Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

seamus gave a good run down of the history of it here -

Seamus gave a run down of the history. It still doesn't answer my question.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Note that I said they are alternative theories (meaning I don't necessarily wholly agree that they provide a complete explanation either), cricumstantial, but they present a compelling argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose people evolved with breasts.

They don't present any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose of breasts.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Well to be fair, the child's need for breasts outweigh a mans need for breasts.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would you take it as a 'no'? You asked me -





And I pointed out to you that men have evolved with breasts too, so the argument that breastfeeding is the primary purpose as to why people evolved with breasts just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Here's an alternative theory -





Source: "New Theory on Why Men Love Breasts", LiveScience Article

And -

Hypothesis for the Evolution of Human Breasts and Buttocks


Note that I said they are alternative theories, cricumstantial, but they present a compelling argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose people evolved with breasts.

Your quote refers only to theories about why men are attracted to breasts, not why breasts evolved, and so is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

The linked article is interesting but to my doesn't contain any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose for the evolution of human breasts. It only theorises other purposes.

In fact it hypothesises that male attraction to breasts is down to a signaling of "...the female's nutritional state to males", which would indicate that male attraction to breasts is itself due to their primary function of feeding.

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

Seamus gave a run down of the history. It still doesn't answer my question.

I hadn't accounted for the fact that you needed to be so literal about it. My point in re-posting seamus' post was that it showed that formula milk is just a trend, but it's a trend that has gained widespread acceptance across the western world over a century.

sup_dude wrote: »

They don't present any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose of breasts.

Kev W wrote: »

Your quote refers only to theories about why men are attracted to breasts, not why breasts evolved, and so is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

The linked article is interesting but to my doesn't contain any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose for the evolution of human breasts. It only theorises other purposes.

In fact it hypothesises that male attraction to breasts is down to a signaling of "...the female's nutritional state to males", which would indicate that male attraction to breasts is itself due to their primary function of feeding.

Of course it only theorises other purposes, as does your assertion about the primary purpose for the evolution of breasts in humans is only a theory, because women only start to produce milk during pregnancy. Women do not produce milk if they do not become pregnant, their breasts are no more functional than male breasts.

nozzferrahhtoo

AdolfHeidler wrote: »

A Michelin starred restaurant is not place to feed your baby? People pay for premium for a particular experience there, to bring a baby and breastfeed there is highly selfish and ignorant.

Nice of you to invent your own standards and project them on to the world like they are some kind of default when they are not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have breasts Kev, can you milk me?

Probably could actually, depending on what cocktail of drugs you would be willing to take on board at my behest.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I pointed out to you that men have evolved with breasts too, so the argument that breastfeeding is the primary purpose as to why people evolved with breasts just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That does not follow at all. Note I am not arguing for OR against the notion that the primary purpose we evolved them is for breastfeeding, an argument I will stay out of for now. I am just pointing out that the fact males have them to says little about that argument. Certainly not what you just tried to use it for.

kylith

Men have nipples because all embryos start as female before the Y chromosome is expressed. You have nipples before you have a penis.

Yeah_Right

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Seriously? Are you that offended by the human body that you'd be put off your food catching a glimpse of a bit of side boob? You'd rather a defenceless baby go hungry so you can stuff your cake hole with over priced dead animal? And you're talking about offensive?? Jesus give me strength

Personally I love seeing a bit of side boob while eating my steak. Thankfully my girlfriend is happy to help me with this

Hammer89

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Personally I love seeing a bit of side boob while eating my steak. Thankfully my girlfriend is happy to help me with this

Why are you sitting beside her and not in front of her at dinner?

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably could actually, depending on what cocktail of drugs you would be willing to take on board at my behest.

Yep, and I acknowledged as much earlier on in the thread here -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Breasts aren't for feeding children, that's what mammary glands are for. Men have breasts too, and under certain circumstances can lactate too. I'm not projecting my feelings about breastfeeding on this one, on this occasion I'm suggesting that not everyone shares your reductionist thinking that breasts are solely for feeding children (which they aren't, at all). There are many people in Western society who attach far more value to women's breasts than simply serving a functional, biological purpose.

