Christmas’ missing icon: Mary breastfeeding Jesus

[Jetavan]

“Ask anybody in the street what’s the primary Christian symbol and they would say the crucifixion,” said Margaret Miles, author of A Complex Delight: The Secularization of the Breast, 1350-1750, a book that traces the disappearance of the image of the breast-feeding Mary after the Renaissance.

“It was the takeover of the crucifixion as the major symbol of God’s love for humanity” that supplanted the breast-feeding icon, she said. And that was a decisive shift from the earliest days of Christianity when “the virgin’s nursing breast, the lactating virgin, was the primary symbol of God’s love for humanity.”

In fact, the oldest known image of the Virgin Mary is from a third-century fresco in a Roman catacomb that shows the infant Jesus suckling at her exposed breast.

From those early traces, the motif of “Maria Lactans,” as it is called in Latin, became increasingly popular – and increasingly graphic – an illustration of what the Catholic writer Sandra Miesel called “the shocking fleshiness of our faith.”
....
Whatever the obstacles, Miles thinks it would be a good thing for the culture, and Christianity, if Maria Lactans made at least a brief return to church – at Christmas or anytime.

[Schultz]

My wife's grandmother had one of these hanging at the top of the stairs in the house we live in now.

It has since been replaced with a "regular" icon corner for no other reason than I felt there was enough of Grandma's "old stuff" hanging around and I wanted my put my own mark on the house. 

[LBK]

Icon of the Mother of God Milk-giver/Galaktotrophoussa/Mlekopitatel'nitsa:



And this one, from a Nativity fresco dating from the very late 13th century:

[Quinault]

I think it is all the years of breastfeeding, but all the breastfeeding icons make me cringe. It looks like Christ is biting and pulling her nipple OUCH!

[Eastern Mind]

Icon of the Mother of God Milk-giver/Galaktotrophoussa/Mlekopitatel'nitsa:

I like this one a lot

[LBK]

This icon type is an example of an icon which attests to Christ’s humanity. It counters the heresies which denied the full humanity of Christ.  Orthodox hymnography for the Mother of God frequently refers to her nursing the infant Christ, and the standard Gospel reading for the Divine Liturgy of any feast of the Mother of God includes Luke 11:27.

However, in proper iconographic tradition, while the Virgin’s breast is visible, it is rendered in a non-anatomical way: the breast emerges from her garments about halfway between her shoulder and where her "real" breast would be. This anatomical anomaly has been interpreted by some as an indication that iconography was a naïve art form, that iconographers "couldn’t draw or paint". Not so. The anatomical distortion was a deliberate gesture to portray a theological truth (that Christ was fully human as well as fully divine), while not risking any sensual or corrupting implications regarding the portrayal of the Virgin’s breast.

[Quinault]

That anatomical distortion is a distraction. And it honestly makes me *feel* her pain. It would be less distracting to do an icon with Christ latched if you want to show his face.

[Quinault]

[Quinault]

[simplygermain]

this is my favorite one.

[Nephi]

Wrongly or not, I just can't help but find breastfeeding icons unsettling.

[simplygermain]

Wrongly or not, I just can't help but find breastfeeding icons unsettling.

How much breastfeeding have you been around as an adult. We've got 3 kids and live in the progressive northwest so for me it's no big deal...women flop em out for their kiddos and a smart man just diverts the eyes! Lol! 

[Nephi]

How much breastfeeding have you been around as an adult. We've got 3 kids and live in the progressive northwest so for me it's no big deal...women flop em out for their kiddos and a smart man just diverts the eyes! Lol! 

Very different! 

I'm not exposed to it at all here. Women that do it do so privately and/or carry breastmilk bottles around others or in public. Any kind of non-private breastfeeding is generally frowned upon, as far as I can tell.

[Kerdy]

It won't find it's way into my home.

[Michał Kalina]

I'm not exposed to it at all here. Women that do it do so privately and/or carry breastmilk bottles around others or in public. Any kind of non-private breastfeeding is generally frowned upon, as far as I can tell.

Barbarian lands.

[Jetavan]

Wrongly or not, I just can't help but find breastfeeding icons unsettling.

How do you think Jesus ate as an infant?

[Cyrillic]

Does this belong in the schlock icons thread?

[LBK]

Does this belong in the schlock icons thread?

You mean the Milk-giver icons posted? No. They're not schlock.

[Asteriktos]

Wrongly or not, I just can't help but find breastfeeding icons unsettling.

How do you think Jesus ate as an infant?

Rule #374: We don't speak of anything having to do with bodily fluids when it comes to Jesus. 

[Nephi]

Wrongly or not, I just can't help but find breastfeeding icons unsettling.

How do you think Jesus ate as an infant?

Like I said in my follow-up, it's not the act of breastfeeding that's the problem but doing so that others can see it.

[Agabus]

Wrongly or not, I just can't help but find breastfeeding icons unsettling.

How do you think Jesus ate as an infant?

Like I said in my follow-up, it's not the act of breastfeeding that's the problem but doing so that others can see it.

Be a man.

We have one of these icons, but had to order it from Ukraine because we couldn't find it stateside.

[Quinault]

The US is almost the worst about breast feeding taboos among world cultures.

I think on some level the concept that breast feeding was just for the poor that couldn't afford a wet nurse (before the advent of formula) or later to buy "real" milk in formula form has persisted for whatever reason.

Now, I don't think women should be out there with their whole breast exposed. But I don't think that seeing the top of a breast should be offensive to anyone. You see more breast on billboards, TV, magazines, movies and ads in the mall than you do a woman that is breast feeding.

Although, I have always wanted to buy one of these for a baby, just to rankle some extremely prudish people



It's just a hat folks!

[Michał Kalina]

I think on some level the concept that breast feeding was just for the poor that couldn't afford a wet nurse (before the advent of formula) or later to buy "real" milk in formula form has persisted for whatever reason.

....

[Quinault]

I do breast feed in public. It is completely ridiculous to insist that women breast feed in the bathroom, or in the car. Breast feeding in the bathroom is just gross and unsanitary. In my case it would be impossible for me to breast feed in the car or bathroom. It would require either taking all of the kids into the bathroom with me, or taking all the kids in the car and strapping them in their seats. Getting 4 kids in car seats takes at least 15 minutes. Getting from the store, to the car is at least another 15. With a baby that nurses every 2 hours, well let's just say I would never get anything done. I have used cover-ups to nurse. After a certain point they just make everything more difficult. One would have to watch very closely (and by that I mean you would have to have your face within 1 foot of my body) to see anything when I latch a baby on/off.

[Michał Kalina]

I do breast feed in public. It is completely ridiculous to insist that women breast feed in the bathroom, or in the car. Breast feeding in the bathroom is just gross and unsanitary. In my case it would be impossible for me to breast feed in the car or bathroom. It would require either taking all of the kids into the bathroom with me, or taking all the kids in the car and strapping them in their seats. Getting 4 kids in car seats takes at least 15 minutes. Getting from the store, to the car is at least another 15. With a baby that nurses every 2 hours, well let's just say I would never get anything done.

Sanity is not lost.

[Eastern Mind]

I do breast feed in public. It is completely ridiculous to insist that women breast feed in the bathroom, or in the car. Breast feeding in the bathroom is just gross and unsanitary. In my case it would be impossible for me to breast feed in the car or bathroom. It would require either taking all of the kids into the bathroom with me, or taking all the kids in the car and strapping them in their seats. Getting 4 kids in car seats takes at least 15 minutes. Getting from the store, to the car is at least another 15. With a baby that nurses every 2 hours, well let's just say I would never get anything done. I have used cover-ups to nurse. After a certain point they just make everything more difficult. One would have to watch very closely (and by that I mean you would have to have your face within 1 foot of my body) to see anything when I latch a baby on/off.

+1

[Quinault]

It is important to know that in certain states breastfeeding in public is not protected by law. You can actually get arrested for doing it if the police choose to. At the very least you can be kicked out of stores and restaraunts.

[Nephi]

It is important to know that in certain states breastfeeding in public is not protected by law. You can actually get arrested for doing it if the police choose to. At the very least you can be kicked out of stores and restaraunts.

I think it's illegal as indecent exposure in my state, but may be wrong on that. A woman would very likely be asked to leave, though. Certain places like my university have breastfeeding-designated rooms.

[Quinault]

If your profile is correct, and you are in Ohio then it is protected by law. But since the indecent exposure law doesn't exclude breast feeding, there is a great deal of leeway.


http://breastfeedinglaw.com/


But with a local attitude toward breast feeding like you speak of, it is no surprise that Ohio only has 30-39% of babies still breastfeeding at 6 months.

http://www.inhabitots.com/cdc-breastfeeding-report-card-shows-best-and-worst-breastfeeding-states/
(for those offended by breastfeeding, don't look at the second page of the above article)

[Nephi]

If you profile is correct, and you are in Ohio then it is protected by law. But since the indecent exposure doesn't exclude breast feeding, there is a great deal of leeway.

http://breastfeedinglaw.com/

But with a local attitude toward breast feeding like you speak of, it is no surprise that Ohio only has 30-39% of babies still breastfeeding at 6 months.

http://www.inhabitots.com/cdc-breastfeeding-report-card-shows-best-and-worst-breastfeeding-states/
(for those offended by breastfeeding, don't look at the second page of the above article)

Interesting.

If you look at the comments people posted under the Ohio law page, you'll see what I mean about local sentiment.

However your second link speaks of breastfeeding in general, whereas cultural tabboo is against visual and public breastfeeding. The two might correlate, but I've known women to pump and/or breastfeed, but they do the latter in private and use bottles in public. This behavior is locally accepted as fine and/or a good thing.

Although, I heard recently of a woman sitting down in a store to breastfeed and she wasn't asked to leave, even though she was blocking up an aisle. It probably just varies.

[Quinault]

Unless a woman is VERY, VERY committed, they will not pump for exclusive feeding for longer than 6 months. Then women tend to give solids rather than pump because it is simply easier. Pumping is extremely time consuming. Public perceptions of breast feeding have a direct effect upon how long a woman will breast feed. Breast feeding for 2 years is recommended. If I pumped for every public feeding, I would have been pumping for about a decade solid now.


There is another issue that as a man you won't be able to understand. It takes excess milk to feed a baby a bottle. You produce enough milk for each feeding. So in order to have enough milk to skip a feed, you have to have a stockpile of milk large enough. On average a 2 month old baby eats somewhere around 3 oz every 2 hours. If you are out and about for 6 hours you need 9 oz of milk. Mom likely produces that much almost exactly. So she has to pump after every feeding. That 9 oz could take a week to a month to get. Pumping also has a direct effect on infant weight gain. Human milk, like cow milk, has a fatty component as well as a thinner component. You can pump and increase the foremilk which is thin. You can't increase the hindmilk. The hindmilk is what causes a baby to gain weight, as well as feel satisfied after a feeding. Too much foremilk causes colic, poor weight gain and a host of other issues.

Pumping takes a very, very long time. A pump can't get all the milk a baby can. I can feed my baby directly and get more down him in 15 minutes than I could from pumping for a half hour. The hormones that allow letdown are not triggered by pumping. It is depressing, isolating, and frustrating to pump.

[Quinault]

I think people have this idea that women produce milk like a tap. Although women produce milk continuously, we don't produce a limitless amount continuously. I can't just skip breast feeding an infant without some milk stockpiled AND discomfort. Skipping a feeding is not comfortable. Just like if you had a bladder full of 4 oz of urine for hours would not be comfortable. I am sure that you have had someone press upon your bladder while it was full. Now imagine how it would feel if that bladder was constantly brushed up against, and you were continuing to accumulate more and more urine until instead of 3 oz in your bladder you had 9 oz. Additionally, imagine if the sound of your child crying caused you to starting leaking! Women are not designed to skip a feeding without discomfort. And if you skip too many feedings, you lose supply. By feeding bottles you miss feeds, by missing feeds you tell your body to produce less milk.

