In 2013, 81.1 percent of U.S. mothers said they started out breast-feeding their baby. That's up from 75 percent in 2008, and 70 percent in 2000, according to the CDC.
[...] 52 percent of U.S. mothers said they were still breast-feeding their infants when the babies were 6 months old, and 30 percent said they were still breast-feeding when the babies reached 1 year.
How should society handle breastfeeding in public and the workplace? Should there be any restrictions on the age of the child?
Breastfeeding has obvious benefits for a child's development, but breast milk is also a fluid of the body that can carry disease.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-still-breastfeeds-daughter-aged-4881835
http://www.livescience.com/55846-breast-feeding-mothers-united-states.html
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:19PM
We are still rebounding from an entire generation in the 70's and 80's that was told "breastfeeding is bad". I have no idea why anyone bought into that, considering a couple hundred million years of mammals proving otherwise.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:27PM
Reminds me of this:
Paul E. Meehl. Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978, Vol. 46, 806-834. http://meehl.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua1696/f/113theoreticalrisks.pdf [umn.edu]
The presence of fads like you describe should make us very concerned about that area of research. It isn't normal for that to be happening.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:33PM
Actually, the introduction of formula goes back much longer than that, shortly after the introduction of the rubber nipple that's now ubiquitous on baby bottles. But a real big push came in the late 1950's when several major formula manufacturers started pulling what amounted to a "first hit is free" marketing campaign starting right in the hospitals.
The 1970's are when the hippies and feminists started really countering that rhetoric, although they certainly had their share of BS about it too, but the end result is that it's become more popular again. Which is good, because by all available measures breast milk is the healthiest food for an infant, provided the woman providing the milk is healthy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:34PM
Marketing. Product manufacturers want to sell more products and it's not like people back then had the Internet as a source of information. You had to go to the library and whatnot to get information and it was much easier to game the information that people received.
Also the line of thinking, at least according to Darwin, is that evolution is messy and made lots of mistakes. For instance the appendix was thought to be a useless evolutionary leftover according to Darwin's book and that was later proven to be wrong. Darwin was wrong about a whole bunch of things and, as it turns out, evolutionary hypothesis actually predicts very little. I think the whole line of thinking that 'we evolved and there is no design in nature and so we can design things better than nature' is what promoted much of this nonsense and much of it later turned out to be false.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:15PM
You're conflating two separate things here; no one says we can do better just because nature is random and undirected. This is sloppy theistic thinking (and before you ask, no I'm not an atheist, I just understand that "intelligent design" is somewhere between bankrupt and maltheistic).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:38PM
The problem with the "X is bad" movements in general is that they spread as tribal knowledge, as old wives tales, and not as acceptable or deniable science. The scientists in the field have some ideas, and some group takes the preliminary research into those ideas to condescend to parents everywhere. It's something about parenting especially that many are mostly interested in telling others that they are wrong, and these ideas give ammunition to such efforts. We need to stop treating science as anything other than science. We may lose the ability to describe what's "wrong" with someone's parenting, but these fads were never an adequate or even useful description anyway. Tribal knowledge must only be the parenting practices passed down over the generations, in such a way that the weird superstitions are more likely to be based on centuries of observation and adjustment rather than the consequence of an unproven hypothesis.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by schad on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:13PM
The mere fact that something has been done for a long time doesn't prove or even imply that it's better than modern alternatives. All it does is prove that it's no more harmful to the chances of successful reproduction than the alternatives.
In this case, the only pre-modern alternative to breast feeding was... nothing. It doesn't take much to beat death. I suppose we could have evolved to vomit half-digested food into the mouths of our children, but evolution isn't really under our conscious control. We evolved to breast feed; that was good enough for us not to go extinct. The end.
I can't speak to what things were like in the 70s and 80s. But today, there is an absolutely insane amount of pressure on women to breast feed. Not just to do it, but to enjoy it. If you don't enjoy breast feeding, basically, you're a monster. There is something terribly wrong with you. You have post-partum depression, or you're selfish and impatient, or you're too lazy to try to make it work properly -- and those latter two reasons mean you shouldn't be permitted to have kids, you disgusting, reprehensible, utter failure of a woman.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:49PM
Quite true. However, decades of research do in fact imply that in this case, breastfeeding is better.
Based on said decades of research that have determined that breastfeeding is good for the baby and probably good for mom too. As for enjoying it, all I can say is that every mother I've known whose breastfed their children enjoyed it most of the time.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:41PM
But today, there is an absolutely insane amount of pressure on women to breast feed.
Based on said decades of research that have determined that breastfeeding is good for the baby and probably good for mom too.
Yes, but in the grand scheme of things you can do to ensure better outcomes for your baby, breastfeeding's benefits aren't really very strong. The proven effects for breast milk are even less, yet how many young mothers spend time nowadays stressing out with a breast pump rather than spending that time holding and interacting with their child (which almost certainly has more benefits than the breast milk itself). There are a number of recent studies, in fact, which suggest that most of the "benefits" of breastfeeding are potentially due to sample bias. (See my post above.)
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday August 25 2016, @01:51PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:30PM
In this case, the only pre-modern alternative to breast feeding was... nothing. It doesn't take much to beat death.
Not true. Almost every human culture around the world has a history of "wet-nurses." Yes, when we think of them today, it probably conjures up an image of an aristocratic woman who hands off her child to someone poor woman to feed. But historically, this practice also existed to help out mothers in a village who couldn't produce enough milk for their own child. It's only in our modern "isolated" world that's squeamish about bodily fluids that we find such a practice to be weird. Yet that puts way too much pressure on mothers, and some of them just don't have enough milk. (Also, obviously breastfeeding can transmit diseases and such, so I'm not necessarily encouraging a return to co-nursing, only noting that there were pre-modern alternatives other than death.)
But today, there is an absolutely insane amount of pressure on women to breast feed. Not just to do it, but to enjoy it. If you don't enjoy breast feeding, basically, you're a monster. There is something terribly wrong with you. You have post-partum depression, or you're selfish and impatient, or you're too lazy to try to make it work properly -- and those latter two reasons mean you shouldn't be permitted to have kids, you disgusting, reprehensible, utter failure of a woman.