Another theory is that breasts are merely the by-products of fat deposition, according to Frances Mascia-Lees, an anthropologist and author of the book "Why Women Have Breasts" -

The ability to nurse is, of course, a defining characteristic of mammals, one that female humans share with distaff monkeys, rodents, and tenrecs. But only humans have breasts as we know them -- "pleasant orbs," as Williams puts it, that stick around (and also out) "regardless of our reproductive status." The first question Williams takes up is: Why? The quest takes her all the way to New Zealand, where she interviews Alan and Barnaby Dixson, a father-and-son academic team whose research consists of showing men pictures of naked women. The Dixsons belong to what might be called the "how to marry a caveman" school. They believe that human breasts evolved to signal sexual fitness. Opposed to them are researchers like the anthropologist Frances Mascia-Lees, of Rutgers University, who argue that human breasts serve the far less titillating purpose of energy storage. According to Mascia-Lees, breasts are merely the "by-products of fat deposition."

Source: The Nature of Breasts

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That does not follow at all. Note I am not arguing for OR against the notion that the primary purpose we evolved them is for breastfeeding, an argument I will stay out of for now. I am just pointing out that the fact males have them to says little about that argument. Certainly not what you just tried to use it for.

To be perfectly honest, the idea that breasts at all have a "primary" function, is one that doesn't sit well with me, because it implies an element of design, or purpose, which I don't think can logically be assigned to evolution. It smacks of biological determinism. My point in pointing out that males have breasts too, is simply that men also evolved with breasts, as did women, so the idea that the "primary function" of breasts is simply breastfeeding, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

I hadn't accounted for the fact that you needed to be so literal about it. My point in re-posting seamus' post was that it showed that formula milk is just a trend, but it's a trend that has gained widespread acceptance across the western world over a century.

But your reply wasn't even close to the mark, nevermind literal. I asked where the "lots" posts are that say that bottle is a trend. Not for the history. Who uses wet nurses anymore? When was the last time bottle milk produced an under developed child? Bottle feeding isn't a trend.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Of course it only theorises other purposes, as does your assertion about the primary purpose for the evolution of breasts in humans is only a theory, because women only start to produce milk during pregnancy. Women do not produce milk if they do not become pregnant, their breasts are no more functional than male breasts.

I assume by theory you mean guess, as opposed to scientific theory. It's not a guess and it's not my opinion. Feeding is the primary use for boobs, whether they are used for that all the time or not. This isn't disputable, this isn't matter of opinion or guessing. This is straight forward fact. You might think it's cold but it doesn't change it. I happen to not think it's cold at all.
Male breasts, unless something goes wrong hormonally in development, don't develop mammery glands. They cannot produce milk so even though nipples exist, they are useless. They exist purely because, as mentioned above, we are all originally female until the x chromosome kicks in and flood the fetus with testosterone.

Yeah_Right

I think this all started from a giant misunderstanding. The woman in the OP wasn't staring at the breastfeeding lady in disgust. It was bewilderment. She was thinking - why is that woman pulling her top down to breastfeed her baby? It must be very awkward and uncomfortable. Doesn't she realise that it'd be much easier if she just lifted her shirt up?

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

But your reply wasn't even close to the mark, nevermind literal. I asked where the "lots" posts are that say that bottle is a trend. Not for the history. Who uses wet nurses anymore? When was the last time bottle milk produced an under developed child? Bottle feeding isn't a trend.

Ahh, right, you were looking for lots of posts here that suggested it was just a trend. What I actually said was -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the argument being made by a lot of people, including the woman in the opening post, that formula feeding is "just a trend", and breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts. That reductionist attitude, to me at least, is just as sad as it is unrealistic. If someone can't make a better argument than an appeal to evolution, while at the same time they're choosing to wear clothes, I'd suggest their argument just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

I hear it quite a bit among advocates of breastfeeding, and they give the history of formula milk production as an indication that babies being fed with formula milk is only a recent trend in comparison to the natural concept of breastfeeding when it comes to feeding babies.

sup_dude wrote: »

I assume by theory you mean guess, as opposed to scientific theory. It's not a guess and it's not my opinion. Feeding is the primary use for boobs, whether they are used for that all the time or not. This isn't disputable, this isn't matter of opinion or guessing. This is straight forward fact. You might think it's cold but it doesn't change it. I happen to not think it's cold at all.
Male breasts, unless something goes wrong hormonally in development, don't develop mammery glands. They cannot produce milk so even though nipples exist, they are useless. They exist purely because, as mentioned above, we are all originally female until the x chromosome kicks in and flood the fetus with testosterone.

