Breast feeding - does it bother you?

kizzyr

EcoGirl wrote: »

There's a vicious circle thing going on in that if we don't see women b/f, it looks strange and disgusting, and so women don't do it in public if they can help it (expressing milk into bottles, I ask you!), and so it remains strange and disgusting.

Same as society used to be shocked and horrified at seeing women's ankles. It's all about what we're used to as a culture, not about any absolutes.

If you're used to seeing babies being b/f then you literally don't even notice it.




No, that isn't the case, far from it.

The disease-prevention aspect of breast-feeding lasts as long as the breast-feeding does. In fact, as the baby gets older and takes less (the baby takes more up to 6 months and once on solids the amount gradually decreases) - the concentration of antibodies actually increases to compensate for the smaller volume.

The breast-feeding action is very different to bottle-feeding, and that gives better jaw development which leads to fewer orthodontic problems in later life - and the longer b/f lasts, the better that works.

And one thing which hasn't been mentioned, that b/f protects the mother against breast cancer and ovarian cancer and the longer the b/f lasts the greater the protection.

So many reasons to b/f for longer than the few days the colostrum is present.

Also, somebody mentioned that b/f shouldn't go on longer than 12 months. In fact, humans are designed to be b/f for appx 4 years. Not saying we have to do that ... I know it's not in our culture. But there's a big jump between 1 year and 4 years. The World Health Organisation says that babies should ideally be b/f 'into the second year and beyond'.

That was me. I didn't (or at least didn't mean to) say that it shouldn't go on longer than 12 months, I said that I have no issue with breastfeeding at all but once the baby is 12 months or older I think it is off putting. I also think (and this applies to both breast and bottle feeding) that the baby looses its inclination and tendency to suckle and (certainly after 16 to 18 months) the breastfeeding becomes much more about the mother than the baby.

JC 2K3

irishbird wrote: »

personally, i think it is just jealous on the men's part cos women can do something they cant

True. This is also the reason why women oppose public urination.


This thread is just stupid on so many levels.

Firstly, darkman2, your views are laughable. I don't think I need to expand on that, except maybe to recommend that you go and spend some time on 4chan or something. Hopefully, that should desensitize you to the extent where you're no longer horrified by breastfeeding.

Secondly, breastfeeding is far too sacred these days. All this bullshít rhetoric about breastfeeding being "the most natural thing in the world" gets really irritating. I also get the feeling that often breastfeeding mothers get a secret elitist kick out of breastfeeding, as if they think they're bringing up their child in a superior manner to other mothers.

Thirdly, I'm very skeptical about the actual health benefits of breastfeeding. As far as I can tell, the benefits are really just a load of tenuous links with reduced risks of certain diseases etc., and I sorta doubt the majority of breastfeeding mothers actually understand the benefits (or lack of), as opposed to some rhetoric they heard about it being good.

Fourthly, the primary function of the breasts is to promote sexual arousal in males. I mean, they're generally only used to feed babies for 1 or 2 years of the mother's life. The rest of the time they function as a very important part of modern, western, female attractiveness.

Lastly, to conclude this post in an on topic manner, I don't have any problem with public breastfeeding, although I wouldn't oppose somewhere like a fancy restaurant having a rule against breastfeeding at tables as long as they had a dedicated breastfeeding room.

ronbyrne2005

I hate hairy nipples :P

JangoFett

I don't see why a lot of girls are getting so annoyed over it.

It bothers people, get over it.

I'm sure there's plenty of people that don't like seeing us men adjust our balls in public or scratching the cracks of our asses?

Quality

seahorse wrote: »

Quality: your 'misogynist' comment is probably the weirdest attempt at an insult I've ever had levelled against me. I mean, think about what you're saying - I reckon female-hating breastfeeding mothers are pretty thin on the ground!

Juvenal: I always fed my baby directly from the breast when either at home or in places where I knew it was sure not to make anyone uncomfortable, such as in the homes of close female friends;

You seem to have a dislike of any woman who "dares" to feed their child in public...

Some women still have a life after having kids... tbh, I couldnt give a sh1te who sees me bf my kids... I will breast feed where and when I want....:D

ronbyrne2005

Breastfeeding = Droopy tits = Husband leaving for a younger perter model :pac:

juvenal

JC 2K3 wrote: »

True. This is also the reason why women oppose public urination.

Public urination is unhygenic, unsanitary and unacceptable in an urban environment.

Have you ever walked down a laneway smelling of pish?:eek:

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Thirdly, I'm very skeptical about the actual health benefits of breastfeeding. As far as I can tell, the benefits are really just a load of tenuous links with reduced risks of certain diseases etc., and I sorta doubt the majority of breastfeeding mothers actually understand the benefits (or lack of), as opposed to some rhetoric they heard about it being good.

There are a shedload of international studies by a range of well-respected organisations stating the benefits of breastfeeding.

You're entitled to be skeptical yourself, but evidence would suggest otherwise.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Fourthly, the primary function of the breasts is to promote sexual arousal in males. I mean, they're generally only used to feed babies for 1 or 2 years of the mother's life. The rest of the time they function as a very important part of modern, western, female attractiveness.

