I think. But that doesn't justify their means.) But really, most women wouldn't dream of just "whipping it out" and lollygagging around, putting on a show before she picks up her kid. The "FEMEN" type of chick likely would take great pleasure in something like that, but those broads are pretty rare overall.

I wonder how many feminazis actually nurse their children specifically to expose their boobs, though.  If she wants to flash her breasts around there are far more efficient ways to do it.  Dragging a baby into it seems like more trouble than it's worth.  I think most of us can agree that there are a lot of feminist nutters out there but for the most part, even said nutters breastfeed for the reasons you describe.... it's what their baby needs.

my wife didn't nurse from the breast for very long but she used a pump until the baby was 2.  The pump went everywhere with her, she had to do it 6 times a day even in the middle of the night, no exceptions.  And if it's awkward nursing a baby in public, it's got to be even more awkward pumping.  But she didn't care.  At work she had an office with a door that closes but would often find herself pumping on the airplane, while we were out visiting relatives, etc.  And she often had to do it in the bathroom. 
Reply
#44
(05-22-2014, 12:37 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: I wonder how many feminazis actually nurse their children specifically to expose their boobs, though.  If she wants to flash her breasts around there are far more efficient ways to do it.  Dragging a baby into it seems like more trouble than it's worth.  I think most of us can agree that there are a lot of feminist nutters out there but for the most part, even said nutters breastfeed for the reasons you describe.... it's what their baby needs.

I think most women, even the radical feminists, do it for the same reason, but it wouldn't surprise me if the phenomenon Divine Silence describes does happen among a small, freaky subset. I can imagine, too, the kind of woman who's used to using her body to get male attention (a woman with the stereotypical fatherless stripper mentality, say) using, how to say this? --- ummmmmmmm, "ostentatious" breastfeeding as a means to get her "fix."  But in both cases, we're dealing with some pathology -- whew!

Quote: my wife didn't nurse from the breast for very long but she used a pump until the baby was 2.  The pump went everywhere with her, she had to do it 6 times a day even in the middle of the night, no exceptions.  And if it's awkward nursing a baby in public, it's got to be even more awkward pumping.  But she didn't care.  At work she had an office with a door that closes but would often find herself pumping on the airplane, while we were out visiting relatives, etc.  And she often had to do it in the bathroom.   

I've said it before, in so many words, and I'll say it again: your wife seems like a truly GREAT woman. I want to be like her when I grow up.

A question to you as a man:  what, if anything, have you learned about the breastfeeding experience through watching your wife going through it? Is there anything about it that you think most unmarried, childless men don't know that they should know in order to understand it all better?

(I'd love to get answers to questions about things important to men in this way -- not only from men, but from decent wives who've watched and learned!)

Reply
#45
(05-20-2014, 01:39 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: Only if you're looking in the direction of his crotch. 
Not quite....but I'm sure someone might do so and that would be a problem

(05-20-2014, 01:39 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: Then he ought to avoid staring, because it's rude, the same way anyone else ought to avoid staring at others. 

So should people walk around nude and everyone just ignore them because its "rude to stare?"

(05-20-2014, 01:39 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: People are curious about all kinds of things.  One time, I was out with my son at the playground... he must have been about 2.  Another boy had befriended him and kept asking all these questions about my wheelchair.  "What happened to your legs?"  "Can you walk at all?"  "how fast does it go?" etc.  His mother was humiliated and kept apologizing for her very curious child.  What I told her was, "I'd rather he ask all the questions he wants and get answers that satisfy his curiosity while he's still little, than grow up to see people with disabilities as an "other" and make fun of them."

Perhaps a grown man wouldn't be so compelled to stare at a breastfeeding woman if he grew up being exposed to nursing mothers.  I'm the oldest of four children, and my mother breastfed all of my siblings, so as a young boy I remember sitting near my mother while she nursed our siblings and watching it.  It's a lot more OK for a 6 year old boy to stare at his mother nursing, making sense of what she's doing and seeing a younger sibling/cousin/friend of the family grow because of their mother's milk, than it is for a grown man to stare.  My natural curiosity was satisfied because I saw women doing it at a young age, not just my mother but friends of my mom, aunts, etc.  There are a lot of communities where breastfeeding isn't as common.  A lot of people grew up on formula and never saw a woman breastfeed.  Plus, people are having smaller families, fewer babies & there are fewer children who remember watching their mother breastfeed.  So put all those cultural factors together and you have a lot of grown men, and grown women, that are not that familiar with breastfeeding.

