Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

One eyed Jack · 28-06-2019 04:56PM

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I can't believe I actually have to say this.

The boobs and nipples primarily exist so women can feed their babies, not for sexual pleasure.

That’s a belief based upon culture rather than having any scientific basis. Given that they are biologically referred to as secondary sexual characteristics in mammals and the fact that only in humans females are the breasts permanently enlarged, alternative evolutionary theories suggest that their permanently enlarged state evolved that way to attract attention from potential mates. Point being really that there isn’t any such thing as the breasts having a “primary function” from a biological perspective at least. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - humans were once lactose intolerant, but evolved to tolerate lactose in milk, and we’re the only species which drinks the milk of other mammals too.

Soy milk would likely have been just as popular as breastfeeding, if it didn’t taste like shìte.

jam_mac_jam · 28-06-2019 04:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a belief based upon culture rather than having any scientific basis. Given that they are biologically referred to as secondary sexual characteristics in mammals and the fact that only in humans females are the breasts permanently enlarged, alternative evolutionary theories suggest that their permanently enlarged state evolved that way to attract attention from potential mates. Point being really that there isn’t any such thing as the breasts having a “primary function” from a biological perspective at least. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - humans were once lactose intolerant, but evolved to tolerate lactose in milk, and we’re the only species which drinks the milk of other mammals too.

Soy milk would likely have been just as popular as breastfeeding, if it didn’t taste like sh.

And how would babies eat before formula was invented?

Gwen Cooper · 28-06-2019 05:03PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a belief based upon culture rather than having any scientific basis. Given that they are biologically referred to as secondary sexual characteristics in mammals and the fact that only in humans females are the breasts permanently enlarged, alternative evolutionary theories suggest that their permanently enlarged state evolved that way to attract attention from potential mates. Point being really that there isn’t any such thing as the breasts having a “primary function” from a biological perspective at least. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - humans were once lactose intolerant, but evolved to tolerate lactose in milk, and we’re the only species which drinks the milk of other mammals too.

Soy milk would likely have been just as popular as breastfeeding, if it didn’t taste like shìte.

I can't decide if you're trolling or not.

Just because my boobs look different than the boobs of other mammals doesn't mean that they are there for sex.

Also, literally the sign of mammals is that they have mammary glands that are used to feed their young. I'm very interested to find out what you think the babies of cavemen used to drink.

Or simply from the evolutionary point of view, since you mentioned that too - primates breastfeed their babies too, and we are in the same group as them.

physioman · 28-06-2019 05:12PM

I think there needs to be a bit of common sense on breastfeeding. Yes it's the most natural thing and best for your baby. But have to agree that there are certain types of people who feel that ' I must be seen breast feeding and feel the need to have the freedom to expose the breast anywhere in public. I feel they are the type that want people to disapprove so they can argue with them. Whether we like it or not not all people are comfortable with breast feeding. The majority of people are in support of breast feeding but maybe just not in the manner. My wife breast fed with our kids and she got a specific apron for it. I questioned why the need for the apron? She said not all people feel comfortable around women that breast feed so she was happy to wear the apron to cover her child and breast . The child is getting fed which is the most important thing and everyone is happy.

Glass fused light · 28-06-2019 05:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Soy milk would likely have been just as popular as breastfeeding, if it didn’t taste like shìte.

FYI Soya milk is not recommended for babies under 6 months

Neyite · 28-06-2019 05:19PM

I was in a post natal group with a bunch of other new mothers. About three quarters of us breastfeeding. The one with the apron looked way more conspicuous than the rest of us.

Try eating your dinner with your full body length including face along another human being and under a blanket - you'd roast and be gasping for air! No different to a baby with a shawl over it's head

LirW · 28-06-2019 05:22PM

Neyite wrote: »

I was in a post natal group with a bunch of other new mothers. About three quarters of us breastfeeding. The one with the apron looked way more conspicuous than the rest of us.

Try eating your dinner with your full body length including face along another human being and under a blanket - you'd roast and be gasping for air! No different to a baby with a shawl over it's head

Both mine would cry if they'd be covered while feeding.
So in order to not offend someone who sees a breast mainly as something sexual you should go out of your way as a woman to either make your baby uncomfortable, have it scream, feed it on the toilet or just stay at home because hey, you made a choice having a child now get it out of my way until it's 18 and a fully integrated taxpayer.
Can't believe this is still an issue.

Plumbthedepths · 28-06-2019 05:26PM

One eyed Jack wrote:

Thatâ€™s a belief based upon culture rather than having any scientific basis. Given that they are biologically referred to as secondary sexual characteristics in mammals and the fact that only in humans females are the breasts permanently enlarged, alternative evolutionary theories suggest that their permanently enlarged state evolved that way to attract attention from potential mates. Point being really that there isnâ€™t any such thing as the breasts having a â€œprimary functionâ€ from a biological perspective at least. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - humans were once lactose intolerant, but evolved to tolerate lactose in milk, and weâ€™re the only species which drinks the milk of other mammals too.

