Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

Hannibal_Smith · 29-06-2019 12:45PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know, “monkey see, monkey do” is a fairly valid assumption that applies in human and animal behaviour, only humans had the capacity throughout history to develop alternative means of nourishing their infants so we didn’t have to breastfeed.

Your boobs fill with milk as soon as your baby is born. Your baby feeds itself by sucking. It naturally sucks your boob milk comes out. Your baby is no longer hungry.

Very unnatural altogether.

FunLover18 · 29-06-2019 12:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s only ludicrous because you don’t like the idea that breasts in female humans evolved the way they did to attract a mate. It’s really not that out there as there are numerous examples in evolution of things evolving the way they did to serve a symbiotic purpose. In other words, if you’re only concentrating on the individual, you’re missing the bigger picture that is evolution as a whole. Only recently research has suggested that dogs evolved a specific muscle to make them more appealing to humans -

Dogs evolved a special muscle that lets them make puppy dog eyes

Just because you want to believe in breasts having a primary function, it doesn’t follow that what you want to believe is their primary function, is actually true. That’s just something you learned as a result of living in a society where it makes one appear more intellectually rigorous if they can disassociate themselves from their primitive instinct to find breasts attractive as a result of their sexual orientation.

Fair enough if you feel a need to deny evolution, but it would be silly to suggest anyone else should or be branded a pervert for something they have no control over. I didn’t learn to find breasts sexually attractive for example, I don’t find all breasts sexually attractive, but the idea that I shouldn’t find them attractive because their primary function according to you is for feeding babies? That’s a ludicrous idea, and in any society it’s a ludicrous idea, yes, even societies where women don’t tend to cover their breasts. They’re just as aware as we are that their breasts are sexually attractive, and the idea that they wouldn’t see breasts as sexually attractive because they’re surrounded by naked breasts? That’s just stupid, frankly. It would be like suggesting that because I’m surrounded by women I shouldn’t find individual women sexually attractive.

Even if I weren’t an incorrigible pervert, I would still have no control over what I do or do not find sexually attractive. It’s only because of the culture I grew up in that I actually learned what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour in public. Staring at women’s breasts I find attractive is a consequence of evolution. Turning away because it’s considered inappropriate in our society to stare, is the learned behaviour.

I'm not denying evolution, I've admitted it's a function of breasts however it is very much an additional function as it only exists in humans whereas mammary glands produce milk across all mammals because it's their primary function. Mammals evolved with mammary glands to produce and store milk for their young. The fact that in humans they've evolved to also be a sexual attraction is very much an add-on. You'd hardly argue the ability to make puppy eyes is of equal importance to a dog as sight. It's an additional function that evolved long after they evolved eyes in the first place.

paleoperson · 29-06-2019 12:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

It really is bizarre, not sure what I said that deserved that mouthful of abuse, because there's nothing very controversial in what I said.

It's not bizarre at all and you're right, your claims are not controversial - because noone EVER claims what you're saying, you're just confabulating nonsense.

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not just Africa, the Chinese used to publish books of erotica about sex acts that could be performed with women's bandaged feet, whereas foot fetishes are more of a personal thing in our society. It's really all about what you "learn" is sexy in your society. Because the reality is that almost any part of the body can be seen as sexually attractive, and probably is by some.

False and a stupid thing to say. Foot fetishes are well-known in all societies. A very small percentage of people have a very large sexual fetish for feet. It has nothing to do with culture or society. "almost any body part"... get outta here. What you "learn" is sexy... holy moley may I ask what age you are? I'm sorry to hear you are not a sexual creature.

volchitsa wrote: »

Buttocks are a better indication of female fertility than the size of breasts, because large breasts don't correlate to having more milk, never mind being able to have a baby in the first place, where the shape and size of the buttocks shows pelvic width. And there are places where buttock implants are more common than breast implants, South America for instance.

Stop trying to change the argument and suggest something else was claimed. Who claims that butts aren't a better indicator and more sexual? Nobody claims that. Butt implants became more popular in Brazil for all kinds of reasons including more willing plastic surgeons doing it for cheap and also how in the west a lot of girls are more afraid of becoming a fatass with fat everywhere.

volchitsa wrote: »

So yeah, sexual fascination with breasts is not surprising, but no more so than other areas of the body that we don't consider taboo.

As others have pointed out you are objectively 100% wrong to state that they are no less sexual than hair or feet.

Something I love about your argument here is that you think that you're bound to get away with what you're saying just making it up as you go along because who could prove you wrong when it's subjective?

