"I do what I want, too bad for you" trend

[Mrs. Frankweiler]

I'm feeling philosophical this morning.

 

I've been noticing lately (on this board, in real life, everywhere....) that society at large seems to have gotten very self-centered lately. There seems to be this idea that we can each do whatever we want, and (unless it's illegal) screw what everyone else thinks or feels about it. Now, I'm all about individualism and not following the herd, but if a person chooses to do something that is different that offends everyone in the herd, shouldn't the different person at least try to find some common ground or do something to smooth things over? Usually the wavemaker accuses the herd of being too sensitive, too narrowminded, too snobbish, etc....Why does the herd have to tolerate the wavemaker with a smile on its face when the wavemaker is the one choosing to be different?

 

I'm not finding the right words right now, but it seems we have forgotten that we live in a society. With other people. Isn't it our responsibility to at least try to get along? Yes, sometimes that means doing things we don't like. Sometimes that means acting or doing something out of our comfort zone or different than what we really want to do. Have cooperation, self-control, self-discipline, or a sense of appropriateness gone out the window?

 

I've noticed this on many threads on this board, but lately on the anti-social/introvert thread. There seems to be a recurring theme that, "I don't feel like talking to you...so I won't answer the phone, make small talk, be neighborly, etc..... Too bad if this hurts your feelings but I just don't feel like doing these things so deal with it." Meanwhile, the person being ignored feels bad because the introvert doesn't feel like making any sort of effort to live in society.

 

I saw the same thing in the breastfeeding thread a few weeks ago. The theme on there was, "I will show my breast, areola, nipple, wherever and whenever I want because my kid needs to eat right this very second." Even though half the population doesn't have breasts, (or breastfeeding ones) and it might make them uncomfortable. But, no....the bfeeding mom has no responsibility to them...just to her & baby's needs...screw what everyone else feels.

 

I'm not saying that we should constantly be forced to do things we don't like, but isn't going to the other end of the spectrum and being rude and offensive just as bad? I'm NOT trying to rehash old debates. I'm just wondering if anyone else still feels like we, as participants in society have a responsibility to at least try to get along with the other people in that society? If we don't plan on being cooperative, we might as well go live in a cave as a hermit somewhere, since we don't seem to need people.

 

We are always complaining/lamenting the fact that kids these days are mean/rude/thoughtless/etc.... Some of us here maybe have actually pulled our kids out of school because of this. Well, how do you think they got this way? If they see their parents doing whatever they want, then naturally the kids will follow suit. I just don't think this is a very good path to follow.

 

I know someone will say that history is filled with people who went against the grain. I'm not talking about people who are trying to make a better world. Yes, minorities should not be discriminated against; women should not be looked on as second class citizens. I'm grateful for the courageous trailblazers who started these changes. But sometimes it seems the same people who are saying, "Oh, we should all take care of one another" are the same people who say, "I'm going to say every swear word in the book in front of your children, and I have the freedom of speech to do that. Too bad if you don't like it." There are certainly societal changes that seemed "fringe" at first, but in the long run made society a better place for everyone. But I don't see how the freedom to curse in public is a societal change that will ever be beneficial. That's just one of many examples that I can think of where people decide that their wants are more important than anyone else's feelings.

 

These are the things that I worry about for my children. What kind of a society will they a be part of as adults. Is it a waste of time to try to teach manners, unselfishness, etc....when in the end those trying to get along and be cooperative are the ones being screwed? It's so hard to teach them that---no, we can't do whatever we want--when they see adults all around them doing whatever they want without concern for anyone else.

 

These are just my thoughts lately. It just makes me sad.

[angela in ohio]

Have cooperation, self-control, self-discipline, or a sense of appropriateness gone out the window?

 

 

Yes. :glare: There are glimmers of hope, but for the most part, it seems like thinking of others' needs and feelings is pretty much a lost art in our society.

 

If nothing else, cooperation seems to be a lost art. I am currently banging my head against the wall trying to work with people who refuse to think about how others might feel about their actions before they do what they want. It is a miserable experience.