Doubling down I see.

NSAman · 28-06-2019 05:26PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

And how would babies eat before formula was invented?

Sure isn't it a well know fact there were "baby herds" grazin' across the bad lands of de Curragh before dat formulah stuff was 'eerr heard tell of....(cuts and pastes link to BBC website)

FunLover18 · 28-06-2019 05:27PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a belief based upon culture rather than having any scientific basis. Given that they are biologically referred to as secondary sexual characteristics in mammals and the fact that only in humans females are the breasts permanently enlarged, alternative evolutionary theories suggest that their permanently enlarged state evolved that way to attract attention from potential mates. Point being really that there isn’t any such thing as the breasts having a “primary function” from a biological perspective at least. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - humans were once lactose intolerant, but evolved to tolerate lactose in milk, and we’re the only species which drinks the milk of other mammals too.

Soy milk would likely have been just as popular as breastfeeding, if it didn’t taste like shìte.

Humans are mammals and always have been, we didn't randomly merge into the mammal family. We're the only mammals who continue to drink milk after our early years which is why we were once lactose intolerant, most mammals are lactose intolerant once they're past a certain age which is why females stop producing milk. Feeding the young is the primary function of breasts, you have a point in that humans may have evolved to have permanently enlarged breasts as a way of attracting mates however before this they were still used for feeding young, that has always been their function.

jam_mac_jam · 28-06-2019 05:38PM

The main issue that people well men let's be honest is that they see breasts as a sexual purpose and don't really like to be reminded of what breasts are really for.

Maybe just look away and mind your own business.

Gwen Cooper · 28-06-2019 05:43PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

Feeding the young is the primary function of breasts, you have a point in that humans may have evolved to have permanently enlarged breasts as a way of attracting mates however before this they were still used for feeding young, that has always been their function.

I wonder if the fact that it’s easier to feed babies with bigger boobs played any part in that. They’re easier to grab on as well and anybody who ever witnessed breastfeeding knows how much the little buggers love to grab things around them when eating

One eyed Jack · 28-06-2019 06:00PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

And how would babies eat before formula was invented?

They’d eat what they were given, or die. What they were given would likely have consisted of mainly plant based nutrition, including milk from plants like I suggested earlier, long before breastfeeding was a thing -

The Evolution of Diet

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I can't decide if you're trolling or not.

I know what you mean - I can’t decide if I’m being trolled or not or are people actually pretending they aren’t aware of stuff that could have been learned from a secondary school science book.

Just because my boobs look different than the boobs of other mammals doesn't mean that they are there for sex.

It’s a theory of how humans evolved, I really don’t care for your personal feelings towards what you think your breasts are or aren’t for. That’s why I didn’t point out the fact that there are women who have breasts in spite of the fact that it is biologically impossible for them to become pregnant, or for that matter produce sufficient milk to nourish a human infant. I’m not the person who suggested they ever had a primary function that just so neatly happens to coincide with my own opinion as to why humans have breasts, let alone why the female of the species have larger breasts. Purely from a scientific point of view the differences between the humans physical characteristics as they relate to sexual development, is due to hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen, and a different set of hormones are responsible for milk production in the mammary glands (“switched off” in males, but entirely possible to turn on with the introduction of specific hormones, or a medical condition due to hormone imbalance).

Also, literally the sign of mammals is that they have mammary glands that are used to feed their young. I'm very interested to find out what you think the babies of cavemen used to drink.

And as I pointed out to you above, males have mammary glands too. They’re not used for feeding anyone. They’re just... there!

I already answered the infant nutrition question in early man who descended from primates.

Or simply from the evolutionary point of view, since you mentioned that too - primates breastfeed their babies too, and we are in the same group as them.

Yes they do, and because we started incorporating meat into our diets, as opposed to remaining like our ape cousins, we developed larger brains (and a bit more besides - apes have tiny penises compared to humans, but they have massive testicles). We began to think of ourselves as civilised, and breastfeeding was something primitive is what I suggested, but very similar attitudes to women who breastfed existed - that it was something only animals did and civilised humans were above that sort of thing.

Plumbthedepths · 28-06-2019 06:06PM

This thread is proof you can't fix stupid.

jam_mac_jam · 28-06-2019 06:09PM

Yeah babies ate plants not milk. Wow

volchitsa · 28-06-2019 06:09PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’d eat what they were given, or die. What they were given would likely have consisted of mainly plant based nutrition, including milk from plants like I suggested earlier, long before breastfeeding was a thing -

The Evolution of Diet

Where in that link does it suggest that human babies were fed plant-based nutrition instead before breastfeeding was invented? You must be trolling here. You don't genuinely think that humans fed their babies plant-milk until someone noticed that women's titties weren't just a sex thing - do you?