No, I don't mean that it's a guess, as it has scientific merit, but to suggest that is their primary function is a misnomer, because women don't develop breasts to feed babies, they develop breasts during puberty regardless of whether they feed babies or not.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't mean that it's a guess, as it has scientific merit, but to suggest that is their primary function is a misnomer, because women don't develop breasts to feed babies, they develop breasts during puberty regardless of whether they feed babies or not.

By that logic women don't develop a womb to gestate fetuses, they develop a womb regardless of whether they get pregnant or not.

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

I hear it quite a bit among advocates of breastfeeding, and they give the history of formula milk production as an indication that babies being fed with formula milk is only a recent trend in comparison to the natural concept of breastfeeding when it comes to feeding babies.

In comparison to breast feeding which has been about since the existence of mammals? Of course it's recent. A trend suggests that it's just gonna end. That it's something people do to fit in. That it's only temporary. I'm still waiting to see where you are getting lots of people.

One eyed Jack wrote:

No, I don't mean that it's a guess, as it has scientific merit, but to suggest that is their primary function is a misnomer, because women don't develop breasts to feed babies, they develop breasts regardless of whether they feed babies or not.

As do all mammals. They develop breasts with the purpose of feeding young. If they don't use them for that purpose, fine. Same way some women don't use boobs sexually. Where is your scientific merit? What biologist would suggest that feeding young isn't the primary purpose for breasts? And to have scientific merit, I'm looking for peer reviewed meta-analysis from creditable source. Not some blog or website article. If you claim that something has scientific merit that goes against any physiology or reproductive literature that I've seen, you need to back it up.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

By that logic women don't develop a womb to gestate fetuses, they develop a womb regardless of whether they get pregnant or not.

Yes, they do?

Not sure what your point is there tbh.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, they do?

Not sure what your point is there tbh.

Oh, I hadn't realised we'd gotten to the "because I say so" part of the discussion.:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

In comparison to breast feeding which has been about since the existence of mammals? Of course it's recent. A trend suggests that it's just gonna end. That it's something people do to fit in. That it's only temporary. I'm still waiting to see where you are getting lots of people.

I'm wondering did you think I meant 'trendy', as opposed to a trend? I don't think suggesting that something is a trend suggests at all that it's going to end, or that it's temporary. I already said where I got lots of people - from discussions about breastfeeding, it's a common point made that milk formula is only a recent trend, like the way it's trending in China in recent years, they can't get enough of the stuff!

sup_dude wrote: »

As do all mammals. They develop breasts with the purpose of feeding young. If they don't use them for that purpose, fine. Same way some women don't use boobs sexually. Where is your scientific merit? What biologist would suggest that feeding young isn't the primary purpose for breasts? And to have scientific merit, I'm looking for peer reviewed meta-analysis from creditable source. Not some blog or website article. If you claim that something has scientific merit that goes against any physiology or reproductive literature that I've seen, you need to back it up.

I've already backed it up, but it appears that unless I can find that specific sentence in the literature, you won't acknowledge it. Fair enough.

steddyeddy

The science of boobs!

http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the-science-of-boobs

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

Oh, I hadn't realised we'd gotten to the "because I say so" part of the discussion.:rolleyes:

We were at that point from the outset Kev with the woman in the OP declaring her point of view on social media, as though every woman should follow her example, and if anyone asks any questions -

Lastly, your children need to see breastfeeding for the same reason you do. They need to acknowledge, comprehend and appreciate that breast milk and breast feeding is and should forever be the first and best choice for both mom and baby. Formula and bottles are a trend. Breastfeeding is not. Your 11 year old daughter watching me nurse may say "Mom, why is that baby sucking her boobie?" But as a parent and human being that understands, respects and appreciates anatomy and mothers, your reply should only and always be "because that's the way babies eat." Hopefully it encourages your daughter to grow up with the goal to breast feed and experience the incredible bond and invaluable benefits it comes with.