However it's not actually subjective, it's been proven in biological sciences that breasts reliably and consistently attract and arouse males. That's why people hold breasts. The IDEA that it's all just something society told you to like.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't actually believe that people who object to seeing a woman breastfeed do so because they find it arousing, it's more because they find it an uncomfortable reminder that we are "just" animals.

That isn't the case at all and is about the dumbest possible explanation imaginable someone could come up with.

If you're wondering why I got so heated it's because it's like you're denying everyone's instincts and preferences, and claiming they are based on something stupid like culture, that's not only foolish but also quite insulting. And here you are again making up a pack of lies as you please on the realities of others.

The odd poster or two who comes to your side like a good sjw aren't going to be able to reverse what you've already said, I suggest you stop digging a deeper hole for yourself. You're not going to win against the highest ranking sex scientists, animal behaviourist scientists, paleontologists and so on.

5uspect · 29-06-2019 12:52PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the objective is to nourish an infant, then yes, there are dozens of alternative sources, means, and methods of delivery than breastfeeding. Formula just happens to be considered the most convenient in Western society, that’s why it’s preferred over breastfeeding, women just don’t have the time or the inclination to be arsed, frankly. That’s the reality of modern living in Western society.

Yes, because getting up in the middle of the night to sterilise and prepare bottles is convenient. Carrying around all that equipment with you when you travel is convenient.

Women don’t breastfeeding for a range of reasons. Some wean early. Some just can’t achieve a good latch with their infant. Some want to be decoupled from that responsibility (perhaps for their career) and share feeding with with their partner etc. Some actually believe they’ll ruin their boobs and some think it is disgusting.

Most of these reasons are understandable but the notion that breastfeeding a baby is disgusting and to be discouraged and shamed is a tragedy.

suicide_circus · 29-06-2019 12:52PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Evidence for this? I've certainly read the exact opposite anecdotally, but I don't know if there are any actual studies.

the idea that men in traditional tribal societies dont find breasts sexy is a kind of Victorian 'noble savage' ethos masquerading as feminism. why are human breasts so promiment compared to other animals? its nothing to do with milk production. its basically mimicking an ass - when we started walking up right, our asses stopped sticking out so much so nature gave females a proto-ass on the chest to be more visible.

Lefty Bicek · 29-06-2019 12:57PM

People have always known that breastfeeding is 'just a woman feeding her child', so that's no explanation for anything.

All the while a woman breastfeeding in public was so taboo, the history of Western art has been peppered with images of the naked female breast - Botticelli, Delacroix, Degas and so on.

Feeding a child is not a controversial thing to do. Doing it in public happens more often than is strictly necessary. We have pump technology, after all.

No, the real reason it is more* acceptable to do it in public is that, ridiculously, the world now revolves around women and children, and their attendant issues. No attempt to challenge those issues can pass without irrational and hysterical exhortations to 'get over it'.

Jenna James · 29-06-2019 12:57PM

I personally dislike it but I guess it's a right.

suicide_circus · 29-06-2019 12:57PM

lets just all be glad that mother nature had the good sense and kindness to make breasts the source of milk and not the penis

B0jangles · 29-06-2019 01:01PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not denying evolution, I've admitted it's a function of breasts however it is very much an additional function as it only exists in humans whereas mammary glands produce milk across all mammals because it's their primary function. Mammals evolved with mammary glands to produce and store milk for their young. The fact that in humans they've evolved to also be a sexual attraction is very much an add-on. You'd hardly argue the ability to make puppy eyes is of equal importance to a dog as sight. It's an additional function that evolved long after they evolved eyes in the first place.

You must be new around here.

Hannibal_Smith · 29-06-2019 01:03PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

lets just all be glad that mother nature had the good sense and kindness to make breasts the source of milk and not the penis

:pac: :pac: :pac:

One eyed Jack · 29-06-2019 01:10PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Name one alternative to breast milk from a plant for a baby not infant up before they have teeth. Just one. That was or is used. Just one

There are several alternatives today, and throughout human history there have been several alternatives used. Rice milk and soy milk for instance, while they don’t contain all the nutrients as human or animal milk, they are alternatives, which is what you asked for. Whether they are better than human milk or not, I would suggest it depends on the circumstances.

In some circumstances where alternatives were tried, infants simply died. We also know that the nutritional value of human milk is influenced by the mothers diet and environment, and contaminants have been found in human milk in some circumstances, but it was determined the benefits outweighed the risks. Nowadays people are seeking natural alternatives to human milk because they don’t want to breastfeed, and they don’t want to use formula.