[Quinault]

If the Theotokos had pumped for public feeding she would have had to do it ultra old school; the milking yourself into a bowl method!

[JamesRottnek]

this is my favorite one.

I find this one kind of creepy.

[Jason.Wike]

Don't tell Robert Lentz about this.

[LBK]

Don't tell Robert Lentz about this.

I shudder to think what he'd do with it. Oh, wait - he's homosexual, with a predilection for painting gay blades. Though he has also painted Sts Felicity and Perpetua with lesbian intent ...

[Jetavan]

May one breast-feed in Church?

Early this year, a Georgia [USA] woman claimed she was kicked out of worship for breast-feeding her infant. I know a bit of what she must have felt: On a family trip to St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, as I started to breast-feed my son in the sanctuary, I was whisked away by a security guard to the bathroom. Countless other Christian women, trying to feed their children without having to miss a sermon, have faced the disapproval of others who think breasts have no place in the sanctuary.

How widespread the no-breast-feeding rule is in U.S. churches is hard to say. But one thing's clear: Our squeamishness over breast-feeding has little precedent in the church. Instead, Christians have long celebrated this aspect of Jesus' early life. Church father Ephrem the Syrian wrote a collection of hymns on the Nativity, including this, which connects the humble picture of Jesus nursing from Mary's breasts to Jesus' generous provision as King of all creation:

The Lofty One became like a little child,
yet hidden in Him was a treasure of
Wisdom that suffices for all.
He was lofty but he sucked Mary's milk,
and from His blessings all creation sucks.

[Jetavan]

Does this belong in the schlock icons thread?

You mean the Milk-giver icons posted? No. They're not schlock.

What's "milk-giver" in Greek? "Galatokos"?

[Michał Kalina]

May one breast-feed in Church?

I've seen such. No one complained.

What's "milk-giver" in Greek? "Galatokos"?

Galaktotrophoussa

[augustin717]

Public breast-feeding was so common around where I grew up that hardly anybody gave it a thought. I mean there was nothing "counter-cultural" about it.

[88Devin12]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

[augustin717]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

That's the point, they didn't cover themselves. Not those I saw at least.

[ialmisry]

Unless a woman is VERY, VERY committed, they will not pump for exclusive feeding for longer than 6 months. Then women tend to give solids rather than pump because it is simply easier. Pumping is extremely time consuming. Public perceptions of breast feeding have a direct effect upon how long a woman will breast feed. Breast feeding for 2 years is recommended. If I pumped for every public feeding, I would have been pumping for about a decade solid now.


There is another issue that as a man you won't be able to understand. It takes excess milk to feed a baby a bottle. You produce enough milk for each feeding. So in order to have enough milk to skip a feed, you have to have a stockpile of milk large enough. On average a 2 month old baby eats somewhere around 3 oz every 2 hours. If you are out and about for 6 hours you need 9 oz of milk. Mom likely produces that much almost exactly. So she has to pump after every feeding. That 9 oz could take a week to a month to get. Pumping also has a direct effect on infant weight gain. Human milk, like cow milk, has a fatty component as well as a thinner component. You can pump and increase the foremilk which is thin. You can't increase the hindmilk. The hindmilk is what causes a baby to gain weight, as well as feel satisfied after a feeding. Too much foremilk causes colic, poor weight gain and a host of other issues.

Pumping takes a very, very long time. A pump can't get all the milk a baby can. I can feed my baby directly and get more down him in 15 minutes than I could from pumping for a half hour. The hormones that allow letdown are not triggered by pumping. It is depressing, isolating, and frustrating to pump.

Just to chime in, breast-feeding is not as easy as some would make it out to be.

[ialmisry]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

That's the point, they didn't cover themselves. Not those I saw at least.

Have to say, this is how it is still done in the Middle East. And if Muslims don't freak out at the sight of feeding breast, the Americans can get over it (btw, I still haven't. Comes from growing up in the US).

[NicholasMyra]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

[Tallitot]

Florida shrine devoted to Mary nursing:
http://www.missionandshrine.org/la_leche.htm

[Quinault]

These images bother me!

[LBK]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

This.

If folks are so squeamish about women breastfeeding, even if they do so discreetly, then perhaps they should sanitize this passage which is part of the standard Gospel reading during the Divine Liturgy on feasts of the Mother of God:

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed!”

There are also a good number of Theotokia which refer to her suckling Christ - should these be edited as well so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities?  

[LBK]

These images bother me!

They bother me as well. Yes, I know that they are not from Orthodox tradition, but where's the theological or doctrinal justification for anyone other than Christ to feed from the Mother of God's breast? Good grief!

[Eastern Mind]

These images bother me!

WOAH. who is that anyway? They bother me too. 

[Schultz]

It's St. Bernard of Clairvaux.

You can read about the story behind these images here

[podkarpatska]

It's St. Bernard of Clairvaux.

You can read about the story behind these images here

Nothing like throwing a bucket of cold water on Orthodox outrage....The pics are still weirding me out though...

[Jetavan]

God acts in strange ways.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

[LBK]

God acts in strange ways.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

There is a world of difference between having the pure and innocent faith of a child, and presuming to suckle from the breast that God Himself was fed from. What sort of person dares to touch the living Ark? And in such a way? There is so much that is wrong with this "vision" of St Bernard. The description of the Virgin moistening his lips moistened with her milk is one thing - but the idea of her giving him her breast to suckle, and the reason why, flies in the face of a true and proper regard for the Mother of God. It's simply bad theology.

[Nephi]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

No. As Jetavan pointed out in another thread, many people here (in my cultural region) are some form of Scots-Irish Protestants, not exactly Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

[Nephi]

This.

If folks are so squeamish about women breastfeeding, even if they do so discreetly, then perhaps they should sanitize this passage which is part of the standard Gospel reading during the Divine Liturgy on feasts of the Mother of God:

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed!”

There are also a good number of Theotokia which refer to her suckling Christ - should these be edited as well so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities?  

I think most wouldn't have a problem with that. It's the seeing it that's the problem.

[ialmisry]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

No. As Jetavan pointed out in another thread, many people here (in my cultural region) are some form of Scots-Irish Protestants, not exactly Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Same thing, God's Frozen People from the British Isles.

btw, you are aware that the Irish national anthem refers to the Scots-Irish Protestants as the "Saxon Foe"?

[ialmisry]

God acts in strange ways.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

There is a world of difference between having the pure and innocent faith of a child, and presuming to suckle from the breast that God Himself was fed from. What sort of person dares to touch the living Ark? And in such a way? There is so much that is wrong with this "vision" of St Bernard. The description of the Virgin moistening his lips moistened with her milk is one thing - but the idea of her giving him her breast to suckle, and the reason why, flies in the face of a true and proper regard for the Mother of God. It's simply bad theology.

As are visions in general.

[Nephi]

Same thing, God's Frozen People from the British Isles.

btw, you are aware that the Irish national anthem refers to the Scots-Irish Protestants as the "Saxon Foe"?

I don't think I've ever heard the Irish anthem, and I didn't know that.

[Jetavan]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

No. As Jetavan pointed out in another thread, many people here (in my cultural region) are some form of Scots-Irish Protestants, not exactly Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Same thing, God's Frozen People from the British Isles.

btw, you are aware that the Irish national anthem refers to the Scots-Irish Protestants as the "Saxon Foe"?

Was the anthem specifically referring to the Scots-Irish specifically, or to the initiators of the colonization, King James and the English powers?

[ialmisry]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

No. As Jetavan pointed out in another thread, many people here (in my cultural region) are some form of Scots-Irish Protestants, not exactly Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Same thing, God's Frozen People from the British Isles.

btw, you are aware that the Irish national anthem refers to the Scots-Irish Protestants as the "Saxon Foe"?

Was the anthem specifically referring to the Scots-Irish specifically, or to the initiators of the colonization, King James and the English powers?

Not that it matters much-King James I of England was first King James VI of Scotland-but the anthem dates from the 19th century, as it also refers to Irish Americans coming to fight the "Saxon foes."  The song was set down in 1907.  It would be the Scots-Irish, rather than the Anglo-Saxon English, that they were fighting off in Ireland then.

[JamesR]

Oh you silly pseudo-Victorian Puritanical prudes. Tell me, what is so disturbing or taboo about a woman popping her breast out her shirt to feed her child? You see women in revealing clothing all the time who expose even more, but when a mother tries to feed her kid you all get scared at the sight of a breast.

EDIT: Isn't there an even more explicit Icon based off of an account from one of the non-canonical Gospels which depicts a person sticking their finger inside of the Theotokos' "lady parts" to see if she was really a virgin or not?

[88Devin12]

Oh you silly pseudo-Victorian Puritanical prudes. Tell me, what is so disturbing or taboo about a woman popping her breast out her shirt to feed her child? You see women in revealing clothing all the time who expose even more, but when a mother tries to feed her kid you all get scared at the sight of a breast.

EDIT: Isn't there an even more explicit Icon based off of an account from one of the non-canonical Gospels which depicts a person sticking their finger inside of the Theotokos' "lady parts" to see if she was really a virgin or not?

No you don't see more than just a breast from girls who are scantily clad. If you equate a stomach, a shoulder or a thigh with a breast, then you've got some problems.

I suppose then, there wouldn't be anything wrong with a guy exposing his junk in public to urinate since it is just something natural right?

You shouldn't be seeing more than a breast on a grown woman unless its your own mother or your wife. I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

[Quinault]

The baby's head covers the majority of the breast on 95% of women. You see more cleavage on the average woman wearing a v-neck shirt than you do a breast feeding mother. And since most women lift their shirt to breast feed, you won't even see that much. If you have seen a lingerie ad, or a woman in a bikini you have seen more breast than you would a breast feeding mother. If you have ever watched a movie made after 1970, you have seen more cleavage than you would the average breast feeding mother.


And don't even try to do the whole urination argument. Until urine is a source of sustenance for another human being your argument is offensive, and pointless.

[NicholasMyra]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

[NicholasMyra]

EDIT: Isn't there an even more explicit Icon based off of an account from one of the non-canonical Gospels which depicts a person sticking their finger inside of the Theotokos' "lady parts" to see if she was really a virgin or not?

I have heard of midwives washing the baby Christ in icons, but never actual Protoevangelistic prodding.

You know, because Jesus was born out of the Theotokos's birth canal, they wash the baby after a birth.

[88Devin12]

The baby's head covers the majority of the breast on 95% of women. You see more cleavage on the average woman wearing a v-neck shirt than you do a breast feeding mother. And since most women lift their shirt to breast feed, you won't even see that much. If you have seen a lingerie ad, or a woman in a bikini you have seen more breast than you would a breast feeding mother. If you have ever watched a movie made after 1970, you have seen more cleavage than you would the average breast feeding mother.


And don't even try to do the whole urination argument. Until urine is a source of sustenance for another human being your argument is offensive, and pointless.

I really disagree with those statements. Yes, there are SOME women who are thankfully more respectful and discreet about it. There are others though, who probably couldn't care less or whose size causes more to be revealed than should be.

I've known several women who've breast fed and have sat with them visiting, yet they all had covers, I wouldn't have been in there otherwise.

If you are Bear Grills, urine IS a source of sustenance... ... ...

I also never said excessive cleavage also wasn't offensive. I think women should wear much less revealing clothes and in fact, they are far more attractive when they don't try to look like they belong on the side of the road.

Like I said, they provide covers now, and there isn't any reason to not use them.

[88Devin12]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

[Quinault]

Like I said, they provide covers now, and there isn't any reason to not use them.