If that isn't acceptable to them, then stare them down until they give in :pac:

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

I'm wondering did you think I meant 'trendy', as opposed to a trend? I don't think suggesting that something is a trend suggests at all that it's going to end, or that it's temporary. I already said where I got lots of people - from discussions about breastfeeding, it's a common point made that milk formula is only a recent trend, like the way it's trending in China in recent years, they can't get enough of the stuff!

No, trend. Trends change. That is their nature. They become common and the become less common. To say bottle feeding is becoming a trend suggests it won't be a trend at some stage.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I've already backed it up, but it appears that unless I can find that specific sentence in the literature, you won't acknowledge it. Fair enough.

No, you've produced a a web article which anyone can write, and a book, which anyone can. A biased book, I should probably point out. They aren't backing anything up.

steddyeddy wrote:

The science of boobs!

I love ASAP

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

No, trend. Trends change. That is their nature. They become common and the become less common. To say bottle feeding is becoming a trend suggests it won't be a trend at some stage.

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of it like that.

sup_dude wrote: »

No, you've produced a a web article which anyone can write, and a book, which anyone can. A biased book, I should probably point out. They aren't backing anything up.

Well that's the best I can do tbh. What have you got?

(Genuinely asking, because I know you've got something, I've seen you pull the peer-review studies when you need to so I'd genuinely be interested in reading them)

sup_dude wrote: »

I love ASAP

You'll probably like this then, in which they pose the same question as Fran Mascia-Lees (who I referred to earlier, whose reasoning for why women have breasts is that they are merely by-products of fatty deposits) -

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, and I acknowledged as much earlier on in the thread here

What you said earlier is irrelevant. You asked a question in that post, and I answered it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point in pointing out that males have breasts too, is simply that men also evolved with breasts, as did women, so the idea that the "primary function" of breasts is simply breastfeeding, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And the point of my reply is to point out that that does not follow at all, and is a completely tosh argument.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And the point of my reply is to point out that that does not follow at all, and is a completely tosh argument.

I'm very confused here as I've read it now a couple of times and I still can't make sense of what you mean by "that doesn't follow at all", when I'm not making any argument as to the "primary function" of breasts. I'm stating that because both men and women have breasts, I don't think there is a "primary function", but that they are simply a product of evolution. They don't have a "primary function".

kylith

sup_dude wrote: »

Male breasts, unless something goes wrong hormonally in development, don't develop mammery glands. They cannot produce milk so even though nipples exist, they are useless. They exist purely because, as mentioned above, we are all originally female until the x chromosome kicks in and flood the fetus with testosterone.

Actually, it's not true that male nipples are useless. It's not unusual for boys to lactate during puberty and cases in adults are growing. Probably due to the increase in gynaecomastia (men growing actual breasts) due to excess female hormones from phytoestrogens (from plants) believes to be due to a massive increase in soy consumption IIRC.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm very confused here as I've read it now a couple of times and I still can't make sense of what you mean by "that doesn't follow at all", when I'm not making any argument as to the "primary function" of breasts. I'm stating that because both men and women have breasts, I don't think there is a "primary function", but that they are simply a product of evolution. They don't have a "primary function".

So, since they're a product of evolution the primary function of my feet isn't locomotion? What about the fact that there are societies which sees nothing sexual about breasts at all? Mammary glands evolved to feed young. Breasts are just advertisements of milk production. Whether or not men go gaga over them is cultural. FFS there are cultures that would behead me for showing off my hair and yet see nothing worth commenting on when a woman breastfeeds in public.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Actually, it's not true that male nipples are useless. It's not unusual for boys to lactate during puberty and cases in adults are growing. Probably due to the increase in gynaecomastia (men growing actual breasts) due to excess female hormones from phytoestrogens (from plants) believes to be due to a massive increase in soy consumption IIRC.

I'll be honest, at first the idea that it's not unusual for boys to lactate during puberty surprised me, but the explanation certainly makes sense.

kylith wrote: »

So, since they're a product of evolution the primary function of my feet isn't locomotion?

