Christmas’ missing icon: Mary breastfeeding Jesus

[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.

[Tags:]

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