But when it's something you grow up seeing, by the time you're an adult, it's nothing new.  "Move along, nothing to see here." 

I agree with you here and think that if youngster had the opportunity to view breastfeeding through the eyes of innocence as they would when they are young this problem would subside. The reality though is that is not the culture we live in yet. You can't change culture overnight in most cases.

(05-20-2014, 01:39 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: that actually sounds like something out of Mulieris Dignitatem... I always thought you skipped over the toilet paper aisle at the grocery store and instead stocked your lavatory with printed out pages of that document.   :LOL:

I had a feeling you pick up on that out of context. A man cannot experience motherhood except through a woman. That is a fact of nature as a man cannot be a mother. JPII said a man needs to learn his own fatherhood through his wife. Big difference there. Likewise however a woman cannot know fatherhood except through her husband. That is what Mulieris OUGHT TO HAVE SAID, but didn't! Seeing as how JPII called himself a feminist and pretty much messed up the basics of gender in MD he could probably be a great poster-child for the messed up views we have on gender today. Shocking no one caught that one!

(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I wouldn't assume the worst about a guy who inadvertently got an erection seeing the sight of a woman feeding her baby. But if he were to try to thwart the woman's actions because of his erection, I would tell him it's his problem.  And, as Chestertonian said, he shouldn't be staring at the scene or anything. A simple recognition of what's going on, followed by being a polite, decent human being is all that's required, not running to legislators because he got an erection, or shaming the woman because of it.

You wouldn't, but a majority of women would. Honestly though, its not really about the erection. It's about men legally protecting themselves from hysterical women who have been given the keys to city because of feminist-crafted victimhood. Perhaps many women wouldn't react hysterically but unfortunately the good suffer along with the bad. That's what Quantas Airlines and British Airways told men when they banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied minors because "we are all pedophiles and women never so."

(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ....
Our differences do lead to the fact that there are situations in which a man's doing X and a woman's doing X have different effects and meanings. But the gender feminists only honor those differences when it ends with women gaining more power while simultaneously being the eternal victim. But you can't effectively fight those gender feminists using their premises.

Are you saying women can flash, but if men do its a crime? I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking a man and woman getting changed behind a window where they can't touch you. A woman watching a man makes the man a "flasher" yet a woman doing it makes a looking man a "peeping Tom."

(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: There's no doubt that men get the short end of the legal stick just about every single time. But if a woman breastfeeds in public, anyone can look in her direction without legal reprisal. A person could even take pictures legally. Those people would be tacky and rude if they were to do so without permission, but that's the law.

I'm not sure about this and nor do I care to find out. I can pretty much predict how it would go though if a woman filed a complaint with cops spiced up with a "her word against his" thing. He looses even if he wasn't taking pics.

(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: No woman wants to feel as if she's a piece of public property or publicly-commissioned work of art, either. Pregnant women, for ex., all the time get their bellies touched by complete strangers. In a low-touch culture like that of the U.S., that's a very off-putting thing for most women. A woman feeding her baby just wants to feed her baby, not function as a work of art inspiring others as the beauty of it all. KWIM?

I know what you mean but whatever you put in public eye becomes subject to public scrutiny. When you put your garbage at the curb, it is not technically yours anymore as the law is written. If someone wants to load up your bags and go through it, they are allowed to do so. Strangers touching a pregnant woman's body is different though because they invade her space.
Reply
#46
(05-22-2014, 07:27 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I wouldn't assume the worst about a guy who inadvertently got an erection seeing the sight of a woman feeding her baby. But if he were to try to thwart the woman's actions because of his erection, I would tell him it's his problem.  And, as Chestertonian said, he shouldn't be staring at the scene or anything. A simple recognition of what's going on, followed by being a polite, decent human being is all that's required, not running to legislators because he got an erection, or shaming the woman because of it.