[Mary in GA]

I am currently banging my head against the wall trying to work with people who refuse to think about how others might feel about their actions before they do what they want. It is a miserable experience.

 

Me too.

 

Mary

[PineFarmMom]

I think you're right. I probably fall into the "deal with it" category occasionally because I get frustrated about things myself.

 

I specifically remember trying to make that very point on the breastfeeding thread and having no one seem to understand where I was coming from and feeling that people saw the opinion as anti-baby or something, when I was just encouraging being considerate. You wrote it so much more eloquently!!

[Laura Corin]

There seems to be a recurring theme that, "I don't feel like talking to you...so I won't answer the phone, make small talk, be neighborly, etc..... Too bad if this hurts your feelings but I just don't feel like doing these things so deal with it." Meanwhile, the person being ignored feels bad because the introvert doesn't feel like making any sort of effort to live in society.

 

 

I absolutely agree that we should be polite and friendly to each other: speak when spoken to, answer questions, not ignore others, use normal social forms. However, what is going on in my head is my business. And (beyond that described above) I do think I should be able to decide how much interaction I have with society.

 

So, a conversation with a neighbour might go:

 

Me: Hello, how are you?

Neighbour: Fine, how about you?

Me: I'm fine too. Isn't the weather great today?

Neighbour: Lovely.

 

(Yes, British people do talk constantly about the weather - there's a lot of it to talk about)

 

That's about it. If the neighbour wanted to prolong it, I would use some means to end it, for example:

 

Neighbour: What are you planning for the weekend?

Me: The boys and their dad are going to the airshow. I'll probably go for a hike. Well, nice to see you, I'd better be getting on.

 

That means that I didn't ask about the neighbour's weekend, but I don't see that as rude. Others may.

 

Laura

[rfhsmom]

:iagree: I think that you expressed beautifully the prevailing philosophy in our culture. Many people completely think that they can do what they want, when they want no matter how it affects others. My dh works with juvenile delinquents--he calls that way of parenting/living "job security"!:lol: Our sick, inside joke way of dealing with that philosophy! Sorry!

[Saille]

I saw the same thing in the breastfeeding thread a few weeks ago. The theme on there was, "I will show my breast, areola, nipple, wherever and whenever I want because my kid needs to eat right this very second." Even though half the population doesn't have breasts, (or breastfeeding ones) and it might make them uncomfortable. But, no....the bfeeding mom has no responsibility to them...just to her & baby's needs...screw what everyone else feels.

 

You misunderstand. It's not that I prioritize my right to show my breast over the rights of others. It's that I refuse to concede that (ostensibly mature) adults have the right to prioritize their own discomfort with the human body and its basic purposes over the right of a child to be fed. My job is to feed my kid when he/she is hungry. Someone's else's desire to squeal and jump up on a chair b/c they saw a nipple is not my problem, and it's just plain silly.

 

That particular argument is also a slippery slope. Part of the reason some women refuse to discuss covering up is because, as soon as they concede,

women everywhere will be scrutinized to see if they're "covering up enough". To me, it's not one bit different from the argument that homeschoolers should not provide one more bit of information to the district than they're legally required to. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

So, while I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, I'd say that this particular topic is absolutely an issue of "making the world a better place". I feel it's an issue of social justice.

[BMW]

I am thinking about how this works in our family. Having a large brood, I have some kids who are very selfish and could care less how they affect others and I have some kids who are much less selfish and cooperate, for the most part, quite lovely as a group. Selfish ones always make it worse for us all... They just don't care that their ways make everything take longer and make life much less enjoyable and cause more work all around. I try and try to teach their hearts and try to reprogram them. They are also the more strong willed and less likely to follow the crowd, so I hope that if they can learn how to cooperate, they can also continue on in life with great leadership skills...

 

I think we should care about each other as part of society... in the basic ways that affect us all. We should be involved if something is being done that is dangerous or is upsetting life for others (big time parties, heavy drinking and fights on weekends in close quarter neighborhoods).

[adams101]

I have to agree. It is all about mutual respect. I have always said if you want to live that way, fine, but don't force it on me. I won't force my beliefs or way of living on you.

