Eyeful of breast-feeding mom sparks outrage

[BVS]

Why bother responding like that? I asked a serious question. If you didn't want to answer, don't bother posting.

I responded to your question, maybe you didn't like my response, but I responded. You asked the the question of defining, so I just thought since you brought it up, maybe you should be the one to define the parameters since you haven't liked the ones set before. No need to get snippy with me...

 

[dazzlingamy]

It is very strange to see this very uptight view a lot of people have to breastfeeding in public in the states considering all the other stuff that goes on. It frightens me a bit to have men AND WOMEN think that a boob is a sexual plaything and therefore its like a sexual or innappropriate act to d in public.

My best friend is breastfeeding atm, and she does it in public "whipping" it out for her little boy who is hungry all the time! hahaha The only time she feels uncomfortable is when 14 yr old boys try to catch a glimpse of boob for later wank material. Its just silly, but I think hiding boobs away is even worse because then its like you're accepting other peoples warp sexual fantasies/tendancies.

Its good to see so many supporters in this thread though

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This company seems to do pretty well seeing breasts as a sex symbol. Where are the threads protesting them?

Great point

Victoria's Secret is displaying breasts as the object of sexual thoughts and gratification for men-yes they are selling the lingerie to women, but who is watching the Victoria's Secret show on TV? Yes I'm sure plenty of women do watch it, but let's get real about how VS markets. Breasts displayed in that way are great, but not as the source of food for a baby. Because as we know the world revolves around men and their sexual desires and gratification . It's the good ole Madonna/whore thing, not that I define breasts displayed in a sexy fashion as being "whorish", I don't. I like them to be also be displayed in a respectful, classy, and tasteful way- that's just my preference.

It's like the thread I started once about the New England Patriots having cheerleaders breasts hanging out, yet some people had an issue with women breastfeeding in the stands and thought they should have to do it in a restroom. It's a ridiculous blatant double standard.

One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it.

"I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

I really feel sorry for this 13 year old boy, that his mother apparently intends to teach him that breasts exist solely as a sexual object for his pleasure. It's so disappointing that some women would raise their sons in that sexist way. Maybe the women who view breasts as being solely sex related are reinforcing the feelings that their husbands have, after all breasts aren't really where all and the optimum sexual pleasure is for women. Not that they are for men either but comparitively speaking.. If women want to breastfeed in private that is their decision and I completely respect that, but I cant respect the view that it should be private because breasts exist for sexual pleasure and for the sexual and visual pleasure of men. And implied is that men somehow can't control themselves when they see a breast in public, especially for the purposes of feeding a baby. I would think men would be rather outraged, that notion doesn't exactly portray them in the best light. Or maybe the ones who have those views about women and their breasts just wouldn't care because it's just reinforcing their attitudes and behavior So is that most men and thus the reason for the lack of outrage?


I believe God also made breasts as part of the beauty of women, and to feed babies. To reduce them to sexual objects disrespects that, not that God didn't intend for men and women to have sexual pleasure too. But at the same time it is demeaning God and males and females to have certain attitudes about women, men, breasts, and breastfeeding. I don't get it.

Men shirtless in public is acceptable, even though they don't have to breastfeed.

Saggy man boobs displayed in public even though men don't have to breastfeed = still acceptable.

Women breastfeeding discreetly in public is just so wrong, because men's chests and some men's saggy man boobs don't drive women wild sexually and don't exist solely as objects of sexual desire and gratification for women. Is that it?

 

[nbcrusader]

I responded to your question, maybe you didn't like my response, but I responded. You asked the the question of defining, so I just thought since you brought it up, maybe you should be the one to define the parameters since you haven't liked the ones set before. No need to get snippy with me...

I had defined the parameters just a couple of posts earlier. Perhaps you didn't catch that part. Its old news. No need to get defensive.

 

[verte76]

It disgusts me no end that some women think that breasts are sexual objects. That woman who didn't want her son to see the breasts is really hurting her child. And you're very right about Victoria's Secret's marketing methods.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But the simple fact is by both cultural conditioning and evolution breasts are sexual, not exclusively so but definitely to serve a purpose in sexual attraction.

Perhaps the problem lies more in the prudish attitude towards sex than the sexualisation of breasts by society.

 

[verte76]

But the simple fact is by both cultural conditioning and evolution breasts are sexual, not exclusively so but definitely to serve a purpose in sexual attraction.

Perhaps the problem lies more in the prudish attitude towards sex than the sexualisation of breasts by society.