Spoken like someone that has never tried to use one. After a certain point you end up showing MORE breast trying to use a cover than you would just lifting your shirt. You have to basically pull your shirt up to your chin under those things to see well enough to latch. Once a baby is capable, they pull those things off or up faster than you can imagine. So instead of a constant amount of cover, with just the head of the baby poking out, you end up flashing everyone every time your baby yanks the cover wrong. And for someone like me that is incapable of breast feeding without two hands, it is just impossible. No one likes a blanket on their head, babies included. Trying to breast feed whilst keeping a cover on is like trying to hold an octopus.


Until you actually *have breasts* don't think that you actually know how challenging it is to do. How about I tell you that when you want to urinate you aren't allowed to use your hands.

[Quinault]

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

Actually you have it all wrong. It is American culture that is almost exclusively squeamish about breasts. You can go to Islamic countries where a woman is wearing a covering so not even her eyes are showing, and she will openly breastfeed without a cover.

[Quinault]

Islam is so different on breastfeeding, that they had a breast feeding fatwa!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6681511.stm

Dr Izzat Atiya of Egypt's al-Azhar University said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.

His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

The president of al-Azhar denounced the fatwa, which Dr Atiya has since retracted, as defamatory to Islam.

According to Islamic tradition, or Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

 


Muslim faith actually encourages women to nurse a child at least 2 years. Many articles also suggest that pumping and giving bottles isn't good enough.

http://www.islamcan.com/raising-children-in-islam/importance-of-breastfeeding-a-muslim-child.shtml

One of the most important responsibilities a Muslim woman has towards her children is to nourish their minds, bodies and souls with her milk for a period of two years. Her reward for this is so great that if she dies during this period she dies with the status of a martyr. In an age when we see many women choosing to feed their babies powdered milk formula in plastic bottles as a sign of "modernity," we should make an effort to educate ourselves about the unique benefits of breastfeeding so that we do not deprive ourselves and our children of this extraordinary opportunity to gain the pleasure of Allah, Most Glorious.

First of all, every woman's milk is uniquely suited to meet the needs of her own baby. For example, the milk will be richer in the event of a premature birth, helping the baby to make up for his small size. The composition of the milk also changes from feeding to feeding and as the baby grows in order to meet the baby's nutritional needs at each stage of his development. In addition, breastmilk contains at least 100 ingredients and nutrients not found in formula, and these are essential in providing immunities to disease, protection against allergies and prevention against ear infections, digestive disorders and various other ailments common among bottle-fed children. Cow's milk, on the other hand, contains high concentrations of proteins and hormones which are necessary for baby cows to grow normally but which are too rough for a human baby's delicate system.

If this is not enough motivation, breastfeeding is also good for mothers. In the days immediately following birth, the baby's suckling helps the mother's uterus to contract to its normal size. Many women do not get pregnant while breastfeeding (although a small percentage do), so this serves as a natural method of birth control and way of spacing apart children. Breastfeeding women typically regain their pre-pregnancy figures more quickly than other women and are much less prone to breast cancer later in life. Breastfeeding saves money (you never need to buy special equipment), and so long as the baby is feeding regularly and enthusiastically and growing at the rate appropriate for his age, you never need to worry about how much you are feeding him because he will determine the right amount of milk to drink on his own.

Some women express their breastmilk and store it in the refrigerator so that other caretakers can be assigned to feed their babies with the aid of bottles. While these babies get some of the nutritional goodness of their mothers' milk, they miss out on all the emotional and psychological comforts of breastfeeding which are just as important as the physical benefits. The act of breastfeeding creates a special bond between mother and child as it requires the mother to embrace her child several times each day. The babies, in turn, find comfort in their mothers' arms and learn to trust that they have a safe place to go for love and sustenance. In the period of two years, something special has undoubtedly taken place between mother and child.

It is rare these days to find women who breastfeed their children for two whole years as recommended in Islam. Attitudes have changed, and many women have been convinced that powdered formula (a manufactured drink!) is better than their own milk! May all women reflect upon Allah's greatness and have confidence in their ability to produce milk in order to nourish their children in the best possible manner. Do not ever forget that formula is a 20th-century invention and that babies since the beginning of time have thrived without it. What's more, the main motivation of the formula industry is to make money while the supposed "convenience" of bottle-feeding has pushed women into the workplace and away from their responsibilities as mothers.

[88Devin12]

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

Actually you have it all wrong. It is American culture that is almost exclusively squeamish about breasts. You can go to Islamic countries where a woman is wearing a covering so not even her eyes are showing, and she will openly breastfeed without a cover.

Muslims aren't a model though, and neither are the Asian cultures. I would also exclude modern Western Europeans.

[Quinault]

So what culture would you have a model? Older European? Because they don't traditionally require covering either. Up until the Victorian era, they didn't cover. The Victorian era is when only the poor breastfed. But men also had their penis' pierced so they could get into certain styles of pants

My native culture certainly didn't cover given the fact that no one wore *any* clothing whatsoever the majority of the time. African cultures? Nope, that don't cover either.

[NicholasMyra]

Either your mother or your wife.

Too bad for the baby, then.

Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Breastfeeding is not "in the gutter".

That's the whole point.

[dzheremi]

I've always found the reactions to breastfeeding odd. I mean, heaven forbid women would use their breasts to feed their children, as though that's a natural biological function of being a mother of something... Then again, to make ends meet when I was a kid, my mother sold/leased breast pumps to young mothers who were having trouble producing (she was the head of the local chapter of the breastfeeding rights/awareness organization "La Leche League", and had medical training in this area from working for a pediatrician), which would naturally include some training, which was generally done one site (read: our house, at the kitchen table). So I never got the idea that seeing women breastfeeding (or attempting to) should be either offensive or shocking. Not to mention the phone calls we would sometimes get from mothers who were having nursing issues and would sometimes, in their panic/nervousness, neglect to actually ask for my mother before launching into whatever issues they were having, in graphic detail. As a consequence, I grew up thinking that all babies must be little sadists...those poor mothers!  

[88Devin12]

So what culture would you have a model? Older European? Because they don't traditionally require covering either. Up until the Victorian era, they didn't cover. The Victorian era is when only the poor breastfed. But men also had their penis' pierced so they could get into certain styles of pants

My native culture certainly didn't cover given the fact that no one wore *any* clothing whatsoever the majority of the time. African cultures? Nope, that don't cover either.

TBH I exclude barbarian cultures from being good examples for much. Yes I do realize I exclude my own ancestry. (Celtic and Native American)

[Quinault]

As a consequence, I grew up thinking that all babies must be little sadists...those poor mothers! 

Oh, man I laughed so hard at this!  

[Quinault]

So what culture would you have a model? Older European? Because they don't traditionally require covering either. Up until the Victorian era, they didn't cover. The Victorian era is when only the poor breastfed. But men also had their penis' pierced so they could get into certain styles of pants

My native culture certainly didn't cover given the fact that no one wore *any* clothing whatsoever the majority of the time. African cultures? Nope, that don't cover either.

TBH I exclude barbarian cultures from being good examples for much. Yes I do realize I exclude my own ancestry. (Celtic and Native American)

Yeah, you won't gain any points with me calling American Indians "barbarian." I'd like to hear what your relatives that are "barbarian" think of that attitude

So the point still stands; what is the model culture? You can't say older European, because before the Victorian era they had no issue with public breastfeeding. In fact, even in that era it was fine and dandy--for the poor.

[Quinault]

The Victorian ideas of breast feeding almost destroyed breast feeding in Europe:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1039333

During the first few decades of the 20th century infants in Europe were breastfed for 6 months or more; only during the 30s and 40s did breast feeding begin to decrease especially in those countries, as in Northern Europe, where child mortality had experienced a fast decline. Information on the frequency and duration of breastfeeding in Europe is scant; one must also differentiate between whole breastfeeding and breast feeding supplemented by bottle feeding. A study conducted in England in 1947--48 on 1142 infants showed that 58.85%, 33.3% and 22.2% were wholly breastfed at 1, 3, and 6 months, and that breast feeding was more common in professional families than in families of manual workers. A similar study conducted in 1968 indicated that only 33% of mothers continued to breastfeed beyond the first 4 weeks. In Poland breast feeding remained extremely popular until about 1930 when at least 90% of mothers breastfed for at least 1 month, after that frequency of breast feeding decreased to 79% in 1950, to 78% in 1960, and to 52% in 1964; figures for breast feeding at 3 and at 6 months are much lower. The situation in Hungary appears to be much the same. Breastfeeding practices started to decline in Sweden around 1940, and accelerated during the 1960s. Factors which provoked a change in breastfeeding practices include changes in the social structure of the family, for example from the extended family to the nuclear family, changes in delivery conditions, improved knowledge about formula feeding, the impact of breast feeding techniques even by health personnel, changed attitudes about physical attributes such as breasts, and the high percentage of working mothers. Physicians should encourage mothers to wholly breastfeed for 2-3 months, and then switch to mixed breast and formula feeding. In underdeveloped countries mothers in conditions of extreme poverty and lack of hygiene should wholly breastfeed for at least 6 months. Should breast feeding be abandoned at all we would see a decrease in the chance of survival of young children, despite improvement in living conditions.

[88Devin12]

So what culture would you have a model? Older European? Because they don't traditionally require covering either. Up until the Victorian era, they didn't cover. The Victorian era is when only the poor breastfed. But men also had their penis' pierced so they could get into certain styles of pants

My native culture certainly didn't cover given the fact that no one wore *any* clothing whatsoever the majority of the time. African cultures? Nope, that don't cover either.

TBH I exclude barbarian cultures from being good examples for much. Yes I do realize I exclude my own ancestry. (Celtic and Native American)

Yeah, you won't gain any points with me calling American Indians "barbarian." I'd like to hear what your relatives that are "barbarian" think of that attitude

So the point still stands; what is the model culture? You can't say older European, because before the Victorian era they had no issue with public breastfeeding. In fact, even in that era it was fine and dandy--for the poor.

I think we have different ideas of exposure as well. Ever seen a nearly morbidly obese mother with her entire breast out in full view of the public? It's not a pretty sight and its disgusting. Glad I can now afford to avoid Wal-Mart at late hours so I don't have to see that again.

I don't mind women breastfeeding in public, but for Gods sake be modest about it and keep your breast as concealed as you can, no one should ever see your nipple or most of your breast, it is just inappropriate.

It seems harsh and maybe it is, but the rest of us should be respected and we should be subject to seeing anything inappropriate.

[Quinault]

If you can see nipple, they aren't breast-feeding, or you only see it for a moment or two if they are breast-feeding. The baby takes the entire nipple, as well as areola into their mouth when they are latched.

But I have seen the website "People of Walmart" so I wouldn't assume that the woman you see with her whole breast out is actually breast feeding.......or assume she is actually a woman

[88Devin12]

If you can see nipple, they aren't breast-feeding, or you only see it for a moment or two if they are breast-feeding. The baby takes the entire nipple, as well as areola into their mouth when they are latched.

It's not just that, it when the whole breast is exposed, that just isn't necessary.

Also, why would a woman be breastfeeding a child past its 12th month? That just seems unnecessary...
I've heard of parents breastfeeding their kid even older than 1.5 years and that seems very wrong.

[88Devin12]

I just think she didn't care that her baby was finished, or felt like she didn't need to cover up before it started again.

[Quinault]

You can't tar, feather, and accuse all breast-feeding mothers because you saw a couple women that were indiscreet. Just like I won't outlaw all men from wearing bathing suits because of the disgusting guy at the beach wearing a speedo.

[Quinault]

Also, why would a woman be breastfeeding a child past its 12th month? That just seems unnecessary...
I've heard of parents breastfeeding their kid even older than 1.5 years and that seems very wrong.

Why would it be unnecessary? You make this statement based upon exactly what medical knowledge?

