A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a question of fact.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: This is not the same as chaos. You really need to do some reading on the basics of evolution.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Personally I believe there is 'intent' or reason if you will in nature. Otherwise it's believing random chaos just proves to be amazingly beneficial in the support of life.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » I think in this case, with all the benefits that we now know breastfeeding brings, the questions is -- why should it be something to be hidden away?
volchitsa wrote: » That's only one theory, not a proven function, unlike milk production which is an actual function. Cows udders are massive but we don't consider that this means they serve as anything other than to provide milk. Our upright stance is why breasts have become so visible, so it's not surprising that they are noticed by men, but various parts of the woman's body are mentioned at least as often in love poems and erotica than her breasts.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: Well, he (of course he's a he) is correct in that nature (evolution) has no intention. It isn't a telelogical process, people who have the most basic education in science tend to bristle when someone says that evolutionary change happens for a particular purpose.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Hold your horses there Gwen! When, please, have I ever said women aren’t even supposed to breastfeed? You might be confusing me with another poster who might have said something similar, because I sure as hell would never say something like that! You accuse me of denying science and yet try to limit our understanding of evolution to one that fits with a narrative that suits your opinions, in spite of overwhelming evidence which outright contradicts your beliefs. Evolution doesn’t care how we classify ourselves, because it doesn’t have the capacity to care. It just happens. We evolved from something else that didn’t look remotely like we do now, and we continue to evolve, and due to factors like changes in our diets, sometimes there are more subtle changes happening in the present that we aren’t aware of are changing until we look back on how we have evolved, and for no apparent reason, well...the breast has always been more than the sum of its parts. That's why these new figures about bra sizes are interesting. If the average shoe size was up, no one would give two hoots. But breasts are sexy and thrilling – most of us want to have or to hold a perfect pair of boobs. Their preferred size and presentation are culturally significant, and the idea of what makes an ideal breast changes. Social psychologists have found that preferred size increased steadily from the flat-chested 1920s up until the early 1960s, when smaller breasts became more popular again. Research in the late 1990s found larger boobs were yet again more appealing.Why are British women's breasts getting bigger? You’re gonna need a bigger pair of hills to die on Gwen
paleoperson wrote: » I believe his point is that female breasts are much larger than they need to be purely to hold milk, hence it's not purely a feeding role. Ever hear of the reason for the peacock's tail? It's much larger than it needs to be, as pointed out by Darwin in his Origin of Species among others. There are plenty of theories for this, but they all take it's attracting the opposite sex as an obvious fact. I learned about this in the animal behaviour class in university. It's fine if you didn't know, but it would be nice if people would stop arguing moot and clueless points shown to be false.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Dude I'm genuinely reluctant to call you an idiot but you are making it incredibly difficult not to do so.
Gwen Cooper wrote: » Absolutely a hill I’m willing to die on. Breasts exist so women can feed their babies, just like with other mammals. I never said that people are not supposed to find boobs attractive, but ffs, you’re denying science here saying that boobs exist for sexual purposes and that we’re not even supposed to breastfeed. We have boobs to breastfeed. That’s why we classify as mammals.
TommyGun50 wrote: In society it's impossible for everyone to agree on what's acceptable and what's not so it typically comes down to a combination of practicality and the numbers who believe one thing compared to the numbers who believe the alternative. Welcome to society, you don't get to unilaterally impose your will on everyone.
TommyGun50 wrote: » On what basis do you believe those who object to breastfeeding in public do so because they are unable to separate sexuality from the sight of breasts? You seem to be assuming this with no basis. Have you considered some people find the sight quite disturbing and therefore would like it to not be acceptable? If you believe public nudity should not be acceptable you can't use the argument to "just look away". I think breastfeeding in public should be acceptable, but I also accept that others don't and I wouldn't be so arrogant to tell them that I'm right and they're wrong as it's a subjective argument. In society it's impossible for everyone to agree on what's acceptable and what's not so it typically comes down to a combination of practicality and the numbers who believe one thing compared to the numbers who believe the alternative. Welcome to society, you don't get to unilaterally impose your will on everyone. For the health of the child it's generally best to breastfeed, a lot of Mothers prefer not to though.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m not a sociology student, no, nor have I dismissed sociology. It’s actually posters arguing the primary function of breasts is breastfeeding who appear to be dismissive of social and cultural influences in human behaviour
jam_mac_jam wrote: » 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. You keep changing your argument. I asked for an alternative as you argued that there are some that were used in the past. There were notThere are no plant based alternative that is suitable or was used in the past
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.
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
RacoonQueen wrote: » 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?
jam_mac_jam wrote: » Yes. We gave babies plants, there are many alternatives.... Breastfeeding is cultural and learned behaviour by new born.
sydthebeat wrote: » LOL You're obviously not a sociology student.... As you've just dismissed a whole genre of science....
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Obviously, the other poster is. Duh. If a person says, as the other poster did, that ... then anything else other than breastfeeding, is by definition, not best practice. For an alternative perspective on that type of judgementalism...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/an-unrealistic-pressure-mothers-on-what-its-like-to-breastfeed Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary. Since people think they're smart enough to throw the WHO around, have some of this...https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/bf_counselling_participants_manual3.pdf So, really, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing milk. Nothing. It might even seem to be sensible to have a bottle handy in the baby bag when you're out and about. But who would notice that ?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested” who can still breastfeed).
One eyed Jack wrote: » You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than” us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animals”.
One eyed Jack wrote: Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested†who can still breastfeed).
One eyed Jack wrote: You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than†us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animalsâ€.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested” who can still breastfeed). You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than” us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animals”.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Yet a poster here claims nature has no intent and all this behaviour is learned. Who teaches the new born animals?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: Just look away.
micar wrote: » I'm single......two of sisters have children I've seen more of their boobs than any other womans in the last few years due to their breastfeeding. FML
volchitsa wrote: » So, buy a breast feeding pump and bottles, oh and a sterilising system for bottles. Then pump enough milk into a series of bottles or freezer bags put them in a freezer, and when you're going out don't forget to have everything ready so that by the time the baby is hungry you have both enough to satisfy him/her but not so much that you end up having to throw out your preciously collected breast milk. Not difficult at all of course - and why should someone be expected to do that if they don't want to, just because some people are unable to separate their sexuality from seeing random women in the street. Do you feel women on the beach shouldn't be in bikinis any more than strictly necessary, and who decides what is necessary anyway? (There are lots of reasons for having a supply of breast milk handy - but having a bottle ready so you don't offend other people's sensibilities by feeding in public really doesn't seem to me to be one of them.)
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary. So, really, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing milk. Nothing. It might even seem to be sensible to have a bottle handy in the baby bag when you're out and about. But who would notice that ?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