I wrote a comment above about my own experience with my wife dealing with this. Indeed, we were always careful about who we told we were supplementing with formula, because we had a number of bad encounters with other militant breastfeeders. Unless you've had a baby recently and lived in an "enlightened community" where breastfeeding is the norm, you probably have no idea what kind of stress this puts on new mothers, and how much shame they are made to feel when they can't live up to the standard.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:03AM
Goat milk (or rarely, cow's milk) was also used as a substitute. And just because there weren't rubber nipples doesn't mean there weren't methods of getting milk into a baby's mouth.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:18PM
It is possible to breast feed wrong, at first, with your first child. If you don't have a knowledgeable woman there to help you, it can be rough going. And having breast-fed a child before does not necessarily make a woman knowledgeable, because a great many women have little recollection of the early weeks, afterward (possibly as an effect of oxytocin flooding their system). A formal or informal lactation consultant can be quite helpful to get past initial difficulties in getting the kid to latch on. Once those hurdles are overcome the same oxytocin seems to render the breastfeeding experience generally pleasant; pumping breast milk for feeding when the mother has to go to work is the chore.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:45PM
udder failure of a woman.
FTFY (sorry, couldn't help myself, which applies to breastfeeding on multiple levels.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:52PM
Determining what food you should eat and how much to eat to maintain perfect health for you and your baby is hard and confusing. In theory, a drink can be formulated to be 100% perfect for you or your kid. Well, in theory...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:33PM
In practice, the mother's body can take amino acids, vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, sugars, etc from wide array of different foods and dietary preferences and reassemble them into a chemical arrangement that's been proven (in most cases*) to be better for the baby, and perhaps most importantly her baby, than something that came from a factory that assumes that humans are similarly made in factories.
But, I mean, in theory, there is no difference between practice and theory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:36PM
* Don't want to leave anybody hanging waiting for the footnote, was going to be a snarky comment about Flint, MI. I see I forgot to remove the star after removing the snarky comment.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:20PM
One of the benefits would be exposing the child to pathogens along with the mother's neutralizing antibodies. This would allow the child to mount an immune response and thus gain immunity with much reduced risk of severe illness. In general, you want to be exposed to diseases in this way rather than any other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:36PM
Another benefit is a lot fewer bowel movements per day. Breast-milk is perfect food for babies which results in a lot less waste. This means a lot less... waste.
History is just full of examples of man boldly proclaiming he has outdone nature for glory or profit, only to come running back with tail between legs. Nothing new here. Just like antibiotics in animal feed, fertilizers, pesticides, and all other nonsense men invented in previous century and proceeded to use irresponsibly.
Wait for climate change ("CO2 does nothing!", "Earth has been a lot warmer in the past anyway"), GMO and other more recent nonsense to come home to roost in next few decades.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:38PM
I think the difference is that anything we're doing to the environment is different than what existed before in nature. I'm not saying man made global warming is true or not, there are good arguments on both sides I think, but I do think we need to take care of the environment and make sure we aren't doing anything to harm it. Yes, it's true man has turned out to be wrong about a lot of things, and I think nature is designed a certain way by God, but that's no excuse for us not to do continued research into the matter to determine what our impact is on our environment and how best to manage it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:39PM
History is just full of examples of man boldly proclaiming he has outdone nature for glory or profit, only to come running back with tail between legs.
Like this [businessinsider.com]?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:35PM
Right, monoculture has never gone wrong, especially not when the last monocultured banana became extinct! And it's happening again. [naturalnews.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:31PM
Man, I really dislike that site.
They'll go out of their way to be dishonest if it pushes their big-business-friendly agenda.
I grabbed a stripped Google Cache [googleusercontent.com] of their stupid page just to avoid giving their shitty site a pagehit.
The title of the article is "Foods before genetic modification: Here's what your food would look like if it weren't genetically modified over millennia"
...then those fuckwits go and give an example of doing it the non-GMO way.
That's ANOTHER example of doing it the non-GMO way, fuckwits.
FUCKWITS.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:43PM
Do please explain the difference between GMO and selective breeding, besides one using a technique thousands of times faster.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:57PM
Here's your chance to link to how someone has gotten a fish gene into a tomato using cross-pollination.
...or anything remotely similar.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 25 2016, @01:04AM
A gene is a gene is a gene. Base pairs don't know from species, they determine it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 25 2016, @07:03AM
When genes are exchanged between species in nature, it's called "horizontal gene transfer." Wikipedia lists some examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Eukaryotes [wikipedia.org]
The "vectors" by which genes are transferred in genetic engineering exist in nature, where they do the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28molecular_biology%29 [wikipedia.org]
Of course, those aren't reasons to be incautious when using such techniques.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:59PM
Most of the "obvious" touted benefits have not stood up to scientific scrutiny (reduced asthma, different cognitive development, etc.), much like touted benefits to vitamin supplements and such. It is obvious from the "it just seems right" perspective, but not from real statistical significance benefit in studies (just like a lot of food/nutrition studies, which is not surprising because we're really talking about food/nutrition).
So, no, I'd say most of the benefits are not "obvious", at least not the baby health and development benefits.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:03PM
My wife had surgery prior to meeting me which precluded her being able to breastfeed fully, although she certainly gave it all she could. On top of that, one of our children had a severe protein intolerence when he was born that would have precluded being able to digest human milk. Formula is a fantastic invention and is the reason my children are alive. It also means I got to spend some enjoyable but exhausted hours when they were babies feeding them in the middle of the night and reading and posting online. I have definitely not seen any ill effects on them from having used formula.
I'm sure there are benefits to human milk. I'm sure there are benefits to nursing rather than merely pumping [newser.com]. And I'm sure that people should be allowed to make their own decisions on this: do I want to breastfeed or not? do I want to have a breastfeeding policy in my restaurant or not? do I want to print a note on the formula I manufacture encouraging people to breastfeed or not? etc.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:18PM
I'm sure there are benefits to human milk.
I haven't looked at this research in a few years, but as far as I know their are only limited proven benefits, mostly having to do with the special milk (colostrum) of the first week.
I'm sure there are benefits to nursing rather than merely pumping.
THIS. A few years back when I was dealing with my wife freaking out that our infant wasn't as interested in breastfeeding compared to bottlefeeding, I spent quite a bit of time obsessing over trying to determine what the research really said. I probably read 50 studies on breastmilk and breastfeeding, and skimmed a lot more. (Not news stories -- actual medical studies.) One thing that you realize right away is that a lot of these studies have really poor designs. But another thing that's very apparent is little effort has been made in most studies to separate the act of trying breastfeeding (i.e., with all the mother-child intimacy, etc.) from the effects of breastmilk itself.
Again, this was a few years back, but I was only able to find maybe 3 or 4 studies that actually addressed this distinction and compared breastfed babies to those who were bottle-fed breast milk. And basically in all of those studies, there was no statistically significant difference between those who were bottle-fed breast milk vs. those who were bottle-fed formula. (Actually, I think I saw ONE study that did find some sort of tiny "immune system" difference for babies who were bottle-fed breast milk, which basically amounted to babies contracting one less cold in their first 3 years or something.)