You wouldn't, but a majority of women would. Honestly though, its not really about the erection. It's about men legally protecting themselves from hysterical women who have been given the keys to city because of feminist-crafted victimhood. Perhaps many women wouldn't react hysterically but unfortunately the good suffer along with the bad. That's what Quantas Airlines and British Airways told men when they banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied minors because "we are all pedophiles and women never so."

I think my question at this point is what is your "end game" on this subject? Are you saying that because there are hysterical women out there that women shouldn't be allowed to feed their babies in public places?

Quote:
(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ....
Our differences do lead to the fact that there are situations in which a man's doing X and a woman's doing X have different effects and meanings. But the gender feminists only honor those differences when it ends with women gaining more power while simultaneously being the eternal victim. But you can't effectively fight those gender feminists using their premises.

Are you saying women can flash, but if men do its a crime? I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking a man and woman getting changed behind a window where they can't touch you. A woman watching a man makes the man a "flasher" yet a woman doing it makes a looking man a "peeping Tom." 

I think it should be a crime if either does it. But I do believe that the social effects of the two situations are different in that women as women, being members of the physically weaker sex, aren't threatening physically to other adults. Women typically present themselves as object; men typically present themselves as the subjects acting on the object. That's just nature. The masculine embodies the active principle, the feminine embodies the passive principle (though of course, in individuals, there are overlaps everyhwere, and that's fine and good!) It's Fire and Air contrasted with Water and Earth. It's Swords and Wands contrasted with Cups and Coins. It's just how we're built. And how we're built is a good thing, God-created, beautiful, sexy even. It's the gender feminists who hate this fact.

Quote:
(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: There's no doubt that men get the short end of the legal stick just about every single time. But if a woman breastfeeds in public, anyone can look in her direction without legal reprisal. A person could even take pictures legally. Those people would be tacky and rude if they were to do so without permission, but that's the law.

I'm not sure about this and nor do I care to find out. I can pretty much predict how it would go though if a woman filed a complaint with cops spiced up with a "her word against his" thing. He looses even if he wasn't taking pics.

While I think men are the "big losers" in our court systems as a rule, I also don't think he'd get in trouble if he happened to have a breastfeeding woman in his visual field. Anything could happen, but -- I guess it goes back to the original question I had: what's your end game in this?

Quote:
(05-21-2014, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: No woman wants to feel as if she's a piece of public property or publicly-commissioned work of art, either. Pregnant women, for ex., all the time get their bellies touched by complete strangers. In a low-touch culture like that of the U.S., that's a very off-putting thing for most women. A woman feeding her baby just wants to feed her baby, not function as a work of art inspiring others as the beauty of it all. KWIM?

I know what you mean but whatever you put in public eye becomes subject to public scrutiny. When you put your garbage at the curb, it is not technically yours anymore as the law is written. If someone wants to load up your bags and go through it, they are allowed to do so. Strangers touching a pregnant woman's body is different though because they invade her space.

Sure, if you're in public, you're going to be seen. But -- well, let's take breastfeeding out of this and assume the case of a man walking down the street. Now imagine a woman following him step-by-step, taking pictures along the way, doing some female equivalent of "upskirting" him (though I can't imagine what that could be), not touching him but being in his face, etc. At some point, the line into harrassment gets crossed, and that makes sense to me.

As to the strangers touching a pregnant woman's belly, I know I brought it up, but have a thought about this:  in a way, I think it's kind of a beautiful thing, though I imagine most women in the US would disagree. It's people's way of honoring the "miracle" of childbirth and showing happiness that a new life is coming into the world. But I'm a really high-touch type. I can imagine that not going over well in England, say. We're so used to thinking in terms of radical individualism and body "ownership" and in radical feminist terms, that something as simple and kind of sweet as, say, an old woman stranger touching a young woman's pregnant belly and saying, "ahhhhhhhh, nice! Beautiful!" is a hideous affront or something. It's kind of sad.

Reply
#47
(05-22-2014, 07:27 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: I agree with you here and think that if youngster had the opportunity to view breastfeeding through the eyes of innocence as they would when they are young this problem would subside. The reality though is that is not the culture we live in yet. You can't change culture overnight in most cases.

This is exactly why initiatives exist to normalize breastfeeding.  And apparently you can change culture overnight--look at the gay lobby and what they've "accomplished."  Some women would rather "be the change they'd like to see in the world" and nurse their children with out shame. 