[JamesRottnek]

God acts in strange ways.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

There is a world of difference between having the pure and innocent faith of a child, and presuming to suckle from the breast that God Himself was fed from. What sort of person dares to touch the living Ark? And in such a way? There is so much that is wrong with this "vision" of St Bernard. The description of the Virgin moistening his lips moistened with her milk is one thing - but the idea of her giving him her breast to suckle, and the reason why, flies in the face of a true and proper regard for the Mother of God. It's simply bad theology.

And what kind of person dares to eat God Himself?

[Quinault]

The American Academy of Family Physicians notes that children weaned before two years of age are at increased risk of illness (AAFP 2008).

Breastfeeding toddlers between the ages of one and three have been found to have fewer illnesses, illnesses of shorter duration, and lower mortality rates  (Mølbak 1994, van den Bogaard  1991, Gulick 1986).

“Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation” (Nutrition During Lactation 1991; p. 134). In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Lawrence & Lawrence 2011, Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991).

Per the World Health Organization, “a modest increase in breastfeeding rates could prevent up to 10% of all deaths of children under five: Breastfeeding plays an essential and sometimes underestimated role in the treatment and prevention of childhood illness.” [emphasis added]

Extensive research on the relationship between cognitive achievement (IQ scores, grades in school) and breastfeeding has shown the greatest gains for those children breastfed the longest.

MOTHERS also benefit from breastfeeding for a longer duration

Extended nursing delays the return of fertility in some women by suppressing ovulation.

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer. Studies have found a significant inverse association between duration of lactation and breast cancer risk.

Breastfeeding also reduces the risk of ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and endometrial cancer.

Breastfeeding protects against osteoporosis. During lactation a mother may experience decreases of bone mineral. A nursing mom’s bone mineral density may be reduced in the whole body by 1 to 2 percent while she is still nursing. This is gained back, and bone mineral density may actually increase, when the baby is weaned from the breast. This is not dependent on additional calcium supplementation in the mother’s diet.

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of rheumatoid arthritis.

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Breastfeeding has been shown to decrease insulin requirements in diabetic women. There is also a decreased risk of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in mothers who do not have a history of gestational diabetes.

Breastfeeding moms may lose weight easier.

[88Devin12]

You can't tar, feather, and accuse all breast-feeding mothers because you saw a couple women that were indiscreet. Just like I won't outlaw all men from wearing bathing suits because of the disgusting guy at the beach wearing a speedo.

I'd outlaw speedos... Which they should be...

(I also believe porno should be banned along with stricter FCC regulations for TV and movies and ban on the printing of explicit media including books like Six Shades of Gray)

Oh and yes, I do love a lot of things from the Victorian Era. It was Classicisms last great hurrah before the liberal, secularist, humanist, atheist barbarian savages began to take over and destroy anything decent, respectable, honorable and beautiful about our world.

[LBK]

God acts in strange ways.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

There is a world of difference between having the pure and innocent faith of a child, and presuming to suckle from the breast that God Himself was fed from. What sort of person dares to touch the living Ark? And in such a way? There is so much that is wrong with this "vision" of St Bernard. The description of the Virgin moistening his lips moistened with her milk is one thing - but the idea of her giving him her breast to suckle, and the reason why, flies in the face of a true and proper regard for the Mother of God. It's simply bad theology.

And what kind of person dares to eat God Himself?

We receive Holy Communion because we were commanded by Christ Himself to do so. We are unworthy, yet we receive. St Bernard saw a private vision, and suckled to "receive divine wisdom" through the Virgin's milk - surely this is heresy! It is Christ who is God's Wisdom and Word, and He did not receive His wisdom from His mother's milk.

[Quinault]

If you use the Victorian era as an example of healthy views on sexuality, I feel very sorry for you.

[JamesR]

No you don't see more than just a breast from girls who are scantily clad.

Speak for yourself. I've seen promiscuous women in painfully tight clothing and short skirts that have exposed A LOT more than just a breast. And they are purposely exposing themselves to get sexual attention. You really think that a breastfeeding mother wants to expose her breast in public?--especially when she's all insecure about herself since she just had a child? She does it out of necessity.

If you equate a stomach, a shoulder or a thigh with a breast, then you've got some problems.

If the sight of a breast causes you to become so upset that you would stop a woman from feeding her child out of necessity, then I would say that YOU got some problems. Also--to be fair--I would find the sight of a thigh more sexually arousing and suggestive than a breast. It's all a matter of perception.

I suppose then, there wouldn't be anything wrong with a guy exposing his junk in public to urinate since it is just something natural right?

Provided there were no bathrooms around, no health hazard and he was not tarnishing private property, I actually wouldn't find anything wrong with it.

You shouldn't be seeing more than a breast on a grown woman unless its your own mother or your wife. I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural".

False. I shouldn't be seeing more than a breast on a grown women who isn't my wife with a lustful disposition. But if I am seeing it out of necessity--IE, because she is feeding her child, then I see nothing wrong with it. Are you forgetting that clothing itself is a product of the Fall? We were made naked, we came out of the womb naked. There is nothing wrong with nudity--only our perverted sexualization of it.

There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

According to who? Europeans? Tell that to Africans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders or my ancestors in Central America--all of whom wore very little clothing but had no problem with it. But let me guess? All of them are evil barbarians that need to be converted to WASP ethics right? You're no better than the Papists who bashed my ancestors heads against the trees after Baptising them so they wouldn't grow up worshipping the Aztec gods.

[Quinault]

Again; what is the model culture on attitudes toward breast feeding in public?

[Quinault]

Let me add this; breast feeding does not make a woman feel sexy. The feelings you have latching a crying, starving, baby on are so far from sexy, it isn't in the same galaxy. What women normally feel is desperate to feed the baby, and little else matters. The faster the baby is latched, the better.

[88Devin12]

JamesR, those were all barbarian peoples, only modern liberaltards want to use them as models. I think American Dad parodies them real well with Stan's daughter and her idiocy (which is as bad as her dads).

Barbarian people cannot and should not be a model for civilized people.

[Quinault]

Who then should be used as a model?

[Michał Kalina]

So what culture would you have a model? Older European? Because they don't traditionally require covering either. Up until the Victorian era, they didn't cover. The Victorian era is when only the poor breastfed. But men also had their penis' pierced so they could get into certain styles of pants

My native culture certainly didn't cover given the fact that no one wore *any* clothing whatsoever the majority of the time. African cultures? Nope, that don't cover either.

TBH I exclude barbarian cultures from being good examples for much.

We have different definition of barbarism.

I am really starting to understand why Constantinople thinks 28th canon of Chalcedon applies to the USA.

[dzheremi]

The only model for any people is Christ.

Am I wrong in believing that people and the world we live in can be "decent, respectable, honorable and beautiful" regardless of how far humanity seems to have gone off the deep end in any one era or location? This whole conversation is just bizarre.

[JamesR]

JamesR, those were all barbarian peoples

According to who? Your standards? They were A LOT more civilized than Europeans in many ways--just as they were bad in certain ways too. European society was far from perfect as well. What makes you think your European idea of society is so much superior?

...only modern liberaltards want to use them as models.

The world would be a lot better if it followed some of their examples. Aztects had formalized education available to EVERYONE whereas education was only available to the wealthy in Europe. Africans and Native Americans took care of the environment, and their wars against each other were usually on a small tribal scale, whereas European wars lead to the death of millions and affect everyone.

Barbarian people cannot and should not be a model for civilized people.

Which is why I don't think we should follow the bloodthirsty murdered-more-people-in-history-than-anyone-else example set forth by Europeans throughout history

[Quinault]

Attempting to force Japan into modern "civilized" society CERTAINLY didn't backfire on the US. Nope. Not at all....

[JamesR]

@Devin: All societies--European included--are barbarian in their own ways whether you would like to admit it or not. In fact, Europe is probably more barbarian than any other society in history. Just because you had some cool inventions doesn't excuse the fact that you murdered more people throughout history than anyone else. So some chick in the Pacific wears nothing to cover her breasts, some European comes along, enslaves her and kills her tribe. Who's the real barbarian?

The only non-barbarian standard is the standard of Christ--and I am not convinced that Christ gives a hell whether or not we are naked.

[88Devin12]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized. The savage Gothic barbarians destroyed Christianity in the west and the barbarians there led directly to the schism. Charlemagne, William the Bastard and others were nothing more than worthless barbarian scum.

They and their influence on western culture cannot be used as guides.

[Michał Kalina]

Oh and yes, I do love a lot of things from the Victorian Era. It was Classicisms last great hurrah before the liberal, secularist, humanist, atheist barbarian savages began to take over and destroy anything decent, respectable, honorable and beautiful about our world.

Are we talking about times when every second person was a freemason or a spiritualist?

According to who? Your standards? They were A LOT more civilized than Europeans in many ways--just as they were bad in certain ways too. European society was far from perfect as well. What makes you think your European idea of society is so much superior?

If you had read his posts carefully you would know he despises European standards too.

[Quinault]

Early Christians would have breastfed publicly without any cover. An icon of the Theotokos breastfeeding openly would not have made so much as a splash in that culture. It was normal, and seen often.

[JamesR]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

[JamesR]

If you had read his posts carefully you would know he despises European standards too.

I know I just feel like arguing

[dzheremi]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

Except pretty much everybody, you mean? Sadly, since the fall it has been taken as a part of "human nature" (whatever that means) to enslave and do all those other bad things to other people pretty much because they are other people and you want their land, resources, etc. The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing and the fact that their version of the world and how it works has been so long taken as normative...but you know, the whole romantic "noble savage" myth is a quintessentially European/Enlightenment kind of idea. Turns out the Mayans, for instance, were not actually the peaceful stargazers some early researchers wanted them to be. Same could be said of basically every people, "barbarians" or not.

[JamesR]

The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing...

No, the Europeans are singled out because they did it MORE than anyone else in history. Most other cultures didn't go from continent to continent unleashing terror on a scale affecting millions of people. For them, it was mostly limited to just their own region, whereas Europeans extended misery and evil across the entire world.

[ialmisry]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

The problem is, in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, this "exposure" you are rallying against is the norm.  As a matter of fact, those who lived no where else were amused/perplexed by my prudishness about it.

[Nephi]

You're no better than the Papists who bashed my ancestors heads against the trees after Baptising them so they wouldn't grow up worshipping the Aztec gods.

From what I've heard, there were actually many Catholic priests killed trying to prevent their newly baptized flock from being enslaved/abused.

[Jetavan]

You're no better than the Papists who bashed my ancestors heads against the trees after Baptising them so they wouldn't grow up worshipping the Aztec gods.

From what I've heard, there were actually many Catholic priests killed trying to prevent their newly baptized flock from being enslaved/abused.

The Mission

[ialmisry]

So what culture would you have a model? Older European? Because they don't traditionally require covering either. Up until the Victorian era, they didn't cover. The Victorian era is when only the poor breastfed. But men also had their penis' pierced so they could get into certain styles of pants

My native culture certainly didn't cover given the fact that no one wore *any* clothing whatsoever the majority of the time. African cultures? Nope, that don't cover either.

TBH I exclude barbarian cultures from being good examples for much.

We have different definition of barbarism.

I am really starting to understand why Constantinople thinks 28th canon of Chalcedon applies to the USA.

Speaking of a guy showing his "junk," in Istanbul they have mass public circumcisions now.

[ialmisry]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

[ialmisry]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

Except pretty much everybody, you mean? Sadly, since the fall it has been taken as a part of "human nature" (whatever that means) to enslave and do all those other bad things to other people pretty much because they are other people and you want their land, resources, etc. The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing and the fact that their version of the world and how it works has been so long taken as normative...but you know, the whole romantic "noble savage" myth is a quintessentially European/Enlightenment kind of idea. Turns out the Mayans, for instance, were not actually the peaceful stargazers some early researchers wanted them to be. Same could be said of basically every people, "barbarians" or not.

Ironic, isn't it?

[ialmisry]

The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing...