I would say it's both equally. Peope think breasts are sex objects, therefore there's something "unclean" about them because of their connection with sex. This connection between breasts and sexuality are what's causing the problem with public breastfeeding.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Peoples problem with sexuality is what causes the problem, in a more open society this physiological function would be a non-issue.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

Most nursing mothers are pretty low-key when they feeding their children. Hey, a kid has got to eat.

However, I do think some "lactavists" go to far and are often horrible to mothers who do not breast feed their children for whatever reason. My friend Maria really wanted to breast feed her daughter but couldn't produce enough milk. The lambasting she got from some people was horrible. You would have thought she was feeding her daughter crack with a heroin chaser. For the record, her daughter is a healthy, smart, and thriving eight year old.

 

[deep]

Peoples problem with sexuality is what causes the problem, in a more open society this physiological function would be a non-issue.

a nursing mother is not sexual

only to some viewers, with issues
and therein lies their problem

 

[verte76]

a nursing mother is not sexual

only to some viewers, with issues
and therein lies their problem

Exactly.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

A breast is a breast, it's a sexual thing

 

[Liesje]

Just my two cents (I'm a woman and I've never had a baby, but the babies I take care of I feed their mother's breast milk):

I don't like the idea of thinking of breast as exclusively baby-feeding vessels. I think that breasts can be sexual (in terms of admiration of the female body, not exploitation) and also are necessary for feeding babies. I don't think they have to be entirely one or the other.

I don't have a problem with women breast feeding in public. I don't think I'd ever do it, but that's not the point. The point is, like many others have said, breast feeding is no comparison to other acts unacceptable in public like urinating, etc.

 

[A_Wanderer]

a nursing mother is not sexual

only to some viewers, with issues
and therein lies their problem

No it isn't. but the opposition to it is based on peoples attitudes towards sex, I don't think that anybody is making the argument that nursing a baby is wrong.

 

[yolland]

Peoples problem with sexuality is what causes the problem, in a more open society this physiological function would be a non-issue.

I wonder what you have in mind by "open society"? Because like maycocksean and sula, I've also traveled in areas (tribal regions of India in this case) where not only is breastfeeding in public universally accepted, but also women in some phases of life commonly go about topless whether they're nursing or not. But I would not be inclined to therefore broadly characterize these societies as "open"--they can be and often are extremely patriarchal and oppressive to women in other ways. Also I remember sula saying, in another nursing-in-public thread a long while back, that just because breasts are readily accepted as "baby food sources" by a given society doesn't mean they're not also sexualized at the same time, and I think that's true too.

My impression, and it's just an impression, is that the psychological reaction which leads to finding nursing in public offensive, at least for men, generally works something like this: You see a woman nursing her baby in public, reflexively make the association of "What if that were my wife?", defensively think "I sure wouldn't want a bunch of other men staring at my wife's breasts" and that's what drives the sense of offensiveness. (As opposed to Victoria's Secret, where the whole idea of the woman possibly being someone else's wife or partner is wholly absent from both the presentation and the reception of the fantasy "scenario".) Similarly, women who find nursing in public uncomfortable, I think often do for the reason dazzlingamy described: they're uncomfortable with the possibility of some men or boys seeing it as "later wank material," even though the same women might think nothing of wearing a shirt or bikini that effectively exposes just as much on other occasions. In the big picture both reactions are a bit irrational and silly IMO, but in a culture where breasts just do have the dual connotation of sex and nurturance, there are always going to be people who have difficulty reconciling the two, or distinguishing between them based on context, and at some point you just have to shrug that off, say "Well that's their problem" and just go with what nature intended.

 

[nbcrusader]

It seems we've gone around the block a couple times on some issues herein. Repeated statements stating it is different from other activities or feeling sorry for people who don’t believe the way we do degrades discussion.

To answer Angela Harlem’s question, I don’t think we have anyone from the “anti” crowd here. No one is against breast feeding, nor does anyone suggest that it only be done behind closed doors or making it illegal in any way. If I had to guess why there are objections referenced in the original article, I would say it deals with the level of modesty used in the activity.

As a sliding scale, we can conduct our actions in ways ranging from going out of our way to not offend someone on one end, to in you face, “it their problem” on the other. Some people will leave the room to blow their nose. Others will do it practically upon you. In the middle, others may turn so it is not done in your direction.

As cultural norms, the US tends towards higher levels of modesty. Perhaps the reaction to this particular issue is reflective of a larger, newer shift in attitude towards modesty.

 

[HeartlandGirl]

As cultural norms, the US tends towards higher levels of modesty.

One look at the cheerleaders of any pro sports team or a flip through the channels on television suggests otherwise.

 

[yolland]

...Repeated statements stating it is different from other activities or feeling sorry for people who don’t believe the way we do degrades discussion.