No, it isn't. Your feet are like any other part of your body a product of evolution - you use your feet for balance while your butt muscles and your legs are doing most of the locomotive work in propelling your skeleton forward.

kylith wrote: »

What about the fact that there are societies which sees nothing sexual about breasts at all? Mammary glands evolved to feed young. Breasts are just advertisements of milk production. Whether or not men go gaga over them is cultural. FFS there are cultures that would behead me for showing off my hair and yet see nothing worth commenting on when a woman breastfeeds in public.

I know of no culture that doesn't see anything sexual about breasts. Perhaps in varying degrees among cultures, but then even if you were to drill down into those cultures, it wouldn't be unusual to find people who have no sexual interest in breasts, and people who see breasts as completely sexual. The idea that there are reasons behind evolution is as I suggested earlier, simply biological determinism. I wouldn't see them as advertisements for milk production because they normally only produce milk when a woman is pregnant.

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

Well that's the best I can do tbh. What have you got?

One eyed Jack wrote:

(Genuinely asking, because I know you've got something, I've seen you pull the peer-review studies when you need to so I'd genuinely be interested in reading them)

One eyed Jack wrote:

Well that's the best I can do tbh. What have you got?
(Genuinely asking, because I know you've got something, I've seen you pull the peer-review studies when you need to so I'd genuinely be interested in reading them)

If you don't mind waiting, I'll get it all after work

kylith wrote:

Actually, it's not true that male nipples are useless. It's not unusual for boys to lactate during puberty and cases in adults are growing. Probably due to the increase in gynaecomastia (men growing actual breasts) due to excess female hormones from phytoestrogens (from plants) believes to be due to a massive increase in soy consumption IIRC.

I've heard of that. It's also linked to a delay in the X chromosome taking affect, allowing for mammary glands to develop enough to work during puberty. I've heard of the soy but I haven't read much into it. I had been told it's pretty rare though.

mynameis905

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see any glaring inconsistency, no, all I see is you constantly trying to point out an inconsistency that doesn't exist

You don't see any inconsistencies in your posts?

How about these two for starters:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there some necessity in Western society for women to breastfeed in public? I don't think there is

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it's necessary to feed a baby in public

Still don't see it?

One eyed Jack

mynameis905 wrote: »

You don't see any inconsistencies in your posts?

How about these two for starters:





Still don't see it?

No I don't see it. I see the word breastfeed in the first post, I don't see it in the second.

Is it necessary to feed babies in public? Of course it is.

Is it necessary to breastfeed babies in public? Of course it isn't.

No inconsistency.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm very confused here as I've read it now a couple of times and I still can't make sense of what you mean by "that doesn't follow at all"

The argument you made, that men having breasts somehow negates the idea that "the primary function of breasts is breastfeeding". That is what does not follow at all.

As I said I am not making an argument as to what, if anything, their primary function is, or is not. I am just pointing out that THAT argument is a useless one to make in the discussion.

melissak

While I think this woman is a bit attention seeking people's attitudes to breastfeeding need to change. It is a perfectly natural thing to do. I breastfed all my children, discretely, and I have got many inappropriate comments looks etc. My own mother told me to feed the baby in the bedroom in the beginning. She's over it now, and I don't blame her as it is a generational thing. It is water off a ducks back for me now but it does put people off breastfeeding.

tinkerbell

Some of the attitudes on this thread are so ignorant and vile. The WHO and many more health organisations all recommend breastfeeding exclusively for 6 months and to continue breastfeeding alongside solid food for 2 years and beyond.

I read some comments of "if they can ask for it, they are too old". What absolute nonsense. It's milk tailored specifically for that child full of antibodies, hormones, anti viruses, etc etc, none of which are in formula. Why would you deny a child something that is SO good for them just because they can now ask for some of their mother's milk? Would you prefer them to drink cow's milk which is tailored specifically to a calf? Rather than letting the child have the milk that is tailored to that particular individual? If the child wants to breastfeed for however long, they should be able to. Breastmilk changes all the time. It's different in the morning, it's different in the evening. It's different for a newborn, an older baby, a toddler, a child. If the baby is sick, the mother's body produces antibodies in her milk to help her baby get better. Any reasonable person would admit that this is an amazing feature of breastmilk. It can help your baby if your baby is ill.