It actually refers to these tribal women - who are supposedly living a more natural, traditional lifestyle - having children sucking at the breast when apparently quite big, since the child seems able to eat meat as well whenever it's available. And oops, the rude woman must have forgotten her special apron to cover up her breasts. How horrifying. FFS.

jam_mac_jam · 28-06-2019 06:12PM

I wonder how the babies did eat plants without teeth. Maybe they are magic.

Gwen Cooper · 28-06-2019 06:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And as I pointed out to you above, males have mammary glands too. They’re not used for feeding anyone. They’re just there!.

They are there because breasts and nipples develop in fetuses much earlier than their genitals. That’s also a secondary school science book right there.

Reading your posts I’m really not sure if you failed sex education or if sex education failed you.

volchitsa · 28-06-2019 06:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a belief based upon culture rather than having any scientific basis. Given that they are biologically referred to as secondary sexual characteristics in mammals and the fact that only in humans females are the breasts permanently enlarged, alternative evolutionary theories suggest that their permanently enlarged state evolved that way to attract attention from potential mates. Point being really that there isn’t any such thing as the breasts having a “primary function” from a biological perspective at least. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - humans were once lactose intolerant, but evolved to tolerate lactose in milk, and we’re the only species which drinks the milk of other mammals too.

Soy milk would likely have been just as popular as breastfeeding, if it didn’t taste like shìte.

I think you misunderstand what the word "sexual" means in that context. It doesn't mean "sexy". Beards are a secondary sexual characteristic, but nobody says men should cover up their beards in case it drives women wild, funny enough.

As for breasts being permanently enlarged compared to other mammals, that's not entirely true. Our upright stance and hairlessness makes them more visible compared to most mammals, but they're not nearly as big as cows' udders for example.

Plumbthedepths · 28-06-2019 06:20PM

Defys logic that a female would havest plants to extract 'milk' to fed her young when nature gave her two appendages that provide milk which contain protien, antibodies amongst other benefits which greatly enhanced the survival of her young. Just seems like such unnecessary effort when a child is born with the ability to latch onto a nipple almost like nature intended it. ;-)

28-06-2019 06:24PM

To the original troll..
This (you) is why I breastfed my son's and am breastfeeding my baby now.
So they don't turn out like an ejit like you.
If you have Mammy issues don't take it out on mother's and babies who are doing what is totally natural and a requirment for survival.
Baby is hungry baby eats.
People who don't like it. Go by a private island.
Also breastfeeding saves millions by creating healthier people, thus taking the weight off the health system.

volchitsa · 28-06-2019 06:26PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Defys logic that a female would havest plants to extract 'milk' to fed her young when nature gave her two appendages that provide milk which contain protien, antibodies amongst other benefits which greatly enhanced the survival of her young. Just seems like such unnecessary effort when a child is born with the ability to latch onto a nipple almost like nature intended it. ;-)

Those annoying babies with their instincts, when obviously plant-milk came first!

Sure prehistoric hunter-gatherer people couldn't be having women going around with their breasts hanging out, it wouldn't be suitable at all. I just wonder why modern hunter gatherer peoples seem to have abandoned the old plant-milk in favour of uncovered breasts. Retrograde step? But maybe it all became possible when someone invented special aprons to cover women up. :pac:

physioman · 28-06-2019 06:29PM

Neyite wrote: »

I was in a post natal group with a bunch of other new mothers. About three quarters of us breastfeeding. The one with the apron looked way more conspicuous than the rest of us.

Try eating your dinner with your full body length including face along another human being and under a blanket - you'd roast and be gasping for air! No different to a baby with a shawl over it's head

You obviously haven't seen a proper breast feeding apron? The child is hardly roasting and gasping for air. Your one of the sensationalists I described. I'd say mother and baby were perfectly happy with the apron.

volchitsa · 28-06-2019 06:36PM

physioman wrote: »

You obviously haven't seen a proper breast feeding apron? The child is hardly roasting and gasping for air. Your one of the sensationalists I described. I'd say mother and baby were perfectly happy with the apron.

When it's hot the baby can be far too covered up in a breast feeding shawl, I've seen that myself.

More importantly it seems to me that it's just more marketing sh1t to get people to spend money - what did women do before this apron thing existed?

Why exactly is it a problem to see a baby drinking milk from its mother but not from a bottle? And why is it a problem to see a woman with her top off in public but not a man with a hairy chest? That's another secondary sex characteristic and yet - as always - it's only women whose movements are being controlled.