Are you serious? Breasts and genitalia exist first and foremost to enable and support reproduction - the fact that they sexually arouse humans is at best secondary. What about homosexual males that are not aroused by breasts?

Otherwise I agree with your points for the most part.

ronbyrne2005

juvenal wrote: »

Public urination is unhygenic, unsanitary and unacceptable in an urban environment.

Have you ever walked down a laneway smelling of pish?:eek:



There are a shedload of international studies by a range of well-respected organisations stating the benefits of breastfeeding.

You're entitled to be skeptical yourself, but evidence would suggest otherwise.



Are you serious? Breasts and genitalia exist first and foremost to enable and support reproduction - the fact that they sexually arouse humans is at best secondary. What about homosexual males that are not aroused by breasts?

Otherwise I agree with your points for the most part.

Eh, but which came first ? If the tits were'nt there to sexual arouse the first men then they would'nt be impregnating the females and there be no babies to feed. Sex and pregnancy precedes birth and breastfeeding, sexual arousal via boobs and rest body therefore was essential to result in reproduction and then breastfeeding.

JC 2K3

juvenal wrote: »

Public urination is unhygenic, unsanitary and unacceptable in an urban environment.

Have you ever walked down a laneway smelling of pish?:eek:

lol, that was meant in jest.

juvenal wrote: »

There are a shedload of international studies by a range of well-respected organisations stating the benefits of breastfeeding.

You're entitled to be skeptical yourself, but evidence would suggest otherwise.

I suppose it's just my usual skeptical approach to anything. I'm by no means an expert on the subject.

juvenal wrote: »

Are you serious? Breasts and genitalia exist first and foremost to enable and support reproduction - the fact that they sexually arouse humans is at best secondary.

Why secondary? Is arousal not essential to reproduction?

juvenal

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Eh, but which came first ? If the tits were'nt there to sexual arouse the first men then they would'nt be impregnating the females and there be no babies to feed. Sex and pregnancy precedes birth and breastfeeding, sexual arousal via boobs and rest body therefore was essential to result in reproduction and then breastfeeding.

Do you think prehistoric women were strolling around in a Wonderbra and mini-skirt? I would imagine bras were developed for support reasons, not to cover up "sexual" organs.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why secondary? Is arousal not essential to reproduction?

Breasts have been sexualised by western society, one wants what one can't see - and as any man knows, you don't need breasts or a vagina to get aroused, a quick physical stimulation by hand will do the trick

Anyway - this is going waaaay OT.:D

Phototoxin

Originally Posted by Thaedydal
Wow so children should not be allowed to see the female breast being used for it's primary function to feed an infant ?

+1

Thaedydal for pope !

JC 2K3

juvenal wrote: »

Breasts have been sexualised by western society

Cultural evolution which has given a new primary purpose to breasts.

kizzyr

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Cultural evolution which has given a new primary purpose to breasts.

From a male point of view mostly though.

javaboy

kizzyr wrote: »

From a male point of view mostly though.

O rly? Women haven't played along with the idolisation of breasts?

JangoFett

Well yeah, they're sexy cuz we've been told they are for a long long time, they've been put on a pedestal

I'm sure there's a lot of women who love them too, straight or gay!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JangoFett

Maybe its just cultural evolution over the centuries coming off in physical evolution?

Terry

irishbird wrote: »

personally, i think it is just jealous on the men's part cos women can do something they cant

Meh. Women can't orgasm.



Personally, I don't want to see a woman breastfeeding in public, so I just look away when I do see it.

Dudess

Terry wrote: »

Meh. Women can't orgasm.

Oh you mean those super-short ones? No, we sure can't. Instead we have to grin and bear super-multiple ones...

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

Oh you mean those super-short ones? No, we sure can't. Instead we have to grin and bear super-multiple ones...

Multiple orgasms are a myth perpetrated by porn stars.

Nevyn

Terry wrote: »

Multiple orgasms are a myth perpetrated by porn stars.

I'm a porn star now ?

Dudess

Yeah, as far as I'm aware, I'm not a porn star... but you know what, in this day and age of lack of privacy and the interweb, you just never know... :pac:

Terry

Just a pair of liars.

ronbyrne2005

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, as far as I'm aware, I'm not a porn star... but you know what, in this day and age of lack of privacy and the interweb, you just never know... :pac:

Do you really look like Homer Simpson? If so I assume those orgasms are self induced?

marti101

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Breastfeeding = Droopy tits = Husband leaving for a younger perter model :pac:

Its pregnancy that causes droopy tits and not breastfeeding.I am not one of these women who think im superior just because i breastfed,but im not going to be made feel guilty for breastfeeding in public.I dont know the full benefits of breastfeeding but i do it because [a] i like it baby likes it [c]its way easier than the bottle all that hassle of sterilizing.[d]its good for the baby [e] I like lying in bed and feeding the baby and going back to sleep.[f]no running out of bottles/formalue while im out and about.

Nevyn

Terry wrote: »

Just a pair of liars.

You'll never know.

Dudess

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Do you really look like Homer Simpson?

The image of him! :pac:

Redpunto

Terry wrote: »

Personally, I don't want to see a woman breastfeeding in public, so I just look away when I do see it.

Think youve made the best sense in the whole forum:D

ewj1978

only bothered if im not offered any...