And then there's other such gems as if the mother is breastfeeding a toddler that the mother is only doing it "for herself". Again, see above point - the benefits are all for the nursing child. The amount of ignorance in this thread is astounding.

And as for feeding in public, people need to stop clutching their pearls and get over their own issues. The purpose of breasts is to feed an infant, not to provide sexual gratification. And WTF was up with saying breastfeeding is like urinating? Or saying breasts are genitals? It's not just ignorance but plain stupidity. Breasts are not genitals FFS.

And yes it does seem like the majority of posts are along the lines of "I'm not racist but". This is a sad world we live in where something that has been around for thousands of years is treated with such disgust and all because of the disgusting marketing tactics of formula companies (who are responsible for thousands of deaths in the developing world over selling formula to mothers without detailing how to safely prepare bottles) and the Catholic Church who had such practises that women needed to be churched after giving birth.

I suggest that those of you who think it's disgusting or not normal or whatever to actually go educate yourselves on why mothers breastfeed their children, and in particular their older children.

ohnonotgmail

mynameis905 wrote: »

You don't see any inconsistencies in your posts?

How about these two for starters:

Is there some necessity in Western society for women to breastfeed in public? I don't think there is

Of course it's necessary to feed a baby in public

Still don't see it?

I dont see any inconsistency there. They can breastfeed somewhere private or they can feed with a bottle of breastmilk in public. You are seeing inconsistencies where none exists.

tinkerbell

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see any inconsistency there. They can breastfeed somewhere private or they can feed with a bottle of breastmilk in public. You are seeing inconsistencies where none exists.

Who are you to dictate that a mother should breastfeed her baby in private or if she wants to feed in public, that she should do so with expressed milk? First of all, why should a woman pump just because you might feel inconvenienced? You, who are nothing to do with her. And b, pumping is not an option to many women anyway! And c, pumping is time consuming, lots of women don't wish to do so. Have you ever tried to pump milk? No? Thought not :rolleyes:

melissak

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see any inconsistency there. They can breastfeed somewhere private or they can feed with a bottle of breastmilk in public. You are seeing inconsistencies where none exists.

Why should they. Fresh breast milk has many beneficial elements that die in a bottle. Also pumping is uncomfortable and takes ages, I couldn't do it atall. If it offends you look away. That is why you have a neck that turns ffs. You can breastfeed discretely and most women do. If you didn't gawk in order to be offended you wouldn't see it. This attitude isn't far from insisting women wear burka so imo

NachoBusiness

tinkerbell wrote: »

Some of the attitudes on this thread are so ignorant and vile. The WHO and many more health organisations all recommend breastfeeding exclusively for 6 months and to continue breastfeeding alongside solid food for 2 years and beyond.

In fairness, I wouldn't pay too much attention to what Daltrey and Townshend have to say.

tinkerbell

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In fairness, I wouldn't pay too much attention to what Daltrey and Townshend have to say.

LOL :pac: ok I'll rephrase - the World Health Organisation!

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see any inconsistency there. They can breastfeed somewhere private or they can feed with a bottle of breastmilk in public. You are seeing inconsistencies where none exists.

Alternatively, you can avail of the completely feasible alternative strategy of looking at something else.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know of no culture that doesn't see anything sexual about breasts. Perhaps in varying degrees among cultures, but then even if you were to drill down into those cultures, it wouldn't be unusual to find people who have no sexual interest in breasts, and people who see breasts as completely sexual. The idea that there are reasons behind evolution is as I suggested earlier, simply biological determinism. I wouldn't see them as advertisements for milk production because they normally only produce milk when a woman is pregnant.

Human breasts are an outlier among the other apes. That men find them attractive at all is odd. In all other great apes breasts are only full when the mother is lactating. All other times they're empty. When lactating they're also sub fertile so big full boobs to say a chimp would be a major turnoff. they'd be turned on by flat sagging boobs. Opposite land time.

Somewhere in our evolution there was a very strong selective pressure for full boobs all the time and a switch in what was found at least attractive if not out and out sexual. It might be something as simple as an obvious sign of youth and reproductive fitness. In the times before bras and the like boobs very much had a clock running and their size, pertness or not would have been a good indicator of fecundity.