OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 01:37:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Breastfeeding  (Read 10062 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« on: December 14, 2012, 12:36:09 AM »

Topic was split from here.  Anything on breastfeeding in general can be discussed and debated in this thread. I pulled out the relevant posts for the Religious topic on the Breastfeeding icon in the other thread. I encourage anyone who talked about both topics in one post to post in the other thread for specifically any points you like to make on the spiritual, theological, and liturgical significance of the icon. Also remember it is the season of the Theotokos. So meditate on this particular season while you are posting.

God bless.

Mina



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?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2013, 06:11:19 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2012, 01:22:55 AM »

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).
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2012, 01:28:25 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 01:29:58 AM by Quinault » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2012, 01:51:52 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 01:52:28 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2012, 01:54:01 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 01:54:35 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2012, 02:53:28 AM »

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... ... ... Wink

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.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2012, 02:58:28 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2012, 03:02:43 AM »

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. Roll Eyes 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. police
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2012, 03:04:51 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2012, 03:14:02 AM »

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

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

Quote
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.

 Grin


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

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:21:59 AM by Quinault » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2012, 03:16:37 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2012, 03:23:32 AM »

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 Roll Eyes

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:25:31 AM by Quinault » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2012, 03:28:16 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:29:11 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2012, 03:28:33 AM »

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... Grin 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!  Undecided
Logged

88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2012, 03:31:34 AM »

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 Roll Eyes

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)
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2012, 03:31:51 AM »

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

Oh, man I laughed so hard at this!  laugh
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2012, 03:33:17 AM »

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 Roll Eyes

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 Roll Eyes

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:34:03 AM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2012, 03:38:51 AM »

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

Quote
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.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2012, 03:41:01 AM »

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 Roll Eyes

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 Roll Eyes

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:47:04 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2012, 03:45:33 AM »

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 Wink
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:49:55 AM by Quinault » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2012, 03:50:47 AM »

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.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2012, 03:52:20 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2012, 03:52:47 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2012, 03:53:40 AM »

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?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 03:55:37 AM by Quinault » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2012, 03:58:40 AM »

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?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2012, 04:07:30 AM »

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.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 04:09:37 AM by Quinault » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2012, 04:08:10 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2012, 04:10:46 AM »

If you use the Victorian era as an example of healthy views on sexuality, I feel very sorry for you.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2012, 04:14:25 AM »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2012, 04:15:01 AM »

Again; what is the model culture on attitudes toward breast feeding in public?
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2012, 04:18:45 AM »

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.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2012, 04:19:21 AM »

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.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2012, 04:20:37 AM »

Who then should be used as a model?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 04:20:54 AM by Quinault » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2012, 04:21:23 AM »

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 Roll Eyes

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 04:22:16 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2012, 04:21:45 AM »

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.
Logged

JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2012, 04:24:38 AM »

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?

Quote
...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.

Quote
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
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2012, 04:26:03 AM »

Attempting to force Japan into modern "civilized" society CERTAINLY didn't backfire on the US. Nope. Not at all....
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 04:26:29 AM by Quinault » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2012, 04:27:59 AM »

@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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 04:28:27 AM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2012, 04:28:30 AM »

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.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2012, 04:29:08 AM »

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.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2012, 04:31:49 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 04:33:48 AM by Quinault » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2012, 04:33:19 AM »

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.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2012, 04:33:52 AM »

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

I know I just feel like arguing
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2012, 04:43:24 AM »

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.
Logged

JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,289


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2012, 05:15:11 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 05:16:18 AM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Tags: breastfeeding 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 71 queries.