No, the Europeans are singled out because they did it MORE than anyone else in history. Most other cultures didn't go from continent to continent unleashing terror on a scale affecting millions of people. For them, it was mostly limited to just their own region, whereas Europeans extended misery and evil across the entire world.

[Schultz]

The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing...

No, the Europeans are singled out because they did it MORE than anyone else in history. Most other cultures didn't go from continent to continent unleashing terror on a scale affecting millions of people. For them, it was mostly limited to just their own region, whereas Europeans extended misery and evil across the entire world.

Um, the Mongol Empire was the single largest contiguous empire in human history and was created by misery and domination across the entire world.  In its time, in held more than 1/4 of the world's population, something even the British Empire at its height failed to achieve and its landmass was slightly less than that the British maintained.  (source http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol12/number2/pdf/jwsr-v12n2-tah.pdf)

The Yuan and Qing dynasties are also in the top six, where the latter had a whopping 36% of the world's population under its thumb and it certainly wasn't a culturally homogeneous empire.

[podkarpatska]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized. The savage Gothic barbarians destroyed Christianity in the west and the barbarians there led directly to the schism. Charlemagne, William the Bastard and others were nothing more than worthless barbarian scum.

They and their influence on western culture cannot be used as guides.

Being a 'barbarian' is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, the etymology of the word 'barbarian' is sort of instructive, as it originally did not mean 'uncivilized' per se, but rather it connoted 'different.' Now of course to the Greeks 'different' meant 'inferior' to their culture but that is probably not unique to the ancient Greeks.

Wiki tells us: "The term originates from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros. Hence the Greek idiom "πᾶς μὴ Ἕλλην βάρβαρος" (pas mē Hellēn barbaros) which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a Barbarian". In ancient times, Greeks used it for the people of the Persian Empire; in the early modern period and sometimes later, they used it for the Turks, in a clearly pejorative way. Comparable notions are found in non-European civilizations. In the Roman empire, Romans used the word barbarian for the Germans, Celts, Iberians, Thracians, and Persians....The Ancient Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros, "barbarian", was an antonym for πολίτης politis, "citizen", from polis "city-state". The sound of barbaros onomatopoetically evokes the image of babbling (a person speaking a non-Greek language). The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek pa-pa-ro, written in Linear B syllabic script.The Greeks used the term as they encountered scores of different foreign cultures, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes, Celts, Germanic peoples, Phoenicians, Etruscans and Carthaginians. In fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

[Cyrillic]

Don't tell Robert Lentz about this.

Though he has also painted Sts Felicity and Perpetua with lesbian intent ...

That's horrible. I suggest we go to his monastery and make him eat all his paint brushes.

[LBK]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized. The savage Gothic barbarians destroyed Christianity in the west and the barbarians there led directly to the schism. Charlemagne, William the Bastard and others were nothing more than worthless barbarian scum.

They and their influence on western culture cannot be used as guides.

Being a 'barbarian' is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, the etymology of the word 'barbarian' is sort of instructive, as it originally did not mean 'uncivilized' per se, but rather it connoted 'different.' Now of course to the Greeks 'different' meant 'inferior' to their culture but that is probably not unique to the ancient Greeks.

Wiki tells us: "The term originates from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros. Hence the Greek idiom "πᾶς μὴ Ἕλλην βάρβαρος" (pas mē Hellēn barbaros) which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a Barbarian". In ancient times, Greeks used it for the people of the Persian Empire; in the early modern period and sometimes later, they used it for the Turks, in a clearly pejorative way. Comparable notions are found in non-European civilizations. In the Roman empire, Romans used the word barbarian for the Germans, Celts, Iberians, Thracians, and Persians....The Ancient Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros, "barbarian", was an antonym for πολίτης politis, "citizen", from polis "city-state". The sound of barbaros onomatopoetically evokes the image of babbling (a person speaking a non-Greek language). The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek pa-pa-ro, written in Linear B syllabic script.The Greeks used the term as they encountered scores of different foreign cultures, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes, Celts, Germanic peoples, Phoenicians, Etruscans and Carthaginians. In fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

To add to the above, barbarian originally meant foreigner (i.e. not Greek), and the word reflected the perceived harshness of foreign languages to Greek ears. It was only in much later centuries AD where barbarian took the meaning of uncouth, uncivilized, violent, cruel that we know today.

[LBK]

Don't tell Robert Lentz about this.

Though he has also painted Sts Felicity and Perpetua with lesbian intent ...

That's horrible. I suggest we go to his monastery and make him eat all his paint brushes.

Not sure if he's attached to any particular monastery ...     But getting him to eat his brushes? Naaah.  A start, but nowhere near enough. I've some ideas of my own, but most of them are unprintable. 

[ialmisry]

The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing...

No, the Europeans are singled out because they did it MORE than anyone else in history. Most other cultures didn't go from continent to continent unleashing terror on a scale affecting millions of people. For them, it was mostly limited to just their own region, whereas Europeans extended misery and evil across the entire world.

Um, the Mongol Empire was the single largest contiguous empire in human history and was created by misery and domination across the entire world.  In its time, in held more than 1/4 of the world's population, something even the British Empire at its height failed to achieve and its landmass was slightly less than that the British maintained.  (source http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol12/number2/pdf/jwsr-v12n2-tah.pdf)

The Yuan and Qing dynasties are also in the top six, where the latter had a whopping 36% of the world's population under its thumb and it certainly wasn't a culturally homogeneous empire.

With an even bigger part of the population pie, the Mauryan Empire had 44% of the world population under Asoka

who, besides his empire, sent Buddhist missionaries to spread the state religion

and whose multi-lingual inscriptions of his edicts throughout his empire show the heterogeneous nature of his subjects.

[ialmisry]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized. The savage Gothic barbarians destroyed Christianity in the west and the barbarians there led directly to the schism. Charlemagne, William the Bastard and others were nothing more than worthless barbarian scum.

They and their influence on western culture cannot be used as guides.

Being a 'barbarian' is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, the etymology of the word 'barbarian' is sort of instructive, as it originally did not mean 'uncivilized' per se, but rather it connoted 'different.' Now of course to the Greeks 'different' meant 'inferior' to their culture but that is probably not unique to the ancient Greeks.

Wiki tells us: "The term originates from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros. Hence the Greek idiom "πᾶς μὴ Ἕλλην βάρβαρος" (pas mē Hellēn barbaros) which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a Barbarian". In ancient times, Greeks used it for the people of the Persian Empire; in the early modern period and sometimes later, they used it for the Turks, in a clearly pejorative way. Comparable notions are found in non-European civilizations. In the Roman empire, Romans used the word barbarian for the Germans, Celts, Iberians, Thracians, and Persians....The Ancient Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros, "barbarian", was an antonym for πολίτης politis, "citizen", from polis "city-state". The sound of barbaros onomatopoetically evokes the image of babbling (a person speaking a non-Greek language). The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek pa-pa-ro, written in Linear B syllabic script.The Greeks used the term as they encountered scores of different foreign cultures, including the Egyptians, Persians, Medes, Celts, Germanic peoples, Phoenicians, Etruscans and Carthaginians. In fact, it became a common term to refer to all foreigners"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

At the time of the Mycenaeans, the "barbarians" (at least the Egyptians) were the more civilized, as the Greeks frankly admitted at the time.

[NicholasMyra]

TBH I exclude barbarian cultures from being good examples for much. Yes I do realize I exclude my own ancestry. (Celtic and Native American)

O no you didn't.

[Cyrillic]

The Europeans are singled out, oddly enough, due to their own ignorance of other peoples' histories of doing the same thing...

No, the Europeans are singled out because they did it MORE than anyone else in history. Most other cultures didn't go from continent to continent unleashing terror on a scale affecting millions of people. For them, it was mostly limited to just their own region, whereas Europeans extended misery and evil across the entire world.

You're welcome.

[Jason.Wike]

All of them are evil barbarians that need to be converted to WASP ethics right? You're no better than the Papists who bashed my ancestors heads against the trees after Baptising them so they wouldn't grow up worshipping the Aztec gods.

Criticising "WASP"s and using the word "Papist" in the same paragraph...

[Jason.Wike]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

The Catholic church explicitly said enslaving natives was wrong. It was secular authorities who did it. All this made up history of Nav'i Native protecting the environment and evil whitey is pretty lame. Actually read some history and not AZTLAN pamphlets geez.

[Quinault]

Jason- Nope, it isn't all wrong. Ask St. Peter the Aleut, and all the NW indians that grew up in "re-education centers."

I suppose you will say it wasn't enslavement to take children and "civilize" them. I have to disagree. Taking children away from their parents, forcing them to abandon culture, language, and family, is enslavement of the worst kind. Most native languages don't exist in the NW anymore. The last living speaker of the Quinault dialect died almost 20 years ago. The only reason the Lushootseed Salish language still remains is because of the work of one woman; Vi Hilbert.

[JamesR]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

You have to be careful when judging a culture based off of a single image being interpreted by our own perspective. That may seem barbaric to us and seem to suggest sacrifice, but what if it did not to them? What if it meant something else? As far as I am concerned, I see no good reason to assume that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice--at least not on a grand scale. Most of the documents we use to support this claim were written by Europeans with a motive who may have purposely demonized them in order to gain permission to enslave them and exploit the land. Most of the native inhabitants of the region to this very day deny that human sacrifice ever happened, whereas others state that it wasn't on as large of a scale as Europe would make us believe.

One could easily misinterpret this image as being brutal, violent and an indicator or barbarism....



Are you also forgetting the fact that many other people throughout history have thought that WE were evil barbarians who drank blood and ate human flesh? Worshipping a Cross--the ultimate symbol of pain and punishment. I'm just saying, be careful with how you judge a culture.

[Nephi]

You have to be careful when judging a culture based off of a single image being interpreted by our own perspective. That may seem barbaric to us and seem to suggest sacrifice, but what if it did not to them? What if it meant something else? As far as I am concerned, I see no good reason to assume that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice--at least not on a grand scale. Most of the documents we use to support this claim were written by Europeans with a motive who may have purposely demonized them in order to gain permission to enslave them and exploit the land. Most of the native inhabitants of the region to this very day deny that human sacrifice ever happened, whereas others state that it wasn't on as large of a scale as Europe would make us believe.

One could easily misinterpret this image as being brutal, violent and an indicator or barbarism....

Are you also forgetting the fact that many other people throughout history have thought that WE were evil barbarians who drank blood and ate human flesh? Worshipping a Cross--the ultimate symbol of pain and punishment. I'm just saying, be careful with how you judge a culture.

The Aztecs did commit mass human sacrifice, and their entire civilization was built off of slavery. These are not merely claims by "Europeans with a motive" attempting to demonize them. Archaeology, along with, IIRC, the sizable amount of Aztec writings, verify this. The images depicted on the walls of their buildings show scenes of mass human sacrifice. They had no qualms about it.

I don't know of any reputable scholar today that thinks the Aztecs didn't commit mass human sacrifice, even if not to the degree as sometimes portrayed.

So your parallel is horribly inaccurate.

EDIT: There's a MesoAmerican history person on this forum, I can't remember who...

[biro]

Remember when this thread was about icons of the Theotokos nursing the Christ Child?

 

[biro]

liberaltards

Wow, you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[Michał Kalina]

Wow, you kiss your mother with that mouth?

He doesn't touch his mother with his lips. It's liberal (or babraric).

[Kerdy]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

I agree with Devin.  There is nothing wrong with feeding you child, but show a little respect for others around you.  I have heard, "Its natural," but so it urinating and sexual activity; however, we aren’t allowed (and should not be) to do those in public.  Use a blanket, just thick enough to cover yourself.  Feeding is not only for nourishment, but also a special bonding between child and mother, not something I feel should be on public display.  In turn, I find these icons disturbing, to be put it in a pleasant way.

[Kerdy]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

That's the point, they didn't cover themselves. Not those I saw at least.