You’re trying to be as specific as the earlier poster who pointed out that soy milk is not recommended for infants under six months. I personally wouldn’t recommend anyone drink that shìte, but it is an alternative to human milk which was used and is used, which is what you asked for. Do I recommend it? No. Is it an alternative source of nutrition derived from plants? Yes.

Plumbthedepths · 29-06-2019 01:10PM

Lefty Bicek wrote:

Doing it in public happens more often than is strictly.

Huh?

OPollo · 29-06-2019 01:12PM

And OP has no probs eating a burger in public transport ? :P

jam_mac_jam · 29-06-2019 01:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Name one alternative to breast milk from a plant for a baby not infant up before they have teeth. Just one. That was or is used. Just one

There are several alternatives today, and throughout human history there have been several alternatives used. Rice milk and soy milk for instance, while they don’t contain all the nutrients as human or animal milk, they are alternatives, which is what you asked for. Whether they are better than human milk or not, I would suggest it depends on the circumstances.

In some circumstances where alternatives were tried, infants simply died. We also know that the nutritional value of human milk is influenced by the mothers diet and environment, and contaminants have been found in human milk in some circumstances, but it was determined the benefits outweighed the risks. Nowadays people are seeking natural alternatives to human milk because they don’t want to breastfeed, and they don’t want to use formula.

You’re trying to be as specific as the earlier poster who pointed out that soy milk is not recommended for infants under six months. I personally wouldn’t recommend anyone drink that shìte, but it is an alternative to human milk which was used and is used, which is what you asked for. Do I recommend it? No. Is it an alternative source of nutrition derived from plants? Yes.

So none then. Thanks.

volchitsa · 29-06-2019 01:14PM

Paladium30 wrote: »

Is it culture that makes women grab and rub their breasts when they masturbate?

You shouldn't mistake porn films for real life.

Out of curiosity, why did you give a like to post just now which explicitly tried to rubbish something you said yourself a little earlier? Are you really that desperate to stir sh1t?

LirW · 29-06-2019 01:15PM

Oh god this thread gets better and better, a couple of grown men arguing over the history of breastfeeding.

I nominate this thread as thread of the year.

Plumbthedepths · 29-06-2019 01:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote:

Nature doesnâ€™t have an intent. Thereâ€™s no specific reason has ever been determined as to why humans breastfeed (plenty of various theories put forward though), but itâ€™s certainly not something nature intended.

super_furry wrote:

Soak it in people, internet does not get better than this.

super_furry wrote:

Years from now, scholars will be pointing towards this sentence as to why the phrase "every opinion is valid", is deeply and profoundly wrong.

LirW wrote:

I nominate this thread as thread of the year.

Super was spot on based on OEJ's unbelievable bs in the above.

suicide_circus · 29-06-2019 01:19PM

LirW wrote: »

Oh god this thread gets better and better, a couple of grown men arguing over the history of breastfeeding.

I nominate this thread as thread of the year.

so only women can discuss women's activities? stay in your lane, yeah?

volchitsa · 29-06-2019 01:25PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

the idea that men in traditional tribal societies dont find breasts sexy is a kind of Victorian 'noble savage' ethos masquerading as feminism. why are human breasts so promiment compared to other animals? its nothing to do with milk production. its basically mimicking an ass - when we started walking up right, our asses stopped sticking out so much so nature gave females a proto-ass on the chest to be more visible.

None. That's one theory, it's not actually certain. It's quite possible that more prominent breasts also serve as a signal that a woman is available for sex all the time, unlike animals that come on heat. But it's only a theory, unlike "breasts are the only non artificial source of nourishment for babies" which is a fact.

And as has been pointed out, how is that relevant anyway? We can see women's breasts all the time - the fact that they're partly covered by a piece of cloth doesn't mean men can't see them. Yet we don't expect men to become lustful every time they see the shape of a woman through her clothes (well, not in Europe!) In the same way there's no reason why men should be aroused by seeing a woman feed a baby. Because context FFS.

One eyed Jack · 29-06-2019 01:25PM

5uspect wrote: »

Yes, because getting up in the middle of the night to sterilise and prepare bottles is convenient. Carrying around all that equipment with you when you travel is convenient.

Women don’t breastfeeding for a range of reasons. Some wean early. Some just can’t achieve a good latch with their infant. Some want to be decoupled from that responsibility (perhaps for their career) and share feeding with with their partner etc. Some actually believe they’ll ruin their boobs and some think it is disgusting.