And certainly without thinking about men, and their erections.  My goodness!  The fact that you brought this up is ridiculous.  You're a man, so you probably have no idea how freaking DIFFICULT getting a baby to latch on can be, but I guarantee the absolute *last* thing that a nursing mother is thinking about is "Gosh, I wonder how many men around me are physically aroused!  Hmm, lemme look around?  OMG is that a bottle of Lansinoh in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?!" 

Most of us are too busy gazing lovingly into our baby's eyes, wiping up leaky breastmilk because it's leaking EVERYWHERE, wondering if baby is getting enough milk, trying to make sure baby's airway isn't obstructed, playing Candy Crush Saga, thinking about what they're going to cook for dinner tonight, trying to corral their other child(ren), praying the Rosary (because if you're going to sit around all freaking day, might as well pray 20 decades of the Rosary), trying to wrestle with baby because they're pulling your hair.... basically anything but inquiring as to the status of the penises of nearby men.  Really, no one cares.  I promise. 

Praise the Lord, I've been able to get my baby to nurse in a baby carrier.  I learned how by watching a bunch of Youtube tutorials:



I find it's really the best option for me because I can't just sit and nurse my kid in the cradle position (doesn't work), nursing covers don't work for me and I refuse to use a bottle of expressed milk or formula to make someone else feel comfortable.  most of my boob is covered up by the baby carrier and the baby's face and the only time I'm exposed is the 15 seconds or so it takes to latch the baby on.  Wearing nursing clothes where there's a small opening for your nipple is really ideal.
Reply
#48
(05-22-2014, 09:03 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I think my question at this point is what is your "end game" on this subject? Are you saying that because there are hysterical women out there that women shouldn't be allowed to feed their babies in public places?

First and foremost I think there needs to be education on the matter. Before we go creating or removing laws (heavy handed), we need to sit down and discuss the concerns of both side without the flame throwers. As you said, there is a power dynamic at play. Men may have a temporary physical advantage, but that disappears quite quickly when the police power of the state gets involved. Feminists point, say poof, and a man is ready to be hanged. If women are going to be allowed to exercise that power then something has to be put in place to put a check on that power. No one should have unrestrained power physical or political.

(05-22-2014, 09:03 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I think it should be a crime if either does it. But I do believe that the social effects of the two situations are different in that women as women, being members of the physically weaker sex, aren't threatening physically to other adults. Women typically present themselves as object; men typically present themselves as the subjects acting on the object. That's just nature. The masculine embodies the active principle, the feminine embodies the passive principle (though of course, in individuals, there are overlaps everyhwere, and that's fine and good!) It's Fire and Air contrasted with Water and Earth. It's Swords and Wands contrasted with Cups and Coins. It's just how we're built. And how we're built is a good thing, God-created, beautiful, sexy even. It's the gender feminists who hate this fact.

So a naked man behind a window is more threatening than a naked woman behind a woman? I think we're assuming here that the man is meaning to expose himself to incite sexual activity where as the woman is just "innocently changing with no sexual innuendo or desire to draw attention to herself to make herself feel better." Women physically threaten other adults by using men as proxies. When the cops come to take a man away on an unsubstantiated claim and the subsequent "trial by media" (Duke lacrosse boys) "convicts" them, that is the result of women not having a valid check on their power. The woman in that case didn't even get a slap on the wrist for her false claim! If she hadn't fessed up those boys would be in jail and we would be paying for them to be there!

(05-22-2014, 09:03 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Sure, if you're in public, you're going to be seen. But -- well, let's take breastfeeding out of this and assume the case of a man walking down the street. Now imagine a woman following him step-by-step, taking pictures along the way, doing some female equivalent of "upskirting" him (though I can't imagine what that could be), not touching him but being in his face, etc. At some point, the line into harrassment gets crossed, and that makes sense to me.

As to the strangers touching a pregnant woman's belly, I know I brought it up, but have a thought about this:  in a way, I think it's kind of a beautiful thing, though I imagine most women in the US would disagree. It's people's way of honoring the "miracle" of childbirth and showing happiness that a new life is coming into the world. But I'm a really high-touch type. I can imagine that not going over well in England, say. We're so used to thinking in terms of radical individualism and body "ownership" and in radical feminist terms, that something as simple and kind of sweet as, say, an old woman stranger touching a young woman's pregnant belly and saying, "ahhhhhhhh, nice! Beautiful!" is a hideous affront or something. It's kind of sad.