Most of the claimed developmental effects, etc. are potentially due to increased contact, bonding, etc. that comes from the act of breastfeeding, not the milk itself. But despite there being basically no evidence of a significant effect, we see many working mothers pumping away during their every coffee break trying to squeeze out a few more ounces, or the "black market" in breast milk (with its potentially for disease and contamination, particularly if not stored properly) for those desperate mothers who can't seem to produce enough.
Add to all of this potentially unnecessary stress is the fact that milk production seems significantly affected by excess stress. My wife was told by some doctor at some point that the first 90 days were most important in breastfeeding (again, I have NO idea where they got that magic number), so she was determined to make it to 90 days giving as much "natural" milk as possible. But it was difficult, because the baby wasn't interested in sucking hard enough on the breast, so my wife spent hours each day pumping just to provide that "magic elixir" for the baby. (And still we had to supplement with some formula.) In the place where we lived at that time, it seemed like a "badge of honor" to breastfeed, and when other mothers saw my wife pull out a bottle when she was out, she was given dirty looks. (At least a few times, she actually apologized and said, "But it's actually breast milk!")
I was convinced for a number of reasons that this problem was primarily psychological from all the stress we put on women to produce this milk... and indeed, on the VERY NEXT DAY after the 90-day window passed, suddenly my wife started producing almost twice as much milk, and the baby started eating more easily at the breast. Within a week or so after that magical "90-day deadline" stressfully put on her by a doctor, she had stopped pumping entirely, and the baby was getting more breast milk than ever. Coincidence? Perhaps.
From my own experience and research, I honestly think this whole breast-milk emphasis has risen to a level of hysteria (at least amount some communities), targeting women at their most vulnerable time and convincing them that they need to "go the extra mile" when they are most stressed, or else risk significant harm to a baby. And that's just dishonest. (It also leads to the La Leche League militants: I remember reading stories online of women who ended up with kids in the hospital after losing significant weight rather than feed them formula from a bottle. To me, that's basically child abuse.) There seems to be good research suggesting that mother-child intimacy is important in the first few months, so I'm all for trying to breastfeed as much as is reasonable. But the measured benefits of breast milk itself are quite minor and potentially not statistically significant (possibly even just the result of sample bias [philly.com], since breastfeeding moms tend to be more well-off and in better health [nytimes.com] on average).
TL;DR -- I'm all for breastfeeding if the mother wants to, but I'm even more for mothers (and fathers!) spending more "quality time" with infants. But we need to stop shaming and stressing out mothers over breastmilk. I also think we need a lot more research to justify this whole breast-pumping [psmag.com] thing or buying breast milk from strangers over the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:08PM
I haven't looked at the literature, but I would bet you are correct. I just base that on my sad but true heuristic, in general, there is very little high quality info about nutrition/health available and much pseudoscience has been generated to fill that hole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:18PM
Maternal antibodies are a pretty obvious benefit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:12PM
Not in the case with HIV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:09PM
well as long as they haven't gotten their precious hepatitis vaccine or been exposed to someone who has, they should be good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:35PM
Agreed. To kinda expand on what you said (or to basically repeat it differently)
When the baby formula is either in powdered form or isolated in the refrigerator it's basically not as susceptible to bacteria.
When it enters the body it warms up. The baby formula is very nutritious, carrying much of the nutrients needed by bacteria to grow. The baby isn't really producing any of its own antibodies so what you basically have are all these nutrients entering the body, warming up to body temperatures, with little immunological protection. You essentially have a breeding ground for bacteria with little protection. Not a good combination.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hawkwind on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:51PM
(Score: 3, Funny) by opinionated_science on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:36PM
"Bitty!!!!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:37PM
How should society handle breastfeeding in public and the workplace? Should there be any restrictions on the age of the child?
The answer is that there shouldn't be a monolithic answer to this.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: -1, Troll) by Francis on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:52PM
The answer is that women shouldn't be allowed to do that. This is just another double standard that women want.
Men need to adjust ourselves in public far more than women need to breast feed in public. One of those things can be planned for and the other can't. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to think about which one that is.
The point is that men are entitled to feel uncomfortable with women breast feeding in public and women need to just accept that. Men give up enough stuff because women are whiny and self-centered as it is, I think we ought to be entitled to feel comfortable from time to time.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:02PM
You're entitled to feel uncomfortable. That doesn't mean you're entitled to stop someone from doing the thing that makes you uncomfortable. Especially when you have some simple alternatives to putting up with it, like going someplace else or simply not looking at them.
And you can, whenever you are at home, or at the home of like-minded friends.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:42PM
And yet, men get in all sorts of trouble from women from adjusting ourselves when we need to.
Either it's OK to do the things that are natural and largely unavoidable, or it isn't. Considering the huge stink that women have made over things like checking them out and adjusting ourselves when we need to, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to a similar standard. Since we're expected to make them feel comfortable and welcome in public, it seems perfectly fair to expect them to avoid doing things that make us feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in public.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:04PM
Why does breastfeeding make you feel uncomfortable and unwelcome?
Now, if we're talking about radfems who think that assigned males have no right to witness such a holy activity because it'll make 'em rapey, that's another thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:34PM
I'm not sure why breastfeeding makes you so uncomfortable (I suspect it's cultural). When I see a woman breastfeeding in public, I don't read anything sexual into it. I was also raised around women who breastfed. When discussing double standards of nakedness, it's actually way more socially acceptable in our culture for men to walk around topless -- not less. If you're adjusting your junk because your pants are uncomfortable and somebody freaks out about it, that's just them reading their own mental noise into your perfectly non-creepy actions. If on the other hand somebody has a habit of rubbing their crotch in public while staring at people, I think small societies can generally figure out who amongst them is being creepy and deal with the situation accordingly. I'm with jdavidb in opposing monolithic standards.
If people are accusing you of creepiness without good cause, that sucks. The answer to that problem is not a ban on public breastfeeding.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Francis on Wednesday August 24 2016, @11:19PM
It almost certainly is cultural. Just like how some other cultures used to banish women when they were having their period.
I don't think it would be as much of an issue if more women would just admit that there's an element of education here. It's not really acceptable to just tell men that they need to SIU when women have been behaving like whiny little children over equally natural things that men do. I wish I had the option of excusing myself to the restroom everytime I needed to adjust myself, but that's not how the male body works. If those balls or the penis need adjusting, they tend to need it right then, two minutes later and there's nothing to do about it shy of completely removing the pants to do a proper readjustment.