 

When my dc were babies, I didn't BF for different reasons. I don't have a problem with those that do, but I don't necessarily want it out and in my dc faces in public. I know that there are situations where it can't necessarily be avoided, but most of the time you can work around it. I worked around my kids schedules as much as possible, and they were on a bottle. I'm not going to tell you to stop because I don't agree, I will just remove my dc from that situation. I would appreciate the same courtesy back. I'm not asking you to stop, just be respectful of others.

 

It is the same for smoking. I have asthma and that is a major trigger for me. I don't go to bars, pool halls, etc. where I know there will be smoking. I just wish I could go to Sonic for a drink without the workers standing outside smoking. You have to open the window to order, and it comes right in the car. Doesn't seem to matter where I park. I know that going in, so it is a choice I have to make. On the other hand, my brother smokes. A couple of years ago he wanted to visit with me so he picked me up to go to Starbucks. He sat at the table across from me and smoked 2 cigarettes. I was having the worst flare up I've ever had, and he knew that. They almost put me in the hospital a few days before, yet he did it with the attitude of "get over it". His son is allergic to peanuts, I would never knowingly give him some and make him sick, but he doesn't return the same respect.

 

I really think that kids are not taught to respect others. I know my generation wasn't, and it's even worse with my kid's generation. I don't want everyone to be the same, but at some point we have to learn to live together. That means giving and taking on BOTH sides, not just the other person.

[lgm]

You expressed that well. Manners are terribly lacking.

 

What bothers me is that there are certain groups of people that are declaring others non-human or subservient and pretending they don't exist or should be exterminated. We have a mall in this area that most mainstream folks have vacated on certain days/hours because certain groups take over at those times. One group blocks the aisles, shoves strollers and shopping carts in non-group members bodies (we are outsiders who do not exist in their world according to their community interface), and will not acknowledge non-group members remarks. I'm talking simple remarks, such as "excuse me, I need to go past " on occasions when the large units of the group are blocking all access. Other groups are there just to intimidate and have a heated/lit place to express their foul language etc. I feel like these people are stuck in jr. high forever and there are so many of them that they'll have the majority in society...fragmenting us back to third world country status.

[Mom In Missouri]

I don't want everyone to be the same, but at some point we have to learn to live together. That means giving and taking on BOTH sides, not just the other person.

 

I agree.

 

The problem revolves around most adults (we'll leave children out since they are developing their skills. Hopefully:confused:) have never been taught the art of compromise without dissention or resentment. 'If I give in here, what's in it for me?' Hopefully the upholding of a relationship among others will be enough to curb whatever is offensive--unfortunately the offense remains in a stand off of who will acquiesce first.

 

Individuality is essential, but living independently is destructive not only to our society and community, but ourselves.

[KarenNC]

I agree.

 

The problem revolves around most adults (we'll leave children out since they are developing their skills. Hopefully:confused:) have never been taught the art of compromise without dissention or resentment. 'If I give in here, what's in it for me?' Hopefully the upholding of a relationship among others will be enough to curb whatever is offensive--unfortunately the offense remains in a stand off of who will acquiesce first.

 

Individuality is essential, but living independently is destructive not only to our society and community, but ourselves.

 

I think there's also a large consumerist attitude in terms of society----"society exists to provide services for me and to serve me in the way and at the time that I want it to" without realizing the other side of that equation---that "I" share the responsibility for creating that society and those services. I see this in large and small groups, in homeschool groups, churches, everywhere.

[hillfarm]

There is far too much emphasis on "what I have the right to do" and far too little on "what I can do to make others more comfortable". So many people are unwilling to make the smallest sacrifice to accommodate others.

 

I breastfed my dd, but I made it a point to do so discretely. Several of my friends had teen sons at the time and I was well acquainted with the struggles they were having trying to help their sons learn to deal with their burgeoning sexuality. It was really no big deal to go over to a less obvious spot and to cover well when I fed dd. Their struggles were a big deal. It would have been astoundingly rude and thoughtless of me to make their work harder. I made that choice because I respected what my friends were trying to teach their sons and other than a few seconds of my time, there was minimal inconvenience to dd and me.