Have to say, this is how it is still done in the Middle East. And if Muslims don't freak out at the sight of feeding breast, the Americans can get over it (btw, I still haven't. Comes from growing up in the US).

Or not, and people can practice some of the respect they demand from others.

[Kerdy]

Breast feeding isn't a big deal, but most I know have a cover for themselves since its inappropriate to expose yourself. I have to say that the Theotokos' exposure in those icons is wrong. At least cover her up, you can convey the same message in a better fashion.

It is only considered innapropriate in modern WASPy american culture.

This.

If folks are so squeamish about women breastfeeding, even if they do so discreetly, then perhaps they should sanitize this passage which is part of the standard Gospel reading during the Divine Liturgy on feasts of the Mother of God:

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed!”

There are also a good number of Theotokia which refer to her suckling Christ - should these be edited as well so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities?  

Or you could simply respect those "delicate sensibilities" rather than ignore their concerns.

It's sort of like smoking in public.  If I am enjoying a nice cigar and someone asks me politely to enjoy it where the smoke doesn’t bother them, I respect that and move, unless it’s my porch.  In fact, you can’t smoke in most public places any longer.  (And this has nothing to do with health concerns, so please don’t try to mention that, thanks). 

If this analogy doesn’t work, I will simply say, when the time comes for some personal “adjustment” and I find myself in public, I try to take care of my business discreetly so as not to offend others.  This is about respecting other people.

[Michał Kalina]

Or you could simply respect those "delicate sensibilities" rather than ignore their concerns.

Only 13-year-olds associate everything with sex. One should grow out of that.

[Nephi]

Only 13-year-olds associate everything with sex. One should grow out of that.

Not everyone that finds it unsettling associates it with sex. One shouldn't make generalizations like that.

[Kerdy]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.  So, if a lady breast feed in public, knowing it is a stumbling block for someone, it is wrong, period, regardless of her personal opinions on the matter.  Let’s imagine she is at the mall, her child needs feeding, and instead of moving to a discreet area and using a blanket, she decides, because she is a modern and strong woman, she will conduct her private business within the view of everyone at the mall.  Then, teenage boys are walking by, with their hormones fully engaged, and see this take place.  Do you REALLY expect them to think, “Good for her!  That baby needs to eat and no one should tell her not to feed her baby!”  ooor… do we expect them to think, “BOOB!”  If you vote for the first, you are naive at best.  If you realize the second, cover your breasts and stop causing others to sin. 

BTW – This doesn’t stop with young men.  Its men of all ages and in our “modern society” its women as well.  In relation to the, “You don’t have breasts” comment, that is true, but my wife has them, as did my mother, grandmother, sister, cousins, friends, co-workers, daughters, niece, etc., and I can tell you, I don’t know any of them who WANT people staring at their clothes breasts, much less exposed breasts, regardless of the situation.  So that silly comment holds no weight. 

[Kerdy]

Early Christians would have breastfed publicly without any cover.

Times change.

[Kerdy]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

The problem is, in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, this "exposure" you are rallying against is the norm.  As a matter of fact, those who lived no where else were amused/perplexed by my prudishness about it.

We don't live in the Middle East.

[Kerdy]

Or you could simply respect those "delicate sensibilities" rather than ignore their concerns.

Only 13-year-olds associate everything with sex. One should grow out of that.

I suppose this explains why pornography is the highest grossing business on the planet.  All those 13 year olds with credit cards.

[Michał Kalina]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

Let’s imagine she is at the mall, her child needs feeding, and instead of moving to a discreet area and using a blanket, she decides, because she is a modern and strong woman, she will conduct her private business within the view of everyone at the mall.

Discreet area in a mall? Do you mean toilet? Do you tell women to feed babies in toilets?

Then, teenage boys are walking by, with their hormones fully engaged, and see this take place.  Do you REALLY expect them to think, “Good for her!  That baby needs to eat and no one should tell her not to feed her baby!”  ooor… do we expect them to think, “BOOB!”  If you vote for the first, you are naive at best.  If you realize the second, cover your breasts and stop causing others to sin. 

Have you ever seen a women breastfeeding? Do you really consider it erogenous? If yes, you really need to see a doctor.

[biro]

I suppose this explains why pornography is the highest grossing business on the planet.  All those 13 year olds with credit cards.

What does pornography have to do with breastfeeding? 

[Kerdy]

I suppose this explains why pornography is the highest grossing business on the planet.  All those 13 year olds with credit cards.

What does pornography have to do with breastfeeding?  

I didn't bring it up, but I did respond to this:

Only 13-year-olds associate everything with sex. One should grow out of that.

I made the post to show people of ALL ages, 13-93, think of things in a sexual way even when they shouldn't.  His view is incorrect.

[LBK]

I suppose this explains why pornography is the highest grossing business on the planet.  All those 13 year olds with credit cards.

What does pornography have to do with breastfeeding?  

It shouldn't. But some contributors to this thread seem to think it does.

[Kerdy]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

Let’s imagine she is at the mall, her child needs feeding, and instead of moving to a discreet area and using a blanket, she decides, because she is a modern and strong woman, she will conduct her private business within the view of everyone at the mall.

Discreet area in a mall? Do you mean toilet? Do you tell women to feed babies in toilets?

Then, teenage boys are walking by, with their hormones fully engaged, and see this take place.  Do you REALLY expect them to think, “Good for her!  That baby needs to eat and no one should tell her not to feed her baby!”  ooor… do we expect them to think, “BOOB!”  If you vote for the first, you are naive at best.  If you realize the second, cover your breasts and stop causing others to sin. 

Have you ever seen a women breastfeeding? Do you really consider it erogenous? If yes, you really need to see a doctor.

You really should start thinking a little further past your limited expose to the world.

[augustin717]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

[biro]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

Just think of it. Entire hospital wards where breastfeeding goes on day and night! 

[Kerdy]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

I see.  You think Holy Scripture is "puritan, misogynistic, and immature".  Good to know.

[Kerdy]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

Just think of it. Entire hospital wards where breastfeeding goes on day and night! 

And?  I am sure there is some point you are attempting to make hidden in your post.

[biro]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

Just think of it. Entire hospital wards where breastfeeding goes on day and night! 

And?  I am sure there is some point you are attempting to make hidden in your post.

Maternity wards. Oh no! How will we live?

Once word gets out, people will be flinging off their shirts and trying to feed anything that passes by!

[Kerdy]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

If you are unable to contribute in a mature way, please do not contribute.

[LBK]

From 50 years ago, when beach inspectors patrolled the shores, paying quite some attention to female swimwear:

[Kerdy]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

Just think of it. Entire hospital wards where breastfeeding goes on day and night! 

And?  I am sure there is some point you are attempting to make hidden in your post.

Maternity wards. Oh no! How will we live?

Once word gets out, people will be flinging off their shirts and trying to feed anything that passes by!

Again, there must be some hidden secret message contained within your post I am unable to decipher.  What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn’t have anything to post otherwise.

[Michał Kalina]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

Just think of it. Entire hospital wards where breastfeeding goes on day and night! 

And?  I am sure there is some point you are attempting to make hidden in your post.

Maternity wards. Oh no! How will we live?

Once word gets out, people will be flinging off their shirts and trying to feed anything that passes by!

Again, there must be some hidden secret message contained within your post I am unable to decipher.  What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs? 

Sex organs? 

[Kerdy]

From 50 years ago, when beach inspectors patrolled the shores, paying quite some attention to female swimwear:

So, fat and ugly is now the same as exposing breasts.  Interesting spin.

[Kerdy]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

Just think of it. Entire hospital wards where breastfeeding goes on day and night! 

And?  I am sure there is some point you are attempting to make hidden in your post.

Maternity wards. Oh no! How will we live?

Once word gets out, people will be flinging off their shirts and trying to feed anything that passes by!

Again, there must be some hidden secret message contained within your post I am unable to decipher.  What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs? 

Sex organs? 

You mean, you didn't know this?  Scary.

[Michał Kalina]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

I see.  You think Holy Scripture is "puritan, misogynistic, and immature".  Good to know.

Where does the Bible ban public breastfeeding?

[Kerdy]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

I see.  You think Holy Scripture is "puritan, misogynistic, and immature".  Good to know.

Where does the Bible ban public breastfeeding?

Romans 14:13-23

It doesn't, specifically.  It speaks of ANYTHING with causes a brother to stumble.  

Romans 14:14

"I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."
(for starters)

You all can argue amongst yourselves for days on end, but the bottom line is, women should present themselves as respectable and holy, without plopping their breast out for everyone on the planet to see.  This is no different than someone just walking around topless.  Post a picture of a bare breast on this forum and see how long it takes for you to be moderated.  Your view is simply wrong, period, and no amount of sarcasm or cynical remarks will change that.

[Michał Kalina]

You all can argue amongst yourselves for days on end, but the bottom line is, women should present themselves as respectable and holy, without plopping their breast out for everyone on the planet to see.

Do you imply Most Holy Theotokos is not holy?

I go to sleep. I'll laugh at your following posts tomorrow.

[Kerdy]

You all can argue amongst yourselves for days on end, but the bottom line is, women should present themselves as respectable and holy, without plopping their breast out for everyone on the planet to see.

Do you imply Most Holy Theotokos is not holy?

I go to sleep. I'll laugh at your following posts tomorrow.

I refer you to my previous post.

[ialmisry]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

I see.  You think Holy Scripture is "puritan, misogynistic, and immature".  Good to know.

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus 1:15.

The WASPS didn't write the Bible.  These types did:
http://mail.nysoclib.org/digital_archives/periodicals/National_Geographic/IMAGES/276A/276A0020.jpg
WARNING! BREASTFEEDING!

[ialmisry]

Kerdy's avatar turns me on- I mean it's kinda androgynous etc

can't make up your mind which way to go, eh?

[ialmisry]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

The problem is, in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, this "exposure" you are rallying against is the norm.  As a matter of fact, those who lived no where else were amused/perplexed by my prudishness about it.

We don't live in the Middle East.

Our Lord, and His mother, did.

[Kerdy]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

The problem is, in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, this "exposure" you are rallying against is the norm.  As a matter of fact, those who lived no where else were amused/perplexed by my prudishness about it.

We don't live in the Middle East.

Our Lord, and His mother, did.

And we do not.  They also have honor killings there.  They also view women as property.  Just sayin...

[Kerdy]

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.

And such puritan, misogynistic, and immature opinions make me fall. You should stop posting them here.

I see.  You think Holy Scripture is "puritan, misogynistic, and immature".  Good to know.

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus 1:15.

The WASPS didn't write the Bible.  These types did:
http://mail.nysoclib.org/digital_archives/periodicals/National_Geographic/IMAGES/276A/276A0020.jpg
WARNING! BREASTFEEDING!

Context is always important, but I think the context of what you cited, in whole, actually goes against the argument women exposing themselves in public.

[Quinault]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn’t have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer, she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

[Kerdy]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn’t have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer; she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

Here is your problem, you are wrong.  Secondary being the key word of the phrase, something you apparently missed.  A psychological approach will help you to understand.  I suspect you actually do understand and simply ignore, otherwise, you would not have used the word "primary" when speaking of the function of breasts.

[Quinault]

Kerdy, have you actually read thru the entire thread? Because it seems to me that you are just being reactionary. I have dealt with many of your arguments on previous pages. My comment about early Christians breast feeding openly was made in the context of an argument about what culture is the model culture regarding public breast feeding.

[Quinault]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn't have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer; she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

Here is your problem, you are wrong.  Secondary being the key word of the phrase, something you apparently missed.  A psychological approach will help you to understand.  I suspect you actually do understand and simply ignore, otherwise, you would not have used the word "primary" when speaking of the function of breasts.

Here's your problem; not every man is aroused by breasts. Don't take your sexual predilections and paste them across all of the males in the world.