It's literally acceptable for women to publicly call for men to be castrated, but somehow it's not OK for men to expect that we be shown the same level of courtesy when it comes to things that we'd rather not have to see.
Lastly, this whole breastfeeding in public thing is a relatively new development in America. It's not something that was a common thing when I was a kid, and the rules and norms don't really exist. I think there'd be a lot less resistance to it if there weren't the self-entitlement going on. Have a real dialog about it. Actually let men have our own opinions and stop being such whiny hypocrites about it.
I'm not really surprised that I'm being modded into oblivion. Female privilege isn't something that women like to admit to.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday August 25 2016, @12:05AM
It's literally acceptable for women to publicly call for men to be castrated,
Citation needed. Of course you can find people arguing the point, but I doubt you can find numbers showing that most of society finds the argument acceptable. If you can find legit numbers, I'll eat crow. I just don't think you can.
I'm not really surprised that I'm being modded into oblivion. Female privilege isn't something that women like to admit to.
I doubt that there are many women modding on SoylentNews. Some, yes. I'd bet good money that it's significantly less than the proportion of women in the general population, though. Attributing your down-modding to the inclinations of women seems silly. I'm pretty sure that you're getting down-modded because you keep using terms like "whiny little children" when referring to women, and modders (mostly men) are finding you to be trollish and flamebaity. Don't flamebait and you shouldn't get modded Flamebait. I think the culture of SoylentNews is generally pretty reluctant to down-mod people based on the views that comments express, as long as they are not worded with the intent to provoke. You can find exceptions, but they are exactly that (and they usually get corrected). I suspect that you could argue for the genocide of an entire race or gender without getting down-modded on most days, so long as you did it in the most calm and dispassionate way possible and it wasn't off-topic (Disagree isn't a down-mod, it's +0). If your argument is novel, you might even get modded Interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:24PM
You're entitled to feel uncomfortable. That doesn't mean you're entitled to stop someone from doing the thing that makes you uncomfortable.
Yes, you are. After all, isn't that the argument which makes rape (and numerous other violent-but-non-fatal crimes) illegal?
There is a trade-off between how uncomfortable it makes others versus how societal benefit.
Especially when you have some simple alternatives to putting up with it
With this qualifier, I'm prepared to agree with your statement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @01:35AM
I would propose that there's a difference between physical violence and psychic violence, and it's not just one of degree. In particular, when I've been subjected to physical violence, doing things like asking my inner Iron John for help haven't really done a lot of good. The inner Iron John works better against psychic violence.
In a roundabout way of saying, perhaps there's a tiny difference between feeling offended and being violently assaulted by somebody twice your size. It's difficult for various mantras and wtf to make somebody twice your size who has you pinned and is violating you go away.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:28PM
The answer is that women shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Why shouldn't Starbucks be allowed to allow breastfeeding in their facilities if they want? I don't believe in slavery, so I don't believe in telling Starbucks, or women, or anyone else what to do.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:45PM
Because that's a public space where more than one sex is allowed to be. There's all sorts of other things that they require as well, but you don't hear people bitching about the typical no shoes, no shirt, no service policy. No shoes is arguably a sanitation thing, but no shirt has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than enforcing people's view that certain parts of the body ought to be covered.
I don't hear people complaining about that rule. And most people understand that allowing dogs into places of business isn't a good idea. Between the allergies, the people who hate dogs and the dogs that don't behave, there's ample reason to ban non-service animals from the premises.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:08PM
Because that's a public space where more than one sex is allowed to be.
I just don't agree that people should have control over the property of others - I don't believe we should get our way at the expense of the rights of others.
There's all sorts of other things that they require as well, but you don't hear people bitching about the typical no shoes, no shirt, no service policy. No shoes is arguably a sanitation thing, but no shirt has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than enforcing people's view that certain parts of the body ought to be covered.
They should be able to do whatever they want because they own the place, and if somebody wants something else then a competitor can provide it if anyone is willing.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 25 2016, @07:36AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:29PM
The point is that men are entitled to feel uncomfortable with women breast feeding in public and women need to just accept that. Men give up enough stuff because women are whiny and self-centered as it is, I think we ought to be entitled to feel comfortable from time to time.
Of course they are entitled to feel uncomfortable, but that doesn't give them rights at the expense of anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Property owners ought to be able to make their own decisions about what is an isn't allowed on their property (enforced at their own expense), and then people who are that uncomfortable can pick a different restaurant.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:13PM
I thought (straight) men LIKED boobs, though. What makes you uncomfortable exactly? The fact that it's some other man's child, not yours?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:57PM
What makes you uncomfortable exactly? The fact that it's some other man's child, not yours?
I suspect, in Francis' case, it is just the fact that it is some other child, and not him. Poor Francis, I think he needs some adjustment.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:01PM
I get uncomfortable because I'm trying to get a peek of their boob without seeming like I'm trying to get a peek!
I'm not against it at all for the record. Anything that increases boobs in public I am all for.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:47PM
I'm not against it at all. anecdote, not data, but I got the breast milk for 18 months -- no allergies, rarely have a cold, etc. etc. However, what you say is at least close to the truth. I feel uncomfortable because seeing someone in public breast feeding is the type of thing will often cause a double take, that double take makes you look pervy, and the embarrassment comes from being thought of as pervy.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:54PM
I get uncomfortable because I'm trying to get a peek of their boob without seeming like I'm trying to get a peek!
I think you're being serious. I'm not sure of that (you may just be trying to mock Francis?), but if so then that means you're the guy that this AC wants to put in the sex offender registry. [soylentnews.org] Me, I don't believe in sex offender registries. I think that the Venn diagram of "people who are sketchy enough to belong in a registry," and "people who are safe enough to allow in society," is shaped like a pair of boobs -- which is to say, the circles don't overlap.
You weren't by any chance bottle-fed, [soylentnews.org] were you?
(Score: 2) by Snow on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:45PM
I am being serious -- I'm a huge fan of boobs! When they are on display, it's really hard not to look.
I'm not going to go all rapey or anything just because I see boobs, and I wouldn't stand there in front of them with drool running down my chin.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:15PM
I'm a huge fan of boobs!
Amen! But for some of us, context matters.
When they are on display, it's really hard not to look.