 

People have forgotten that the word "responsibility" is innately tied to the word "right". Since I believe in the equal value of all people, I don't see that my expression of my rights give me the leeway to trample the rights of others. I try to remember two seemingly archaic words--sacrifice and compromise.

 

When I was in college, several of us who had joined a sorority found out at the last minute that one of the conditions of membership was that we would have to live one semester at the sorority house in a big, six person room. We all feared the worst from that living arrangement. But because we were all a bit more mindful of trying to get a long and respect each others' boundaries, it worked out beautifully and we all stayed there for a whole year instead of only the required half year. Everyone gave a little more than was our "right" and everyone tried to be especially aware of their responsibilities. That is what it will take if we wish to have a pleasant society in which to live.

 

ETA: Regarding being antisocial, I feel that many today use socialization as a distraction from their issues, which is very disruptive and annoying to those of us who do not have that luxury. Honestly, I don't have loads of time to chat, much as I would love to. I have a home to keep, a child to school, and a barn full of critters to tend. And that is just the tip of my workload iceberg. I am sorry if some woman of my acquaintance would like to call me in order to relieve her lonliness or to get advice, but I just don't have room to add another responsibility for anyone else to my plate right now. I wish her the best, but she is responsible for her own well being and cannot displace that task onto me. It is not a matter of politeness--is it polite for her to presume upon me? To make me have to be out there trying to finish my barn chores with a flashlight so she is in the proper frame of mind to deal with her overbearing MIL?

 

Of course, it is different for a good friend, to whom I would have an unwritten social contract to make time in my busy schedule to talk with if she is having a bad day. But I have to be honest, a friend who made that demand too many times would quickly become one that I would have to let go. I just don't have the option of chatting on the phone, visiting, shopping with, etc. I'm not saying that she is less important, I'm saying that I have other prior obligations that I am unwilling to break.

Edited September 10, 2009 by hillfarm

[LibraryLover]

My concern is that people immediately assume the worst. The anti-social thread is interesting, too. Why is the first thought "Those people are making small talk chatting together in public, therefor they must be shallow and only interested in silly things like pedicures" (Now I want a pedicure. lol It's been too long). I get that some people are more quiet than others, and that's totally cool. I don't make the leap to making moral or negative judgments about what the quiet person might or might not care about or enjoy.

 

I also think introverted and anti-social are two different things. I don't think being an introvert can impact your quality of life, but being out -right anti-social might. There are times my sister wishes she could be more open to those around her, but she has her family, so unless every single one of us departs this world at the same time, she's good. ;)

 

One can think whatever they like, of course. What goes on inside a person's head is for that person to manage.

 

As for bfing. I think it would be best if we all got over breasts, but I tended to be more discreet around my fil, say, than my mother friends, where we just flashed each other all the time, pretty much. lol It didn't upset me to think my fil might not feel comfortable with a lot of skin. Not that my dear fil ever made a negative comment to me about anything. He never did. He died a few years ago and was a sweetheart of a man.

Edited September 10, 2009 by LibraryLover

[lionfamily1999]

I've been noticing lately (on this board, in real life, everywhere....) that society at large seems to have gotten very self-centered lately.

 

I think it's always been this way. This almost seems to be the human condition.

 

There seems to be this idea that we can each do whatever we want, and (unless it's illegal) screw what everyone else thinks or feels about it. Now, I'm all about individualism and not following the herd, but if a person chooses to do something that is different that offends everyone in the herd, shouldn't the different person at least try to find some common ground or do something to smooth things over? Why does the herd have to tolerate the wavemaker with a smile on its face when the wavemaker is the one choosing to be different?

 

Normally, wavemakers want to notice, I mean they wouldn't make waves if they didn't want people to complain, right? One might say that this idea of being going along to get along is wavemaking. What's wrong with surfing your own wave and letting others move to another part of the beach if they don't like it? At the same time, why yell at the waves? Why not try them yourself?

 

This is one of those things that, imo, can't be resolved... Unless we all get our brains slurped out by an alien race that turns us into drones.

 

With other people. Isn't it our responsibility to at least try to get along? Have cooperation, self-control, self-discipline, or a sense of appropriateness gone out the window?