...If I had to guess why there are objections referenced in the original article, I would say it deals with the level of modesty used in the activity.

As a sliding scale, we can conduct our actions in ways ranging from going out of our way to not offend someone on one end, to in you face, “it their problem” on the other. Some people will leave the room to blow their nose. Others will do it practically upon you. In the middle, others may turn so it is not done in your direction.

I agree about not pre-emptively judging people who Don't See Things With The Perfect Clarity I Do, but I don't think "modesty" is sufficient explanation for why in this case "going out of our way to not offend someone" might be desirable--you have to go further than that, break it down into what precisely would be the reason for taking offense or diagnosing immodesty. Is it because breastfeeding could be seen as having sexual connotations? If so, then we have a basic-definitions disagreement problem, because clearly many people do not see breastfeeding as in any sense sexual (as opposed to, e.g., setting guidelines for how low-cut a shirt one may wear in the workplace, where you generally have agreement in principle that there is indeed an attempt to appear sexually attractive involved). Or is it because breastfeeding falls into the category of bodily functions? In that case, then you have to further define which bodily functions it's most analogous to, because obviously we have widely varying ideas of what constitutes "propriety," depending on the function in question. I think this is why several people kept making the point that nursing is essentially a form of eating (which we don't generally frown upon in public, unless crumbs or wrappers on the floor is a hygiene issue), as opposed to, e.g., a form of excreting waste.

 

[Sue DeNym]

However, I do think some "lactavists" go to far and are often horrible to mothers who do not breast feed their children for whatever reason. My friend Maria really wanted to breast feed her daughter but couldn't produce enough milk. The lambasting she got from some people was horrible.

Your friend has my sympathies; I had similar problems when I had my son. I felt like a failure when I had to give up trying to breastfeed and give him formula.

And those nosy nellies really need to mind their own business. Mothers don't need to be nagged about how they raise their children. Outsiders have no idea what is going on in that person's life.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

One look at the cheerleaders of any pro sports team or a flip through the channels on television suggests otherwise.

Or on any magazine rack, where you can see breasts on front covers displayed in all their glory-much more than in this breastfeeding photo.

So apparently even for these women referenced in this article, a breast is a breast and will drive men uncontrollably wild, whether on a baby magazine or Cosmo or Playboy. For that reason, a photo like that on the Baby Talk magazine should not be allowed. Therefore, men are presumably the primary reason for censoring and controlling a baby magazine and an activity that is exclusively performed by females-one that I find to be beautiful and natural . Just for my taste, breasts hanging out on many magazines are not always beautiful, and massive implants are not natural. Yes breasts are also sexual, but men are not wild beasts with no self control, sense of decorum, and admiration and love for babies and women nursing babies that they can feel completely separate and apart from anything sexual- are they? Certainly not.

I think some of these women have allowed their breasts and bodies to be co-opted by attitudes of society and some of it's inhabitants and should take them back. Like I said, I see nothing wrong with women who choose to breastfeed in private (that is completely their decision), but I do have issues with women who seem to feel it should be controlled by men who they seemingly feel can't control themselves sexually and with women who teach certain attitudes about women and their bodies and men to their kids.

There is no way in my mind that American society is tending more towards modesty about bodies or breasts, you can see that at the mall (in what's for sale and in what people are wearing to the mall) on a daily basis, nevermind in movies, TV, etc. The modesty in this issue seems to revolve around a never ending double standard.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Double standard? Does the reaction to the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" count?

Breasts illicit sexual desire, they serve an important purpose in social interactions that lead to copulation. Is it right to diminish this element which is certainly shaped by cultural factors to justify the more functional purpose? I think that both sexualisation and nursing are fine and that nobody has any inherent problem with nursing per se but a lot do have problems with public exposure of breasts for any reason whatsoever.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the Janet Jackson thing was portrayed in the media as being far more than what it was for most people. I also think one instance does not negate the overwhelming double standard that exists vis a vis displaying a breast for the sexual titillation and gratification of men and to market to them in that way vs the display of a breast for the purpose of breastfeeding. The situation of the New England Patriots is the perfect example- after all the cheerleaders really aren't there mainly for the purposes of entertaining the female audience. If they were they'd probably wear dance type tops that cover their breasts. I'm not saying women don't enjoy watching cheerleaders, I do. But I think we should honestly admit what the real purpose of the cheerleaders' outfits and T&A display is. But God forbid a woman nurses a baby discreetly in the stands during the same game rather than go feed her baby in a bathroom.

So is a woman who is flat chested asexual or not as sexually attractive to a man? What about one who has had a mastectomy? Are breasts really that important in sexuality? What about brains? Just asking. Not directed to anyone in particular, but it can seem in this thread as if breasts are the be all and end all in sexuality.

