Christmas’ missing icon: Mary breastfeeding Jesus

[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]

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.

If you heard these hymns in church, would you find them distasteful?

[ialmisry]

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.

When did we start talking about what was going on in her head?  The activity in HIS head is what has been the topic.   Like Harry told Sally.

[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.

If you heard these hymns in church, would you find them distasteful?

Hearing the word breasts and seeing breasts are different, so you will forgive my not understanding your attempt to correlate the two.

[Quinault]

If breasts are meant to be sexual, they should be enjoyable for both the man and the woman. Otherwise, no matter how much a man would want to touch-he wouldn't be allowed. Breasts look their best when men aren't allowed to touch them because it causes GREAT PAIN to the woman. Sex is afterall meant to be mutually enjoyable. So if God designed breasts for mutual sexual pleasure, why would he make them look so awesome when sex is impossible?


For my part, I don't like pain mediation for delivery. But those afterbirth pains that last for weeks? Hook me up to IV morphine.

[Kerdy]

If breasts are meant to be sexual, they should be enjoyable for both the man and the woman.

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

[Quinault]

I postulate that any part of the body can be sexy. But it seems off/wrong to make a taboo over a woman using her breasts for their primary function because some men find breasts attractive. We don't live in an Islamic society where women must be covered head to toe to prevent sexual temptation. Otherwise 99% of what college girls wear would be outlawed. A woman wearing a miniskirt is not treated with the same disdain and abuse that a woman sitting down to feed her child is. That is simply wrong.

[Quinault]

If breasts are meant to be sexual, they should be enjoyable for both the man and the woman.

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

If you want to have sex, it is advisable that your partner actually enjoy what you are doing

But what do I know? I only have 6 kids and have been married 16 years....

[Kerdy]

Well, I just asked my wife her opinion.  And I quote, “I don’t think she should have to go to a different area to feed, but she should use a blanket to cover up.  Really, how hard is it?  It only takes two seconds to cover up with a blanket.”

There you have it.  A womans opinion.

[Quinault]

Has she tried to use a cover-up on a baby that keeps ripping it off?

[Kerdy]

If breasts are meant to be sexual, they should be enjoyable for both the man and the woman.

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

If you want to have sex, it is advisable that your partner actually enjoy what you are doing

But what do I know? I only have 6 kids and have been married 16 years....

Every woman is different.

I've been married for 17 and have kids of our own.

EDIT:  Almost 17.

[Kerdy]

Has she tried to use a cover-up on a baby that keeps ripping it off?

You can't handle an infant?  You mean, like changing a diaper when the kid tries to get away?  Like I said, we have kids, my sister is a mother, I have tons of friends and co-workers who are mothers.  Your arguments simply fail.

[Quinault]

The issue I have isn't using a cover per se. It is this concept that it is "so easy" to use one that every woman should. It absolutely is not that easy to use a cover. It is actually quite difficult after a certain point to keep a cover on a baby. Developmentally a child wants to see the world around them. They resent having a blanket over their head. Not to mention in certain temperatures it is inadvisable to use a cover because you end up overheating the baby. Babies don't self regulate temperature for some time. During that time it is dangerous to overhead them. Later on it is inadvisable because of heat issues as well. You don't take a baby and put them under a blanket next to a already hot body in hot weather. Not everyone has A/C.

[Nephi]

If you heard these hymns in church, would you find them distasteful?

I agree with him in not wanting to have one in my house, but I wouldn't have a problem with these hymns. I suppose, for me at least, hearing is different than seeing.

For example, hearing about the nudity of Adam and Eve in the Garden is different than seeing pictures with them uncovered. Likewise, I realize Jesus had male genitalia, but I don't care to see it in icons, pictures, and statues.

[Kerdy]

The issue I have isn't using a cover per se. It is this concept that it is "so easy" to use one that every woman should. It absolutely is not that easy to use a cover. It is actually quite difficult after a certain point to keep a cover on a baby. Developmentally a child wants to see the world around them. They resent having a blanket over their head. Not to mention in certain temperatures it is inadvisable to use a cover because you end up overheating the baby. Babies don't self regulate temperature for some time. During that time it is dangerous to overhead them. Later on it is inadvisable because of heat issues as well. You don't take a baby and put them under a blanket next to a already hot body in hot weather. Not everyone has A/C.

And there are no other ways to work around this outside exposing your naked body in public?