 

These questions could be turned the other way. Shouldn't other people allow a considerate amount of room for a person to be themselves and comfortable? Doesn't cooperation mean making sacrifices so that two people can work towards a particular goal? IOW, if you need to work with a wave maker, then can't you keep SCUBA gear with you to weather their waves, and can't they offer you a life line, to keep you from being swept to sea? Asking one person/group to cooperate with you by altering themselves if asking a lot. Accepting other people/groups in spite of the differences between you, allowing them their place on this planet, in your society, isn't that real cooperation?

Meanwhile, the person being ignored feels bad because the introvert doesn't feel like making any sort of effort to live in society.

 

So, who sacrifices? The introvert takes thier children to social obligations. Most introverts, that I know, are polite. Why should they vext themselves to make someone else comfortable, especially when that vexation would end up extending into other facets of life? I'm nice and smile during the idle chit chat today, what happens when, tomorrow, they call up and ask me to do something where it's ALL idle chit chat? Then I'm obligated to go, because that would make them feel better? All the time I'm pretending to be/think/feel something other than what I actually do and I'm miserable, because I'd rather be home. Forcing introverts to pretend to be otherwise, like forcing a lefty to write with their right hand, might make it easier for others, but it forces them to deny a truth about themselves.

Even though half the population doesn't have breasts, (or breastfeeding ones) and it might make them uncomfortable. But, no....the bfeeding mom has no responsibility to them...just to her & baby's needs...screw what everyone else feels.

 

Better than the wave analogy, the bfeeding topic is an excellent example of who should be forced to bow to whom. The easiest thing, and imo the least wave making solution, would be to move on. If you see a booby keep going and sit down where it's out of sight. That goes for introverts as well (it was a joke, like we, introverts are boobies... n/m).

I'm not saying that we should constantly be forced to do things we don't like, but isn't going to the other end of the spectrum and being rude and offensive just as bad? I'm NOT trying to rehash old debates. I'm just wondering if anyone else still feels like we, as participants in society have a responsibility to at least try to get along with the other people in that society? If we don't plan on being cooperative, we might as well go live in a cave as a hermit somewhere, since we don't seem to need people.

 

Offense is in the eye of the beholder. We have a responsibility to ourselves to make our society, those around us, as conducive to our well being as possible. We have a responsibility to our children, to introduce them to different types of society so, as an adult, they know how to behave and they can find where they are comfortable. We don't, however, have a responsibility to comply with society or change ourselves, or deny who we are, in order to make society, in general, comfortable. If that was the case, I would have to deny Christ, because He does not make society in general, comfortable.

 

Introverts just want to be left alone in their caves as hermits. That's what is going on. It's other people that keep insisting they join the society of extroverts. Left alone, there wouldn't be the hurt feelings. Of course, no one seems to care when an introvert is called snobbish or a detriment to society, or rude or callous. Extroverts take it upon themselves to force others to fit their mold or to say it's wrong, rude, socially unacceptable to not be like them. Who's in the wrong? The folks that want to be who they are comfortably, or the ones that demand they go against their nature to fit into a society that they think is more worthy?

We are always complaining/lamenting the fact that kids these days are mean/rude/thoughtless/etc.... Some of us here maybe have actually pulled our kids out of school because of this. Well, how do you think they got this way? If they see their parents doing whatever they want, then naturally the kids will follow suit. I just don't think this is a very good path to follow.

 

You don't think it's a good path. You are not considering it from the other point of view. I don't think it's good to put yourself out there. There are times when I see extroverts doing particular things and I wonder.... how in the world did they NOT know the backlash was coming? How did they miss the obvious, to me, outcome of all their talking and chit chat? How did they NOT see that this was going to go horribly wrong? I did not pull my kids for those reasons, I pulled them so they could get a better education without petty reprisals from teachers that didn't like the way they did things. I pulled my son, because I was tired of him getting bad marks because he's quiet and doesn't want to run and yell. I pulled him, so he could be himself, go at his own pace, without teachers that would make him feel like he was "wrong" because he didn't fit into society's nicely packaged idea of how a child should behave.