This is an admission of a thought pattern that some parts of society find distasteful, and I think it's healthy for people to feel comfortable talking about those sorts of thoughts. Your last post was also an admission of behavior, and a support of society reshaping itself to allow you to engage in that behavior more. I'm sure that we all sometimes view people in a sexual light when they don't intend to present themselves that way, but the purposeful engagement and pursuit of that experience comes off as verging on voyeuristic. If I found myself drawn to that experience I would like to think that I'd try to stop the thought pattern, not reinforce it by acting out the behavior.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:31PM
Men need to adjust ourselves in public far more than women need to breast feed in public.
What are you talking about? You need to grab your junk in public every couple hours?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:38PM
Yes, I do, because sitting on your balls is fucking painful. And god help you if you get an erection. That's extremely painful if the penis isn't in the right orientation when it happens or it gets caught in an awkward position midway through.
It's a double standard, women want to be able to breast feed in public because it's "natural" but it's not anymore natural than men having to adjust themselves from time to time and at least women have the option of planning for it. There's not much we can do to plan for when our balls or penis get in a position where it's painful if we don't adjust.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:27PM
Intelligent Design! :D :D :D
But, seriously...weird as this sounds I'm all for it. I think men should be allowed to. Just use some sanitizer afterwards because ick.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:36PM
Wearing the correct underwear helps. Briefs hold everything in place, kind of like a bra. Boxers let everything hang, and long term use can result in your sack drooping down to knee level. Do you want firm plums or a Newton's cradle?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:20PM
I can definitely sympathize. Along the lines of what AC posted, perhaps try different styles of undergarment.
The other thing I might be able to offer, if you were aggressively mutilated at birth, and I have no idea whether this will help somebody who has a male level of testosterone or not… all I know is that after switching to a different anti-androgen I began to have unwanted erections again, and this was the answer.
Perhaps try an artificial foreskin. No need to get fancy and buy one of those $100 devices or go hog wild about foreskin restoration (personally I think it's hooey since there's more to a foreskin than just skin). Just something to protect the part of the glans that's going to be in frequent contact with clothing. With boxers, that would obviously be the top half. (Haven't worn briefs since being a kid.) Something decent but disposable can be made with $3 medical tape.
I'm completely out on a limb for that one, though. I discussed it with a guy friend I'm very close to but he didn't seem interested and doesn't seem to have complaints about unwanted erections.
I'm honestly wondering if this is some side effect of circumcision where way too much tissue is removed or what (as if any amount were acceptable). It's definitely something nobody wants to talk about. But thankfully, here we are on the internet!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:25PM
That may well be your most solipsistic post ever.
But I totally think taking an anti-androgen would solve all of Francis's problems.
(Score: 3, Touché) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:58PM
And this may be your stupidest reply to one of my comments ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @09:01PM
My guess is that you haven't yet grown enough of a pair for this to be an issue for you. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:06PM
So only men are uncomfortable with breast feeding? Or are you projecting? It's the latter of course (duh!). Breast feeding is not a big deal. If the baby is hungry, whip out that titty! I'm not gonna complain and neither do real men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:25PM
One of those things can be planned for and the other can't.
So we can plan when kids get hungry? My wife will be happy when I tell her that tonight - maybe she can actually start getting some sleep on a regular basis. Some nights our youngest (almost 3 months) only wants to eat once overnight. Others he decides he is starving at 11PM, 1:25AM, 2:15AM, 3:15AM and then finally sleeps till 6.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:14PM
> Men give up enough stuff because women are whiny and self-centered as it is
Sounds like the problem here is the nut behind the wheel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @04:42PM
Apparently Francis needs to keep adjusting those.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:07PM
The point is that men are entitled
Translation: Men are better than women and women need to shut the fuck up and make sure that they don't make their betters (men, that is) uncomfortable or in any other way inconvenience them.
Another bright light of the twelfth century holds forth for our benefit. Thanks Francis [youtube.com].
What else needs to be said?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Moof123 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:32PM
Yes, there is a monolithic answer. Is the kid hungry? Can you find a safe spot to sit while the kid gets fed? If "yes" to both, feed the damn kid.
Should a woman be required to go in a back room? No.
Should she be required to cover up? No.
So weirdos who stare, gawk, or comment be asked to leave or shutup? Yes, keeping a mom from feeding a hungry child is approaching child abuse.
When I have gone to kids parties where moms need to feed their kid #2 while our kid plays their their kid #1 has shown me that it is no big deal, get over it. They generally find a quiet corner, and often cover up, but should not feel obligated to do so. None of the toddlers find anything odd about the situation, it is only as we get older and learn our wacko norms that kids learn that it is odd. As a guy I do my best to avert my attention, as I do for parents changing diapers, and that should be the end of it.
Personally I think if we let women go topless like men can it would be about like legalized pot. It would be new and novel for a month then completely a non-issue that we all shrugged our shoulders at. Frankly a lot of guys on sites like this are more offensive looking shirtless than a topless woman.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:47PM
Should a woman be required to go in a back room? No.
Of course not, that would be slavery. But dictating that somebody else must allow her to feed her child on his property is also slavery. I oppose slavery, so the only moral choices are those that both she and the property owner are agreed to.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 25 2016, @07:32AM
I remember at uni a huge group of us, equal gender mix, watched "Dick" (it was one of the girl's 20th birthdays, and was one of the presents). With no vocal objections, male and female alike, straight and gay alike, we unanimously agreed afterwards that flaccid dicks were just plain ugly compared to erect ones. Yet in pornography laws worldwide, the ugly one is more legal to publish.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:50PM
Quite aside from problems such as post-mastectomy births, there are mothers who never lactate, and others whose milk just isn't nutritious enough.
Breast is usually best, but sometimes a plan B is in order.
(Score: 1) by Moof123 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:19PM
+1. The pendulum may have actually swung too far in shaming and guilting mothers. Today mothers face huge pressure to breastfeed, and can be made to feel like failures as human beings if it does not work out. We had issues and had to supplement, in part because the kid was a little tongue tied (web on the bottom of the tongue is too short to properly nurse). My wife really felt like a failure during the first few weeks, and kept getting pressure to try harder, pump, etc. Even after snipping the kids tongue loose production never met demand, something that affected my wife, bother her sisters, and their mother.
In the end the research we dug up showed that once you controlled for other factors (income in particular) the story for breast milk being being leaps and bounds better for the kid than formula fell apart. A lot of low income families have to put mom back to work, resulting in formula being more common. Low income impacts health and development in a great number of ways, and this seemed to be the dominant reason.
Do good by your kids, but don't feel like a failure if "best" is not reasonably achievable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:56PM
+1 to your +1 :-)
An overall average positive effect in the population does not preclude a neutral or negative effect among some people within that population (heterogeneous treatment effects). The stress involved for those who have difficulty can make the experience negative for them, and this does not contradict that on average, for most people, breastfeeding is the better choice.