Following someone is stalking and goes beyond just looking. If a woman gets up, walks away, and a guy follows her that is creepy. The guy however had to actually DO something. Looking is really a passive activity. Again, touching a pregnant woman is an active thing. Yes, a baby bump is beautiful but it can be appreciated from afar. Looking is one thing, touching is another. God means for us to be stewards of our bodies. Sharing the beauty and mysteries is a great thing, but be done so freely. If someone doesn't wish to share, that's their business.

I think there needs to be a change in culture against rabid individualism but that cannot and should not happen by the way of a law. Laws are actually pretty useless when people reject them. Look at what's happening with gay marriage. Laws are being thrown out because people don't care for them. If people actually believed in marriage as between man and woman this wouldn't be an issue. Again, that requires cultural change.
Reply
#49
(05-22-2014, 09:39 PM)JubilateDeo83 Wrote:
(05-22-2014, 07:27 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: I agree with you here and think that if youngster had the opportunity to view breastfeeding through the eyes of innocence as they would when they are young this problem would subside. The reality though is that is not the culture we live in yet. You can't change culture overnight in most cases.

This is exactly why initiatives exist to normalize breastfeeding.  And apparently you can change culture overnight--look at the gay lobby and what they've "accomplished."  Some women would rather "be the change they'd like to see in the world" and nurse their children with out shame. 

And certainly without thinking about men, and their erections.  My goodness!  The fact that you brought this up is ridiculous.  You're a man, so you probably have no idea how freaking DIFFICULT getting a baby to latch on can be, but I guarantee the absolute *last* thing that a nursing mother is thinking about is "Gosh, I wonder how many men around me are physically aroused!  Hmm, lemme look around?  OMG is that a bottle of Lansinoh in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?!" 

Most of us are too busy gazing lovingly into our baby's eyes, wiping up leaky breastmilk because it's leaking EVERYWHERE, wondering if baby is getting enough milk, trying to make sure baby's airway isn't obstructed, playing Candy Crush Saga, thinking about what they're going to cook for dinner tonight, trying to corral their other child(ren), praying the Rosary (because if you're going to sit around all freaking day, might as well pray 20 decades of the Rosary), trying to wrestle with baby because they're pulling your hair.... basically anything but inquiring as to the status of the penises of nearby men.  Really, no one cares.  I promise. 

Praise the Lord, I've been able to get my baby to nurse in a baby carrier.  I learned how by watching a bunch of Youtube tutorials:

....

I find it's really the best option for me because I can't just sit and nurse my kid in the cradle position (doesn't work), nursing covers don't work for me and I refuse to use a bottle of expressed milk or formula to make someone else feel comfortable.  most of my boob is covered up by the baby carrier and the baby's face and the only time I'm exposed is the 15 seconds or so it takes to latch the baby on.  Wearing nursing clothes where there's a small opening for your nipple is really ideal.

I think you missed the post where I said:

(05-22-2014, 07:27 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: You wouldn't, but a majority of women would. Honestly though, its not really about the erection. It's about men legally protecting themselves from hysterical women who have been given the keys to city because of feminist-crafted victimhood. Perhaps many women wouldn't react hysterically but unfortunately the good suffer along with the bad. That's what Quantas Airlines and British Airways told men when they banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied minors because "we are all pedophiles and women never so."

Look, I have no problem with public breastfeeding, but there needs to be an education component with it too. There needs to be a clear set of expectations from both men and women. There also needs to be clear legal understanding and enforcement. Such needs to be true not just of breastfeeding but in general regarding sexuality. There's too much flippant accusations with regards to sexual crimes that is leading to absurd "laws" being instigated by tying funding to them. Read the article in Time magazine in the May 26th issue. Case in point!
Reply
#50
(05-22-2014, 09:39 PM)JubilateDeo83 Wrote: OMG is that a bottle of Lansinoh in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?!" 

Sure, make the pregnant lady laugh until she pees her pants....  :LOL:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)