[Quinault]

Has she tried to use a cover-up on a baby that keeps ripping it off?

You can't handle an infant?  You mean, like changing a diaper when the kid tries to get away?  Like I said, we have kids, my sister is a mother, I have tons of friends and co-workers who are mothers.  Your arguments simply fail.

How exactly do you think breast feeding works? Do you think a woman just hauls out a breast and the baby keeps the nipple in their mouth? Let me tell you; it isn't like that. I have to have one arm/hand to hold the baby, and another hand to keep my breast position correctly for feeding. That leaves me without any hands to keep a cover down. And don't say it is because I am incompetent. I have been doing this plenty long enough to know how to do it. I have had lactation consultants come to ME for advice on breast feeding issues.

[Quinault]

The issue I have isn't using a cover per se. It is this concept that it is "so easy" to use one that every woman should. It absolutely is not that easy to use a cover. It is actually quite difficult after a certain point to keep a cover on a baby. Developmentally a child wants to see the world around them. They resent having a blanket over their head. Not to mention in certain temperatures it is inadvisable to use a cover because you end up overheating the baby. Babies don't self regulate temperature for some time. During that time it is dangerous to overhead them. Later on it is inadvisable because of heat issues as well. You don't take a baby and put them under a blanket next to a already hot body in hot weather. Not everyone has A/C.

And there are no other ways to work around this outside exposing your naked body in public?

Yes, by NOT using a cover I exposed ZERO breast.

[Kerdy]

If you heard these hymns in church, would you find them distasteful?

I agree with him in not wanting to have one in my house, but I wouldn't have a problem with these hymns. I suppose, for me at least, hearing is different than seeing.

For example, hearing about the nudity of Adam and Eve in the Garden is different than seeing pictures with them uncovered. Likewise, I realize Jesus had male genitalia, but I don't care to see it in icons, pictures, and statues.

Additionally, I have always been under the impression icons were written in a certain style to avoid the problem of graven images and that style was to not be life like.

[Kerdy]

Has she tried to use a cover-up on a baby that keeps ripping it off?

You can't handle an infant?  You mean, like changing a diaper when the kid tries to get away?  Like I said, we have kids, my sister is a mother, I have tons of friends and co-workers who are mothers.  Your arguments simply fail.

How exactly do you think breast feeding works? Do you think a woman just hauls out a breast and the baby keeps the nipple in their mouth? Let me tell you; it isn't like that. I have to have one arm/hand to hold the baby, and another hand to keep my breast position correctly for feeding. That leaves me without any hands to keep a cover down. And don't say it is because I am incompetent. I have been doing this plenty long enough to know how to do it. I have had lactation consultants come to ME for advice on breast feeding issues.

Well, I am done here.  According to you, no one knows anything unless they have breasts. 

[Kerdy]

The issue I have isn't using a cover per se. It is this concept that it is "so easy" to use one that every woman should. It absolutely is not that easy to use a cover. It is actually quite difficult after a certain point to keep a cover on a baby. Developmentally a child wants to see the world around them. They resent having a blanket over their head. Not to mention in certain temperatures it is inadvisable to use a cover because you end up overheating the baby. Babies don't self regulate temperature for some time. During that time it is dangerous to overhead them. Later on it is inadvisable because of heat issues as well. You don't take a baby and put them under a blanket next to a already hot body in hot weather. Not everyone has A/C.

And there are no other ways to work around this outside exposing your naked body in public?

Yes, by NOT using a cover I exposed ZERO breast.

Or, going to a private area or pumping and putting into bottles.  you know, stuff millions of other women do every day.  Afterall, we don't nurse kids until they are 5 years old, right?

[ialmisry]

I postulate that any part of the body can be sexy. But it seems off/wrong to make a taboo over a woman using her breasts for their primary function because some men find breasts attractive. We don't live in an Islamic society where women must be covered head to toe to prevent sexual temptation. Otherwise 99% of what college girls wear would be outlawed. A woman wearing a miniskirt is not treated with the same disdain and abuse that a woman sitting down to feed her child is. That is simply wrong.

covering from head to toe doesn't work: I've seen women get cat calls and attention while so dressed in the Middle East.  I haven't seen such attention to a breastfeeding women in the Middle East, however.

[Quinault]

Now that response proves you either didn't read thru the thread, or you just chose to ignore large parts since I already addressed this.

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.

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Christmas’ missing icon: Mary breastfeeding Jesus