My sister was in a similar situation as your wife Moof, she was not producing enough milk, and he dehydrated her baby before waking up and making the switch to formula. We should not be dogmatic.
In addition to being overblown in the media, the research about the benefits of breastfeeding is not clear with regard to the mechanisms driving its effects, leaving even informed expecting parents unsure about what is the best course of action.
I would love to see some good quality research disentangling the effect of the direct physical interaction of holding the baby and the effect of the actual breast milk substance itself. Some kind of RCT (like instrumentalized encouragement scheme, not sure how to design that one) that would compare the pumped breast milk to normal breastfeeding. Even lab experiments with other mammals could be informative. (Anyone else here in public health want to apply for a grant?)
-Some economist & his pregnant public health phd wife
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:01PM
Breast is usually best, but sometimes a plan B is in order.
Or plan C, or Plan D, are even better!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @02:40AM
What about plan DD?
Disclaimer: size of organ does not predict capacity to generate nutrition for Mammal.prototype.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:51PM
1. If you don't like seeing someone breastfeed, look somewhere else.
2. If you don't like other people seeing you breastfeed, go somewhere where you aren't likely to be seen.
It's really not that complicated, unless you're of the puritanical mindset where the sight of a human breast is somehow shocking and scarring.
No, why would there be? Can anyone advocating for such a restriction demonstrate any harm whatsoever to anybody? I mean, I could imagine it becoming at least a bit awkward by somewhere around puberty, but by that point I'd highly doubt either the kids or the mom would want to.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:53PM
Oh, and one followup on that is that the modern Religious Right is actually more puritanical about this than the actual Puritans: In the Massachusetts colony, for instance, women would routinely breastfeed in church.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:35PM
Oh, and one followup on that is that the modern Religious Right is actually more puritanical about this than the actual Puritans: In the Massachusetts colony, for instance, women would routinely breastfeed in church.
Women routinely breastfeed in every church I've ever been a part of, and all of them were mostly composed of the Religious Right.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:22PM
Most that I've seen though used a blanket, and/or went into a formal or informal 'nursery' area; often behind glass where the sermon was miked in over a speaker; so that crying babies etc wouldn't disrupt the whole congregation.
They weren't just sitting there with their shirts wide open and their breasts out in full view in the 3rd pew.
Maybe the churches you were in were quite different...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:27PM
> Most that I've seen though used a blanket,
Also known as a booby burka.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:56PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:53PM
1. If you don't like seeing someone breastfeed, look somewhere else.
And the corollary to this is if you breastfeed in public, don't expect me to avert my gaze.
The issue in my mind isn't what you do, but that you demand special treatment for based upon some nebulous social good (it couldn't possibly that women are self-serving).
Same goes with taking an hour off from work during the busiest times to pump.
My work had to remodel a room at enormous costs so ONE girl could milk herself in private (under threat of lawsuit).
We don't even have sprinkler system in case of fire.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:59PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zinho on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:07PM
How should society handle breastfeeding in public and the workplace?
If you see a nipple, you're looking too hard. [boumerie.com] Show the woman and child some respect, let the child eat in peace.
Should there be any restrictions on the age of the child?
Rephrased, that's "does society have a moral responsibility to use the threat of stat-sanctioned violence to alter women's behavior in regards to breastfeeding?" No more so than it does regarding any other intimately personal choice. Unless there is a compelling, imminent risk to public safety or clear indications of abuse/neglect to the child, the state and the brute-force methods available to it (i.e. police intervention, fines, jail) have a moral responsibility to stay out of it entirely. Each mother should be free to nurse or not as she thinks is best for her and her children.
The counter-arguments listed in the Mirror article boil down to, "there's no need to do it, and I think it's odd". Well, that doesn't mean it's bad, and if the mother/child find a benefit to it perhaps we should look into those benefits rather than shying away because it's "odd". If we're doing it wrong, then doing it right would be "odd", and "not normal". The last thing we should do is codify bad practices into law simply because they're our societal norm.
For the curious, here's a link from the other end of the spectrum; in Mongolia it's typical to nurse up to age 6, [drmomma.org] and many go longer. Relevant quote:
In North America, we so value independence that it comes through in everything we do. All the talk is about what your baby's eating now, and how many breastfeedings he's down to. Even if you're not the one asking these questions, it's hard to escape their impact. And there are now so many things for sale that are designed to help your child amuse herself and need you less that the message is clear. But in Mongolia, breastfeeding isn't equated with dependence, and weaning isn't a finish line. They know their kids will grow up - in fact, the average Mongolian five-year-old is far more independent than her western counterpart, breastfed or not. There's no rush to wean.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 5, Interesting) by http on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:19PM
AC's submission demonstrates the entirety of the problem very directly: in AC's mind, breastfeeding is something that society should "handle", and the go-to approach is to restrict. Adding in the boogeyman of disease seals the deal: AC is fucked in the head. Really, get a decade or two of professional help.
I cannot recommend highly enough Prescott's disturbing article concerning how bellicose societies [violence.de] prepare infants and youth for expansionist war. After you read the article, you should see that controlling breastfeeding (viz. depriving children of it as quickly as possible) is an obvious informal strategy. In the 40 years since publication, serious criticisms of the research showed that some of the data he had to work with was off - and once the correct data is put in, the correlation became 100%.
It's hardly surprising that the use of formula is rampant in the USA and UK, and rare in, say, Sweden or Hungary.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:03PM
Society has to deal with everything that is public (social taboo, decorum, fashion, language, etc.). Society can mandate, encourage, ignore, discourage, or restrict public activities.
As for disease: there are laws against transmission of HIV, laws that require handwashing, and laws that require employers to provide access to hygene products and facilities.
My personal view on the situation is that breastfeeding should be encouraged and pre/post-natal care, including antivirals if necessary, should be required (and covered by society). I don't have any particular view on workplace or public breastfeeding, but I am interested in this community’s perspective - especially in the context of the workplace (should employers be required to accommodate, how much time out of the day, paid/unpaid time, how long after birth, requirements for storage/transport of milk, etc.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:05PM
Without commenting on the topic of the submission, I have tried to directly bias a few of my submissions by providing for and against detail (or maybe if I didn't... I thought I did).
Were I to have submitted this, I too would have tried to present a pro and a con.
I think you have projected something into what the submitter wrote, but then again, I can just as easily be subjecting your comments to such a lack of objectivity.