Nobody is diminishing the sexual element, but I for one think we all diminish ourselves when we can't separate it from the beautiful act of a mother nursing her baby.

 

[AliEnvy]

Part of the double standard lies in the perception of mothers being pure, natural and good and that women who expose themselves are sexy, evil sinners who should be shamed...the whole Madonna/whore complex which is still rampant in NA.

Many people will say, oh of course there's nothing wrong or unnatural about breastfeeding, yet are still uncomfortable with it being done in their presence...NO MATTER HOW DISCREET...not just strangers in public, but family and friends of mothers as well. So the sexual connotation, whether conscious or unconscious, goes well beyond exposed boobies.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Part of the double standard lies in the perception of mothers being pure, natural and good and that women who expose themselves are sexy, evil sinners who should be shamed...the whole Madonna/whore complex which is still rampant in NA.

Many people will say, oh of course there's nothing wrong or unnatural about breastfeeding, yet are still uncomfortable with it being done in their presence...NO MATTER HOW DISCREET...not just strangers in public, but family and friends of mothers as well. So the sexual connotation, whether conscious or unconscious, goes well beyond exposed boobies.

Exactly- the Madonna/whore complex , as I also mentioned earlier, is a definite element. Maybe in society and in FYM it's the elephant in the room.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So is a woman who is flat chested asexual or not as sexually attractive to a man? What about one who has had a mastectomy?

Not necessarily, there is a very significant cultural aspect and element of conditioning

Are breasts really that important in sexuality?

I think that they are an important element in human sexuality and have been the focus of cultural fetishism throughout the history of the west, do they trump everything else I think not, but it is pertinent to this discussion because we aren't talking about exposure of thighs, backs or ankles or any part of the human body that is held to be taboo

What about brains?

An important factor to be sure - of course I am not sure that it is a universal element in attraction. Attraction is not a single element there are innumerable factors that go into it both physical and sociological. If it was really reducable to that single factor of breasts then why would one find the look of the surgically enhanced peroxide blonde to be utterly vapid when that is obviously a marketable image to some sections, so basically it is equally unfair to place bust as the principle attractor or to desexualise it for strictly utilitarian purposes.

Most people are more than capable of distinguishing between a breastfeeding mother and a peepshow, the objection and issue however is not being raised due to women being made to feel uncomfortable from enduring unwarranted and unwanted stares but from those who are made uncomfortable by their presence and actions - actions which are perfectly natural and normal.

 

[AliEnvy]

A pregnant belly in public used to elicit the same reactions...people got over it becaus e women were no longer able or willing to hide.

As more women have the courage to stand up for their babies' health as well as their own (nursing has significant benefits for mothers too) the more normal it will become and more babies will be breastfed longer.

That said, those that choose not to breastfeed in front of others, whatever the reasons, should not be made to feel guilty.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

That said, those that choose not to breastfeed in front of others, whatever the reasons, should not be made to feel guilty.

And women who are not breast-feeding should not be judged either.

 

[AliEnvy]

And women who are not breast-feeding should not be judged either.

Absolutely.

Women should be encouraged and properly supported to breastfeed for the recommended periods of time...which means removing barriers (public perception as well as workplace barriers) and spreading public health information...not guilt and shame.

 

[verte76]

A pregnant belly in public used to elicit the same reactions...people got over it becaus e women were no longer able or willing to hide.

As more women have the courage to stand up for their babies' health as well as their own (nursing has significant benefits for mothers too) the more normal it will become and more babies will be breastfed longer.

That said, those that choose not to breastfeed in front of others, whatever the reasons, should not be made to feel guilty.

That's right. Until the '70's, members of the British Royal Family who were pregnant wouldn't go out in public. I forget who the first pregnant royal to go out in public was, it was either Princess Margaret or Princess Anne. But it's the same thing, breastfeeding in public is healthy and will have to be accepted.

 

[Devlin]

Men shirtless in public is acceptable, even though they don't have to breastfeed.

Saggy man boobs displayed in public even though men don't have to breastfeed = still acceptable.

Women breastfeeding discreetly in public is just so wrong, because men's chests and some men's saggy man boobs don't drive women wild sexually and don't exist solely as objects of sexual desire and gratification for women. Is that it?

Put Larry on the beach with no shirt and see how many women utterly ignore his innate sexiness. Granted, women aren't as bold as men about it, usually, due to societal conditioning, but a sexy man with no shirt is equally appealing visually to women as women are to men.

But then again, it's been borne onto me how unnatural a woman I am, so perhaps this ought to be taken with a grain of salt.