Most of these reasons are understandable but the notion that breastfeeding a baby is disgusting and to be discouraged and shamed is a tragedy.

It’s more convenient for some people than breastfeeding in public, which is the whole point of the thread. It’s also more convenient than breastfeeding for all the reasons you listed too.

I’ve heard that idea that it’ll ruin their breasts mainly from young women in their 20’s, and like you said, I understand why they’d feel that way. I don’t think it’s a pity or anything else, I just think it is what it is. I’m not going to argue against them - they know what’s best for themselves, someone that’s all too often overlooked in these discussions about what’s best for their babies.

I think describing social progress as a tragedy is hyperbolic chicken licken style thinking tbh. It ignores the reality of many people’s lives in favour of ideological interests. I get why you’d say it’s a tragedy, but if the argument in favour of breastfeeding is that it is natural, then by that same standard - the idea that it’s disgusting and something to be discouraged and shamed, is just as natural, in humans anyway. It’s how society progresses - over time we drop some ideas, it’s why we don’t still live outdoors even though that’s natural too.

Sorry about that · 29-06-2019 01:25PM

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

People have always known that breastfeeding is 'just a woman feeding her child', so that's no explanation for anything.

All the while a woman breastfeeding in public was so taboo, the history of Western art has been peppered with images of the naked female breast - Botticelli, Delacroix, Degas and so on.

Feeding a child is not a controversial thing to do. Doing it in public happens more often than is strictly necessary. We have pump technology, after all.

No, the real reason it is more* acceptable to do it in public is that, ridiculously, the world now revolves around women and children, and their attendant issues. No attempt to challenge those issues can pass without irrational and hysterical exhortations to 'get over it'.

How often is strictly necessary? Why should a mother pump her milk into a bottle when the breast is already there to deliver it to the baby?

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines on breastfeeding. These are based on best evidence and should steer you in the right direction. They may even help prevent posting further nonsense on the subject.

RacoonQueen · 29-06-2019 01:26PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes. We gave babies plants, there are many alternatives....

Breastfeeding is cultural and learned behaviour by new born.

Holy Jesus I think this must be the stupidest post I've ever seen on boards and that really does take some doing.

Breastfeeding is one of the most natural things in the world. In what way would it be cultural. We produce milk purely to feed our babies. How do you define that as cultural?

BorneTobyWilde · 29-06-2019 01:26PM

I see no issue. The only issue is when a woman breastfeeding a baby has a go at someone who notices her breastfeeding her baby.
Wasn't there a guy on here who said he walk into a cafe and right by the door was a women breastfeeding, and she said loudly to this guy '' what are you staring at you pervert'' . How do you not see something right in front of you. That guy walked out, shamed, and he had no problem with her breastfeeding, his only crime was fact he has vision in both eyes and noticed.
It's something you don't see much of, so of course when it's done in front of you you'll notice.

volchitsa · 29-06-2019 01:28PM

Paladium30 wrote: »

I often like posts I don't entirely agree with. I goal is dispelling myths, some people are quite attached to their myths.

Well sure, but when someone says that what you just said is stupid, it's a little odd to like the post and have no other response to make to it.

paleoperson · 29-06-2019 01:28PM

volchitsa just stop. Everyone is literally laughing at you. Enough light relief for today, let's get back to proper discussion.

paleoperson · 29-06-2019 01:29PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Well sure, but when someone says that what you just said is stupid, it's a little odd to like the post and have no other response to make to it.

Nobody called what he said stupid.

Lefty Bicek · 29-06-2019 01:29PM

Sorry about that wrote: »

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines on breastfeeding. These are based on best evidence...

Less of the demonising of women who choose not to breastfeed, please.

Shame on you.

volchitsa · 29-06-2019 01:30PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Holy Jesus I think this must be the stupidest post I've ever seen on boards and that really does take some doing.

Breastfeeding is one of the most natural things in the world. In what way would it be cultural. We produce milk purely to feed our babies. How do you define that as cultural?

I think you missed the sarcasm - it was someone else who said that breastfeeding only came after people gave plant milk to their babies.

the beer revolu · 29-06-2019 01:30PM

paleoperson wrote: »

volchitsa just stop. Everyone is literally laughing at you. Enough light relief for today, let's get back to proper discussion.

No they aren't.
Everyone is laughing at you, the OP, and One Eyed Jack. Oh, and newcomer Lefty, too.

Real life out loud laughing.

eviltwin · 29-06-2019 01:30PM

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Less of the demonising of women who choose not to breastfeed, please.

Shame on you.

Who is demonising women who use formula?

Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

Comments