Unless the submitter is favored by all, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we introduce something that we portray as negative, someone will not like what we said because clearly we're mistaken. If we introduce something as positive, the naysayers will crawl out of the woodwork and identify the many ways we are beholden to propaganda or mental disease.
And I consider it to be good that there are these differences that we can openly discuss--if I wanted an echo chamber, I'd not write here. (I have some semi-fans that help keep my rants in check!)
Overall, though -- the AC might not have anything wrong with them. I do not disapprove of the approach used, and I am not even clear on what people would complain about, so to read that some people may be afraid of spreading disease that way -- thats news to me that someone can even fear that. I'm more concerned about the noise made by babies in public, because I am a jerk like that and don't like it when babies end up in places they normally wouldn't be unless someone deliberately carried one there.
When reading these things from an AC, you have to consider that you do not know their gender, age, or political persuasion -- or what their parents or school or church or what have you had taught them as obscene--and it certainly wasn't written like a troll. They're contributing! And they did it anonymously--perhaps with good reason.
I think the AC was trying to solicit conversation, and you dropped the F-bomb in a response accusing them of being nutty. At least play with your prey before doing that; and better yet, don't go all angry on a submission that you highly agree is worth discussing. I get the idea that you don't want to hear the negatives that others may bring about, though...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @11:25PM
Go read the submission again. It went out of its way to avoid being one-sided.
You were predisposed to look for something that wasn't there, and you found it.
- different AC
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:22PM
There's the obvious case of breastfeeding a 26 year old child in public, if you know what I mean.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:52PM
Damn the nanny state, keeping us from sucking deez tits in public.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @05:05PM
Why?
What argument can be made for public nudity in this instance that shouldn't be applied in others?
If I want to fuck in the park, should be my choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @04:50PM
I think the donkey should get a choice as well.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @06:34PM
In case no one has noticed, we have a generally fucked up perspective on boobs. A bare teat apparently drives men insane. It's ILLEGAL to expose a boob in public, almost everywhere in America. A woman can go to jail, just for flopping her mammary out! It's INSANE I say!
The source of this insanity? Well, there was Puritanism. But, that's pretty distant history - we should have been over that by now. A more immediate source of this insanity, is the baby bottle. Posts above explain when, and how baby bottles became prevalent. We've had three generations raised on baby bottles now, maybe four depending on how you count.
FOUR GENERATIONS OF MEN who have not been breast fed. They didn't get enough of the teat when they were babies, so they have a twisted view of breasts as adults.
I was breast fed. I got all of that wholesome milk bladder that I needed/wanted as a baby. I still like boobs, but I simply don't go ape-shit when I see a breast. I don't confuse a mammary gland with a sex organ. I don't see breast feeding as something "dirty", to be hidden in a bathroom stall. Breasts are beautiful and all, but their PURPOSE is not to provoke intercourse. You have to be a little bit unbalanced to think so.
And, again, the source of that imbalance is that damned baby bottle!
Give little babies all the breast they need or want, and they'll grow up with a more balanced view of breasts. Deny male babies the breast, and they tend to act like animals when they see a breast. Deny female babies the breast, and they manifest that same imbalance by being "ashamed" to expose themselves to anyone but their own mate.
You won't find that theory anywhere, but here. It is my own theory. Someone, somewhere, may have arrived at the same conclusion, but if so, I've not discovered his posts. Hey, I'll share credit with anyone who can demonstrate that he came up with the idea.
With all the studies that have been done, demonstrating that mental, and possibly emotional development begin in the womb, it should surprise no one that denying babies is detrimental to their post-natal development.
Any bad stuff that happens to a baby is going to affect him/her all his life. Good stuff denied to a baby is also going to affect that baby for life.
BREAST FEED LADIES!!!! I won't encourage you to breast feed past age two, but if you choose to do so, I won't give you a hard time. But, most definitely, breast feed in those first few weeks. Colostrum, from the first feeding or two post-partum has more good stuff in it than medical science can ever hope to duplicate. If you just cannot breast feed for more than a week, at least give your child that first week.
Will I look if I see you breast feeding? I try not to. If you're very discreet, I may not even notice. But, if I see you, I'll be polite, and find something else to look at. I certainly won't impose on you. Any man who does impose upon you should be horse whipped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:23PM
If a guy is staring at a woman breastfeeding for longer than 14 seconds just to get an eyeful if titty, he should be arrested and registered as a sex offender. Does that sound too harsh? No, he obviously has a problem. I wouldn't want my daughter dating someone like that. Somewhat related... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37091948 [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:57PM
If a guy is staring at a woman breastfeeding for longer than 14 seconds just to get an eyeful if titty, he should be arrested and registered as a sex offender.
That seems really hard to distinguish from just looking at a baby. I've never timed myself, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if I've watched a niece or nephew breastfeed for longer than 14 seconds. If I have it wasn't a sex thing at all, and my sisters have never brought it up as an issue. It's perfectly normal to look at adorable babies. I'm sure that some men stare at breastfeeding for the reasons you ascribe, and that is totally creepy, but I don't know how to determine intent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @08:41PM
According to other posts here, his problem may be that he wasn't breastfed.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:28PM
And I thought France was crazy about their reaction to burkinis. Call it anything but modesty I guess; some of the outfits look like what swimmers in the late 1800s wore in public and they weren't burkinis then. The reaction to breasts then were about the same as we get to breastfeeding now.
Covering them up or not, it goes to show you that some men in every society are crazy with our without breasts. I hear that the Muslims cover up their women, but they don't blame breastfeeding... but it sounds something more like Puritanism. Perhaps their extreme conservatism also affects their youth as you have described happened here? In time maybe they would mellow out... maybe that is why Western ideals is so offensive to them. Our whole culture must look like nothing but champions of progressive thought (and some talk radio folks already fear this is the case).
And I agree with your comments overall -- the colostrum is really important for babies to get, super important for those first few days of life. Those first few days of human milk after the baby is born contains more stuff we can't get anywhere else that science has yet to figure out how to put into a forumla.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:40PM
You won't find that theory anywhere, but here. It is my own theory. Someone, somewhere, may have arrived at the same conclusion, but if so, I've not discovered his posts. Hey, I'll share credit with anyone who can demonstrate that he came up with the idea.
My favorite example of this theory is from America and Americans, by John Steinbeck. The book was published in 1966, but the quoted text below was probably published as journalism at some point prior. For any high-school dropouts reading, GRAPES OF WRATH SPOILER WARNING!
I have often thought that when another species inherits the earth, if it should develop sufficient curiosity about extinct man to dig archeologically among our records and artifacts, the scholarly ants or cockroaches would come to the justifiable conclusion that Homo spaiens americanus was born from the mammary gland.