People complain about Islam, but this is just a lower level version of the same notions of women as temptresses.

physioman · 28-06-2019 06:36PM

LirW wrote: »

Both mine would cry if they'd be covered while feeding.
So in order to not offend someone who sees a breast mainly as something sexual you should go out of your way as a woman to either make your baby uncomfortable, have it scream, feed it on the toilet or just stay at home because hey, you made a choice having a child now get it out of my way until it's 18 and a fully integrated taxpayer.
Can't believe this is still an issue.

Wow...more sensalionist rubbish...get it out of my way until it's 18? Do you breast feed your child until their 18? Do you think just because people are uncomfortable with breast feeding that they don't rear their children properly and couldn't be bothered? Breast feeding is one part of parenting that lasts on average 8 months. Rearing your child properly is important. Breastfeeding or not breastfeeding doesn't matter to how a child is reared correctly

FunLover18 · 28-06-2019 06:39PM

physioman wrote: »

Wow...more sensalionist rubbish...get it out of my way until it's 18? Do you breast feed your child until their 18? Do you think just because people are uncomfortable with breast feeding that they don't rear their children properly and couldn't be bothered? Breast feeding is one part of parenting that lasts on average 8 months. Rearing your child properly is important. Breastfeeding or not breastfeeding doesn't matter to how a child is reared correctly

I think, and hope, they were being sarcastic.

Greentopia · 28-06-2019 06:44PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Completely normalised? I don’t know how you come to that conclusion when Europe has the lowest global breastfeeding rates -

WHO European Region has lowest global breastfeeding rates

I said where it's normalised. As in any country I've lived in or been in outside the UK and Ireland there has been zero issues around breastfeeding as their culture has normalised and accepted it. Germany, Scandinavia, any country in Western/Northern Europe there is no stigma attached to breast feeding in public and it's a common sight. Whether women there wish to breast feed or not is their own personal choice; the point is they feel completely free to do so if they wish without any oddballs and weirdos making them feel bad about it.

My point about Alabama was in regard to their retrograde treatment of women and backward steps on abortion laws recently, not what their breastfeeding rates are.

jam_mac_jam · 28-06-2019 06:45PM

physioman wrote: »

LirW wrote: »

Both mine would cry if they'd be covered while feeding.
So in order to not offend someone who sees a breast mainly as something sexual you should go out of your way as a woman to either make your baby uncomfortable, have it scream, feed it on the toilet or just stay at home because hey, you made a choice having a child now get it out of my way until it's 18 and a fully integrated taxpayer.
Can't believe this is still an issue.

Wow...more sensalionist rubbish...get it out of my way until it's 18? Do you breast feed your child until their 18? Do you think just because people are uncomfortable with breast feeding that they don't rear their children properly and couldn't be bothered? Breast feeding is one part of parenting that lasts on average 8 months. Rearing your child properly is important. Breastfeeding or not breastfeeding doesn't matter to how a child is reared correctly

Obviously they don't feed the child untill it's 18. That is nothing like what was said. Remotely

physioman · 28-06-2019 06:46PM

volchitsa wrote: »

When it's hot the baby can be far too covered up in a breast feeding shawl, I've seen that myself.

More importantly it seems to me that it's just more marketing sh1t to get people to spend money - what did women do before this apron thing existed?

Why exactly is it a problem to see a baby drinking milk from its mother but not from a bottle? And why is it a problem to see a woman with her top off in public but not a man with a hairy chest? That's another secondary sex characteristic and yet - as always - it's only women whose movements are being controlled.

People complain about Islam, but this is just a lower level version of the same notions of women as temptresses.

Three of the most beneficial pieces of equipment that my wife found during breast feeding were the breast feeding cushion, feeding apron and breast Angel aluminium cup (can't rem the name). Not marketing ****e but useful.
We live in Ireland which rarely gets hot apart from the last 2 days and the aprons are spacious at the top to allow mother to view the baby and baby to remain cool.
Exposure of the human flesh in Ireland has been frowned upon due mainly to the teachings of the Catholic church.
Look we'll never agree and that's fine. At the end of the days your child was breast fed and so was mine. That's the most important thing

One eyed Jack · 28-06-2019 06:52PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah babies ate plants not milk. Wow

Nobody said babies ate plants not milk?

I was referring to infant nutrition long before formula was invented. Infants were fed whatever could be foraged for them. Some infants were fed and still died because they weren’t aware as we are now thousands of years of human development later that oh, soy milk isn’t recommended for under six month olds. If only they’d had a Swiftcare clinic back then.

The other poster is right, you can’t fix stupid, and it would be utterly stupid to compare what does or doesn’t seem logical today with what does or doesn’t seem logical then. They were entirely different circumstances where being stared at by other people as they fed their infants were among the least of their concerns. Nowadays some people think breastfeeding makes them special. Like I said - it’s a trend for some Western liberal types who are obsessed with “natural is best” type stuff.

Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

Comments