[ialmisry]

Barbarians are people's who aren't civilized, like the Franks, Goths, Celts and many others. Christianity is whT helped make the Celts more civilized.

LOL! More civilized?!?! Christianity--at least Roman Catholicism--is what caused them to become MORE barbaric. If it weren't for Roman Catholicism then so many of my ancestors in Central and South America wouldn't have been murdered, enslaved at labour plantations and stripped of their pre-Colombian culture. I don't see non-Christian "barbarians" (except maybe Muslims) doing that to people on such a large scale.

You have to be careful when judging a culture based off of a single image being interpreted by our own perspective. That may seem barbaric to us and seem to suggest sacrifice, but what if it did not to them? What if it meant something else? As far as I am concerned, I see no good reason to assume that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice--at least not on a grand scale. Most of the documents we use to support this claim were written by Europeans with a motive who may have purposely demonized them in order to gain permission to enslave them and exploit the land. Most of the native inhabitants of the region to this very day deny that human sacrifice ever happened, whereas others state that it wasn't on as large of a scale as Europe would make us believe.

One could easily misinterpret this image as being brutal, violent and an indicator or barbarism....

Uh, it was brutal, violent  and barbaric. The Romans were a fun bunch.

Are you also forgetting the fact that many other people throughout history have thought that WE were evil barbarians who drank blood and ate human flesh? Worshipping a Cross--the ultimate symbol of pain and punishment. I'm just saying, be careful with how you judge a culture.

Don't know where you go to Church, but we don't pull hearts out of the congregants at mine. Nor would "other people" see us drinking blood or eating flesh.

[Kerdy]

Kerdy, have you actually read thru the entire thread? Because it seems to me that you are just being reactionary. I have dealt with many of your arguments on previous pages. My comment about early Christians breast feeding openly was made in the context of an argument about what culture is the model culture regarding public breast feeding.

I read throught it.  Your arguments failed to be applicable for today.  What SHOULD be and what actually IS, are not always the same.

[Quinault]

By your definition of sexual organ, anything that a man finds arousing is a sexual organ. A woman's legs could be a sexual organ, should women cease to show their legs? How about eyes? Should women wear veils covering their eyes because a man may become aroused? your logic is flawed at best if you think breasts are a sexual organ.

[Kerdy]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn't have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer; she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

Here is your problem, you are wrong.  Secondary being the key word of the phrase, something you apparently missed.  A psychological approach will help you to understand.  I suspect you actually do understand and simply ignore, otherwise, you would not have used the word "primary" when speaking of the function of breasts.

Here's your problem; not every man is aroused by breasts. Don't take your sexual predilections and paste them across all of the males in the world.

Most are, other than homosexuals.  If this were not true, Playboy would not have made Huge Heffner a very, very wealthy man.  In fact, as I previously stated, a lot of women are also aroused by breasts.  The result of our “all inclusive” society allowing people to indulge in whatever they desire.  Don’t take your sexual miscalculations and paste them across the world.

[Quinault]

Kerdy, have you actually read thru the entire thread? Because it seems to me that you are just being reactionary. I have dealt with many of your arguments on previous pages. My comment about early Christians breast feeding openly was made in the context of an argument about what culture is the model culture regarding public breast feeding.

I read throught it.  Your arguments failed to be applicable for today.  What SHOULD be and what actually IS, are not always the same.

So what should the model culture on public breast feeding be? Name a single civilization before the Victorian era that frowned upon public breast feeding.

Because even in the Victorian era it was fine for low class people to breast feed in public. In fact, it was only the low class that breastfed at all. The higher classes hired wet nurses.

[Kerdy]

By your definition of sexual organ, ....

And this is where you messed up.  It isn't my definition.

[Kerdy]

Kerdy, have you actually read thru the entire thread? Because it seems to me that you are just being reactionary. I have dealt with many of your arguments on previous pages. My comment about early Christians breast feeding openly was made in the context of an argument about what culture is the model culture regarding public breast feeding.

I read throught it.  Your arguments failed to be applicable for today.  What SHOULD be and what actually IS, are not always the same.

So what should the model culture on public breast feeding be? Name a single civilization before the Victorian era that frowned upon public breast feeding.

Because even in the Victorian era it was fine for low class people to breast feed in public. In fact, it was only the low class that breastfed at all. The higher classes hired wet nurses.

You should not be living in the history of human kind.  What should the model for modern culture be?  You...

[Quinault]

By your definition of sexual organ, ....

And this is where you messed up.  It isn't my definition.

Explain exactly how breasts are involved in sexual reproduction? As in, without them you can not reproduce.

(ETA: and I don't mean that an individual man can't get aroused. I mean it is physically impossible for sperm to meet egg even with arousal because a woman lacks breasts)

[Quinault]

And in my area, in my culture, at this time, openly breastfeeding is just fine.

[augustin717]

Some r aroused by feet. All saints should be wearing shoes then

[Quinault]

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that people that openly breastfed in the past were ignorant brutes, and the people that openly do so today are liberal idiots.

[Kerdy]

What seems to, for unknown reasons, escape some people is the argument is NOT against breast feeding.  Where this idea originates confuses me, because no one is making that argument.  The argument is, no one else wants to see your naked breasts, for a healthy amount of reasons.  Feed all you want and you should.  I commend you for nursing your child.  Just exercise a little common decency and respect those around you.

[Kerdy]

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that people that openly breastfed in the past were ignorant brutes, and the people that openly do so today are liberal idiots.

I agree.  It's a good thing I am not saying this.

[Kerdy]

And in my area, in my culture, at this time, openly breastfeeding is just fine.

So, you know it doesn't make ANYONE at ANYTIME feel uneasy?  But if some supermodel walked by without a shirt on and your husband stared, you would be angry, right?

[Kerdy]

By your definition of sexual organ, ....

And this is where you messed up.  It isn't my definition.

Explain exactly how breasts are involved in sexual reproduction? As in, without them you can not reproduce.

(ETA: and I don't mean that an individual man can't get aroused. I mean it is physically impossible for sperm to meet egg even with arousal because a woman lacks breasts)

Google is a powerful tool.  Try looking into secondary sex organs.

[ialmisry]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn't have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer; she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

Here is your problem, you are wrong.  Secondary being the key word of the phrase, something you apparently missed.  A psychological approach will help you to understand.  I suspect you actually do understand and simply ignore, otherwise, you would not have used the word "primary" when speaking of the function of breasts.

Here's your problem; not every man is aroused by breasts.

I wouldn't take it that far.  I'm not a breast man, but still...Harry explained it all to Sally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8kpYm-6nuE

[Quinault]

My husband would be a bad example. He is so unfazed by breastfeeding that he wouldn't even notice. I have been breastfeeding between 1-2 kids for 11 years solid. A naked supermodel walking down the street would be arrested for indecent exposure. A breastfeeding woman would not. Because *legally* there is a distinction where I live.

[ialmisry]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

The problem is, in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, this "exposure" you are rallying against is the norm.  As a matter of fact, those who lived no where else were amused/perplexed by my prudishness about it.

We don't live in the Middle East.

Our Lord, and His mother, did.

And we do not.  They also have honor killings there.  They also view women as property.  Just sayin...

They don't have school shootings.  Just sayin'...

[Quinault]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn't have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer; she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

Here is your problem, you are wrong.  Secondary being the key word of the phrase, something you apparently missed.  A psychological approach will help you to understand.  I suspect you actually do understand and simply ignore, otherwise, you would not have used the word "primary" when speaking of the function of breasts.

Here's your problem; not every man is aroused by breasts.

I wouldn't take it that far.  I'm not a breast man, but still...Harry explained it all to Sally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8kpYm-6nuE

Worldwide amongst cultures breasts would not be listed as the #1 arousing attribute of a woman. IIRC that spot belongs to hips/buttocks.

[LBK]

Returning to the Milk-giver icon:

A few of the many hymns which deal with the matter, from a variety of Orthodox services:

Without seed you gave birth in time to the timeless Son of the Father, O Mother of God. O strange wonder! you nourished Him at your breast while remaining a virgin.

Search the Scriptures, as Christ our God said in the Gospels, for in them we find Him brought to birth and wrapped in swaddling clothes, nursed and suckled, accepting circumcision and carried by Symeon, not in imagination, but in truth appearing to the world. To Him let us cry, ‘God before the ages, glory to You!’

All of us, the generations of men, bless you as the Virgin who, alone among women, gave birth without seed to God incarnate; for the fire of the Godhead made His abode within you, and you nurtured the Creator and Lord with milk as a babe. Therefore, we, the race of angels and men, cry out to you together: Entreat Christ our God, that He grant remission of offences to those who with faith honor your all-holy birthgiving.

All the choirs of Angels were amazed, pure Virgin, at the dread mystery of your child-bearing: how He who by His will alone upholds the universe is held as a mortal in your arms, and how the Pre-eternal accepts a beginning, and He who nourishes everything that breathes by His ineffable goodness is suckled at the breast. And as they praise you as truly God’s Mother, we glorify you.

The Creator of the ages, who fulfilled the law as a babe of eight days, is circumcised in the flesh; He is wrapped in swaddling clothes as a mortal and He is nourished with milk, who holds all things by His infinite strength as God, and ends them in an instant.

Icons are the visual counterpart of hymns, and both represent and proclaim what the Church teaches and believes.

[Kerdy]

My husband would be a bad example. He is so unfazed by breastfeeding that he wouldn't even notice. I have been breastfeeding between 1-2 kids for 11 years solid. A naked supermodel walking down the street would be arrested for indecent exposure. A breastfeeding woman would not. Because *legally* there is a distinction where I live.

Your husband, believe it or not, would notice.  He most likely would even comment about how she should not be doing that, but he would notice.  An exposed breast is an exposed breast regardless of what the law says.  Some states allow homosexuals to marry, but that does not make it acceptable.  And again, breast feeding is NOT the problem.  Why are you unable to distinguish between feeding and public nudity?

[Kerdy]

I don't care if it is "artful" or "natural". There are certain parts of our bodies which are reserved for our spouses eyes only (and our doctors).

So you are okay with breasts, just as long as they aren't used for their primary... ministry, shall we say?

Rather silly.

I thinks it's silly that you missed the whole point of what I said... Either your mother or your wife. Why do you automatically jumped to conclusions with your mind in the gutter.

Like I said, one shouldn't see another woman's breasts unless they are a doctor or the woman is their mother or wife (or daughter).

The whole stupid culture we live in had deadened too many people to such exposure and has led so many people to automatically think with their mind in the gutter. That's going to continue getting worse the more we let liberals have their way with our society.

The problem is, in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, this "exposure" you are rallying against is the norm.  As a matter of fact, those who lived no where else were amused/perplexed by my prudishness about it.

We don't live in the Middle East.

Our Lord, and His mother, did.

And we do not.  They also have honor killings there.  They also view women as property.  Just sayin...

They don't have school shootings.  Just sayin'...

They also worship a false god.  Just sayin...

They may not be the example to set the standard.

[Quinault]

And from a purely practical position; if God meant breasts to primarily be for sexual enjoyment He wouldn't make them look their best naturally when no woman wants to allow a man to touch them. Engorgement after giving birth to a baby is quite the incredible sight to behold. And at that moment sex is the very last thing on a woman's mind, not to mention pretty much physically impossible to enjoy.

[Kerdy]

What does nursing in a hospital ward have to do with public exposure of secondary sex organs?  My guess, nothing, but then you wouldn't have anything to post otherwise.

Here's your problem. They aren't actually sex organs. They may be pretty to look at to some, but the function of breasts is not sexual. If a woman loses her breasts to cancer; she isn't incapable of having sex. The primary function is nourishing a baby.

Here is your problem, you are wrong.  Secondary being the key word of the phrase, something you apparently missed.  A psychological approach will help you to understand.  I suspect you actually do understand and simply ignore, otherwise, you would not have used the word "primary" when speaking of the function of breasts.