How did this curious fixation arise? The female bosom is a lovely thing which should arouse warm and comforting memories of food and love and protection. It should, and it once did; but male titillation by the breast has caused our females to place great pride in these precious possessions. Employing them for their designed purpose of suckling babies has a tendency to cause bosoms to sag a little, a condition repulsive to men and women alike. This has been solved by bottle feeding, freeing the breasts from their ancient duties and conferring on them a purely ornamental and erotic function, while removing from human experience the association of the breast as a center of food and security.
Some years ago I ended a novel with an ancient symbolic act. I did not invent it; the symbol existed for thousands of years. In my book I had my heroine, who had lost her baby, give her breast to a starving man. I was astonished at the reaction. The scene was denounced as "dirty," "erotic," "filthy." As a baby I was nursed by my mother, and the breast had no such significance to me. As a matter of shocked curiosity, I began questioning those people who had found the scene erotic, and I discovered that the ones who were upset by my scene had invariably been bottle-fed. Such was the effect of a lack of mammary association, and I wonder what the effect on our women may be of retiring from its function a complicated part of their equipment.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:42PM
spaiens
This is my typo, not Steinbeck's.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Username on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:20PM
So you would have no problem if we were on a bus together and I pulled my pants down and defecated into another persons mouth right next to you? I’m just transplanting my useful gut bacteria into someone else.
Sure I have the freedom to do such things, but there is a certain level of decency which should be presented while in public. A public display of lactating, ejaculating, defecating, or urinating on someone else isn’t and shouldn’t be acceptable behavior.
Because you are also entitled to public space, and it shouldn’t be a degrading experience.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 25 2016, @01:10AM
Your post says a lot about you. And, it fails to address the issue of breast feeding.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:22PM
A bare teat apparently drives men insane. It's ILLEGAL to expose a boob in public, almost everywhere in America. A woman can go to jail, just for flopping her mammary out! It's INSANE I say!
BZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing. [gotopless.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday August 24 2016, @11:31PM
Correct you are! Strange source, though. At the bottom of the page:
RECOMMENDED READING
Read for yourself the message for humanity that was given to Rael during his UFO encounters of 1973!
Free ebook download!
This is the religion [wikipedia.org] that came up with the most trollish symbol ever [ning.com] (basically a swastika inside of the star of David). They've since replaced the swastika with a swirl, [ning.com] at least in their American advertising. If memory serves, they still use the swastika version internally. In their defense, it is an ancient symbol that means all sorts of things unrelated to Nazis. It just seems like an Ethanol Fueled move to put it in the star of David.
They also claim to have made at least thirteen human clones. Some people are skeptical of these claims, but they've indisputably invested a lot of time and money into an organization based around the idea of human cloning. The Raëlians believe that the universe is infinitely old, and that it has forever been populated by creatures that eventually artificially create new life in their image. It is thus humanity's fate to perfect cloning technology, so that when we travel the stars we can create our own successor species. This cycle is supposed to continue for -- you guessed it -- infinity. Heat death? What heat death?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @12:00AM
Correct you are! Strange source, though. At the bottom of the page:
RECOMMENDED READING
Read for yourself the message for humanity that was given to Rael during his UFO encounters of 1973!
Free ebook download!
This is the religion that came up with the most trollish symbol ever (basically a swastika inside of the star of David). They've since replaced the swastika with a swirl, at least in their American advertising. If memory serves, they still use the swastika version internally. In their defense, it is an ancient symbol that means all sorts of things unrelated to Nazis. It just seems like an Ethanol Fueled move to put it in the star of David.
They also claim to have made at least thirteen human clones. Some people are skeptical of these claims, but they've indisputably invested a lot of time and money into an organization based around the idea of human cloning. The Raëlians believe that the universe is infinitely old, and that it has forever been populated by creatures that eventually artificially create new life in their image. It is thus humanity's fate to perfect cloning technology, so that when we travel the stars we can create our own successor species. This cycle is supposed to continue for -- you guessed it -- infinity. Heat death? What heat death?
Actually that was the top link in a Google search for "Topless in public laws US" [google.com].
I didn't read much past the map and explanatory text for the map.
That does seem a little odd, but I guess we take meaning where we find (manufacture) it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @05:02AM
the biggest scolds of breast feeding tend to be...women.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday August 25 2016, @02:04PM
Breasts are beautiful and all, but their PURPOSE is not to provoke intercourse.
I'm sure that's one of their purposes, or else men wouldn't be attracted to them. I simply don't believe that sexual attraction to breasts is purely cultural.
And what's more, I LIKE it. I would never want the way I feel about breasts to change, because I enjoy it too much. It's one of the most fulfilling and rewarding things in my life.
Now the fact that I feel that way doesn't mean I suddenly get to tell people what to do (nor does it mean women shouldn't breastfeed around me or other men - usually they can do so and nothing is exposed and/or decent men go about their business and don't treat it as an opportunity to leer). That's the real problem here. Not that people use bottles, not that people view breasts wrongly - the fundamental problem is that our whole society is based on figuring out what is "right" and then making everyone else conform: telling other people what to do. The number one value I try to impart to my children is that they don't have the right to tell other people what to do. It's turning them into healthy and happy and thoughtful human beings whom other people will want to be around. I'll wager the boys will grow up to like breasts as much as I do.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by three_sheets on Wednesday August 24 2016, @07:22PM
It bothers me that there are billions of people and thousands of companies and government agencies spying on them, yet there is so little quality data out there to guide basic decisions in life. How should we raise our children? What should we eat/drink/smoke? I'd be willing to share a lot of personal data with an organization that uses it for the public good. It would be ok if they use some of the data to run a money-making business on the side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2016, @10:32PM
It bothers me that there are billions of people and thousands of companies and government agencies spying on them, yet there is so little quality data out there to guide basic decisions in life.
Because the answer is to do what people have been doing for millennia, so (a) there is little profit to be made and (b) research that is likely to conclude "don't change anything" doesn't build careers either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @08:14AM
WELL THAT'S TOO OLD!!!1111
(Score: 2) by gidds on Friday August 26 2016, @12:41PM
A wise person once said that the nipple is the only truly natural user interface; everything else is learned.
(Okay, it's not addressing the main issue here, but I thought we should have at least a token tech connection :-)
FWIW, I'm with most of the other posters: breast-feeding is entirely natural, and if people are embarrassed by it, then that's their problem. If we're looking to restrict bodily functions in public, then I'd be far keener on banning nose-picking, or even nose-blowing the way some people do it...
[sig redacted]