Here's your problem; not every man is aroused by breasts.

I wouldn't take it that far.  I'm not a breast man, but still...Harry explained it all to Sally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8kpYm-6nuE

Worldwide amongst cultures breasts would not be listed as the #1 arousing attribute of a woman. IIRC that spot belongs to hips/buttocks.

#1 or #2 makes no difference.  The point is, they arouse and regardless of YOUR views, if you KNOW it arouses or causes a stumbling block for someone else, YOU are at fault, not that person.

[Kerdy]

And from a purely practical position; if God meant breasts to primarily be for sexual enjoyment He wouldn't make them look their best naturally when no woman wants to allow a man to touch them. Engorgement after giving birth to a baby is quite the incredible sight to behold. And at that moment sex is the very last thing on a woman's mind, not to mention pretty much physically impossible to enjoy.

Every woman is different.

[Quinault]

My husband would be a bad example. He is so unfazed by breastfeeding that he wouldn't even notice. I have been breastfeeding between 1-2 kids for 11 years solid. A naked supermodel walking down the street would be arrested for indecent exposure. A breastfeeding woman would not. Because *legally* there is a distinction where I live.

Your husband, believe it or not, would notice.  He most likely would even comment about how she should not be doing that, but he would notice.  An exposed breast is an exposed breast regardless of what the law says.  Some states allow homosexuals to marry, but that does not make it acceptable.  And again, breast feeding is NOT the problem.  Why are you unable to distinguish between feeding and public nudity?

Why do you assume that all women that don't use a cover pull out their entire breast? I am 99% sure you have passed thousands of women breast-feeding over your lifetime and you had no clue they were doing it. If one of our babies cry because they are hungry he hands them to me in public and says they need to eat.

[Quinault]

And from a purely practical position; if God meant breasts to primarily be for sexual enjoyment He wouldn't make them look their best naturally when no woman wants to allow a man to touch them. Engorgement after giving birth to a baby is quite the incredible sight to behold. And at that moment sex is the very last thing on a woman's mind, not to mention pretty much physically impossible to enjoy.

Every woman is different.

No, all women get the best looking breasts of their life during engorgement. And NO woman feels sexy leaking milk and lochia.

[Kerdy]

My husband would be a bad example. He is so unfazed by breastfeeding that he wouldn't even notice. I have been breastfeeding between 1-2 kids for 11 years solid. A naked supermodel walking down the street would be arrested for indecent exposure. A breastfeeding woman would not. Because *legally* there is a distinction where I live.

Your husband, believe it or not, would notice.  He most likely would even comment about how she should not be doing that, but he would notice.  An exposed breast is an exposed breast regardless of what the law says.  Some states allow homosexuals to marry, but that does not make it acceptable.  And again, breast feeding is NOT the problem.  Why are you unable to distinguish between feeding and public nudity?

Why do you assume that all women that don't use a cover pull out their entire breast? I am 99% sure you have passed thousands of women breast-feeding over your lifetime and you had no clue they were doing it. If one of our babies cry because they are hungry he hands them to me in public and says they need to eat.

Why don’t you simply place a small, thin piece of clothing to cover yourself, which will in no way obstruct or interfere with your feeding, simply because you can, pretending it will in some way inhibit your child’s ability to feed, all while ignoring the views of people around you?

You would be amazed at what I notice just walking around in public.

[Kerdy]

And from a purely practical position; if God meant breasts to primarily be for sexual enjoyment He wouldn't make them look their best naturally when no woman wants to allow a man to touch them. Engorgement after giving birth to a baby is quite the incredible sight to behold. And at that moment sex is the very last thing on a woman's mind, not to mention pretty much physically impossible to enjoy.

Every woman is different.

No, all women get the best looking breasts of their life during engorgement. And NO woman feels sexy leaking milk and lochia.

Every woman is different.  I wouldn't make this point if I had not been privy to conversations I wish I could forget.

[Quinault]

Like I said, they provide covers now, and there isn't any reason to not use them.

Spoken like someone that has never tried to use one. After a certain point you end up showing MORE breast trying to use a cover than you would just lifting your shirt. You have to basically pull your shirt up to your chin under those things to see well enough to latch. Once a baby is capable, they pull those things off or up faster than you can imagine. So instead of a constant amount of cover, with just the head of the baby poking out, you end up flashing everyone every time your baby yanks the cover wrong. And for someone like me that is incapable of breast feeding without two hands, it is just impossible. No one likes a blanket on their head, babies included. Trying to breast feed whilst keeping a cover on is like trying to hold an octopus.


Until you actually *have breasts* don't think that you actually know how challenging it is to do. How about I tell you that when you want to urinate you aren't allowed to use your hands.

[Kerdy]

Returning to the Milk-giver icon:

A few of the many hymns which deal with the matter, from a variety of Orthodox services:

Without seed you gave birth in time to the timeless Son of the Father, O Mother of God. O strange wonder! you nourished Him at your breast while remaining a virgin.

Search the Scriptures, as Christ our God said in the Gospels, for in them we find Him brought to birth and wrapped in swaddling clothes, nursed and suckled, accepting circumcision and carried by Symeon, not in imagination, but in truth appearing to the world. To Him let us cry, ‘God before the ages, glory to You!’

All of us, the generations of men, bless you as the Virgin who, alone among women, gave birth without seed to God incarnate; for the fire of the Godhead made His abode within you, and you nurtured the Creator and Lord with milk as a babe. Therefore, we, the race of angels and men, cry out to you together: Entreat Christ our God, that He grant remission of offences to those who with faith honor your all-holy birthgiving.

All the choirs of Angels were amazed, pure Virgin, at the dread mystery of your child-bearing: how He who by His will alone upholds the universe is held as a mortal in your arms, and how the Pre-eternal accepts a beginning, and He who nourishes everything that breathes by His ineffable goodness is suckled at the breast. And as they praise you as truly God’s Mother, we glorify you.

The Creator of the ages, who fulfilled the law as a babe of eight days, is circumcised in the flesh; He is wrapped in swaddling clothes as a mortal and He is nourished with milk, who holds all things by His infinite strength as God, and ends them in an instant.

Icons are the visual counterpart of hymns, and both represent and proclaim what the Church teaches and believes.

I'm not saying they are wrong, just I won't have one in my home.  I find them distasteful.

[LBK]

My husband would be a bad example. He is so unfazed by breastfeeding that he wouldn't even notice. I have been breastfeeding between 1-2 kids for 11 years solid. A naked supermodel walking down the street would be arrested for indecent exposure. A breastfeeding woman would not. Because *legally* there is a distinction where I live.

Your husband, believe it or not, would notice.  He most likely would even comment about how she should not be doing that, but he would notice.  An exposed breast is an exposed breast regardless of what the law says.  Some states allow homosexuals to marry, but that does not make it acceptable.  And again, breast feeding is NOT the problem.  Why are you unable to distinguish between feeding and public nudity?

Why do you assume that all women that don't use a cover pull out their entire breast? I am 99% sure you have passed thousands of women breast-feeding over your lifetime and you had no clue they were doing it. If one of our babies cry because they are hungry he hands them to me in public and says they need to eat.

Why don’t you simply place a small, thin piece of clothing to cover yourself, which will in no way obstruct or interfere with your feeding, simply because you can, pretending it will in some way inhibit your child’s ability to feed, all while ignoring the views of people around you?

You would be amazed at what I notice just walking around in public.

Quinault already answered that a couple of pages ago. Stop embarrassing yourself, Kerdy.

[Kerdy]

Like I said, they provide covers now, and there isn't any reason to not use them.

Spoken like someone that has never tried to use one. After a certain point you end up showing MORE breast trying to use a cover than you would just lifting your shirt. You have to basically pull your shirt up to your chin under those things to see well enough to latch. Once a baby is capable, they pull those things off or up faster than you can imagine. So instead of a constant amount of cover, with just the head of the baby poking out, you end up flashing everyone every time your baby yanks the cover wrong. And for someone like me that is incapable of breast feeding without two hands, it is just impossible. No one likes a blanket on their head, babies included. Trying to breast feed whilst keeping a cover on is like trying to hold an octopus.


Until you actually *have breasts* don't think that you actually know how challenging it is to do. How about I tell you that when you want to urinate you aren't allowed to use your hands.

I believe it is safe to say if our actions cause another person to fall, that action is wrong.  So, if a lady breast feed in public, knowing it is a stumbling block for someone, it is wrong, period, regardless of her personal opinions on the matter.  Let’s imagine she is at the mall, her child needs feeding, and instead of moving to a discreet area and using a blanket, she decides, because she is a modern and strong woman, she will conduct her private business within the view of everyone at the mall.  Then, teenage boys are walking by, with their hormones fully engaged, and see this take place.  Do you REALLY expect them to think, “Good for her!  That baby needs to eat and no one should tell her not to feed her baby!”  ooor… do we expect them to think, “BOOB!”  If you vote for the first, you are naive at best.  If you realize the second, cover your breasts and stop causing others to sin.  

BTW – This doesn’t stop with young men.  Its men of all ages and in our “modern society” its women as well.  In relation to the, “You don’t have breasts” comment, that is true, but my wife has them, as did my mother, grandmother, sister, cousins, friends, co-workers, daughters, niece, etc., and I can tell you, I don’t know any of them who WANT people staring at their clothes breasts, much less exposed breasts, regardless of the situation.  So that silly comment holds no weight.  

[Kerdy]

My husband would be a bad example. He is so unfazed by breastfeeding that he wouldn't even notice. I have been breastfeeding between 1-2 kids for 11 years solid. A naked supermodel walking down the street would be arrested for indecent exposure. A breastfeeding woman would not. Because *legally* there is a distinction where I live.

Your husband, believe it or not, would notice.  He most likely would even comment about how she should not be doing that, but he would notice.  An exposed breast is an exposed breast regardless of what the law says.  Some states allow homosexuals to marry, but that does not make it acceptable.  And again, breast feeding is NOT the problem.  Why are you unable to distinguish between feeding and public nudity?

Why do you assume that all women that don't use a cover pull out their entire breast? I am 99% sure you have passed thousands of women breast-feeding over your lifetime and you had no clue they were doing it. If one of our babies cry because they are hungry he hands them to me in public and says they need to eat.

Why don’t you simply place a small, thin piece of clothing to cover yourself, which will in no way obstruct or interfere with your feeding, simply because you can, pretending it will in some way inhibit your child’s ability to feed, all while ignoring the views of people around you?

You would be amazed at what I notice just walking around in public.

Quinault already answered that a couple of pages ago. Stop embarrassing yourself, Kerdy.

I am in no way embarrased.  She gave her view.  One of millions.

[Quinault]

And from a purely practical position; if God meant breasts to primarily be for sexual enjoyment He wouldn't make them look their best naturally when no woman wants to allow a man to touch them. Engorgement after giving birth to a baby is quite the incredible sight to behold. And at that moment sex is the very last thing on a woman's mind, not to mention pretty much physically impossible to enjoy.

Every woman is different.

No, all women get the best looking breasts of their life during engorgement. And NO woman feels sexy leaking milk and lochia.

Every woman is different.  I wouldn't make this point if I had not been privy to conversations I wish I could forget.

Whatever you overheard; there isn't a woman on the planet that would have sex during engorgement. You do *know* when engorgement is, right? Engorgement isn't breastfeeding. Engorgement is the few days after delivery when your milk changes from colostrum to milk. It doesn't last very long, but it is extremely painful. Not to mention during that same time your uterus is shrinking from the size of a watermelon back down to the size of a orange via painful contractions every few minutes 24/7. That is painful as well. Nope, women don't physically want to have sex during that time. Emotionally, yes they would crave the closeness. But physically sex is the last thing any woman would want at that point.

[LBK]