[Doran]

I typed out a long reply, so long that my computer logged me out of here, and when I went to post it, I lost it. Now I feel like swearing in public!!! :glare: I'll try again.

 

 

-------

 

 

I agree with you in principle. On the surface it does appear that society is crumbling because of selfish behaviors. Sometimes, it is individuals who act badly, but often, it is an entity: a corporation, a mob, a leader. Yet, in nearly every case, I could probably find a way to justify the behavior from either side. I could wag my finger at the introvert for being reclusive and unwilling to adapt. Or, I could wag my finger at the extrovert for being intrusive and unwilling to step back. I might criticize the American corporation for taking so much of its manufacturing business overseas, where labor is cheap and human rights less of an issue. Or I might criticize the consumer for buying the $2.99 flip-flops, driving the corporations to produce them in the first place.

 

I'm actually not convinced that our behaviors, societally, have changed all that much. Rather I think what has changed is the sheer volume of people on the planet, such that the opportunities for our opinions to collide have become expansive. Internet. Roadways. Shopping malls. Junk mail. Subways. Telephones. Health clubs. Political rallies. Slums. There are so many of us humans and so many ways for us to interact and clash. Sadly, I don't think there are caves enough for the multitudes who would be better off going to live there.

 

Yes, sometimes it is discouraging to consider what life may be like for my children or their children. Will the baby girl whose mother was scorned for breastfeeding her in public grow up to be egocentric and brash because her mother taught her to hold firm to her beliefs? Will the baby boy whose mother was offended by a public display of breast grow up to be intolerant and brutish because his mother told him to stand up for his rights? Who is to say where one person's rights stop and another's begin?

 

Don't get me wrong. I realize you're discussing more of a general sense that we're all going to h*ll in a hand basket because we've lost sight of what it means to be nice. At times, our futures do appear bleak. But, other times, to me, they appear hopeful, or at least not depressing. The other day I took my two daughters to the mall. I hate the mall. It's just not my scene. But, I put on my poker face, and went in with a smile. Wouldn't you know, I ended up having to deal with a store representative who was so rude that I nearly asked him who'd peed in his cornflakes. I didn't. I held my tongue. That same day, another representative from a different store made a point of taking my arm as I was leaving, drawing me back for just a moment to laugh with me and the girls, guess their ages, tell me what a great mother I was, and send me on my way. Driving home, a stranger ahead of me at the toll booth paid my fare for me.

 

Maybe chivalry isn't dead. Maybe it's just stuck in traffic. :D

[ma23peas]

There is far too much emphasis on "what I have the right to do" and far too little on "what I can do to make others more comfortable". So many people are unwilling to make the smallest sacrifice to accommodate others.

 

 

This is it in a nutshell...(and everything the OP stated)...we are in a period of entitlement....I guess we've had too much enlightenment, bored with 'be happy' of the 60's-70's and now we're on to I'm entitled to my opinion, my decisions, my rights, my right to healthcare, my right to have the same house as my neighbor even if I don't work half as hard or make half as much.

 

It's a crying shame. And it will slap us in the face.

 

Tara

 

 

[Mandy in TN]

Actually, an appropriate comparison would be to ask if everyone who is alright with flashing nipples in public to bf would be alright with their teenage son having the top half of a playboy centerfold hanging on his bedroom wall.

 

Ladies, regardless of how you feel about the functionality of your breasts the fact is that most men view them as s*x objects. If you are showing them out in public, you may very well be arousing the man next to you. Not because he wants to look or be aroused, but simply as a biological response to nudity that he perceives as s*xual in nature.

 

Mandy

 

ETA-

I'm not deleting this because it has been quoted. I am adding-

I'll stand behind what I said as I believe this to be a truthful response to the deleted post that compared radical breastfeeding to s*xual assault on children. That comparison seemed a little over the top (pun intended).

Edited September 10, 2009 by Mandy in TN
to remove quote; to add info

[dirty ethel rackham]

Doran,

 

Yet another wise post. Thanks!

[lionfamily1999]

Actually, an appropriate comparison would be to ask if everyone who is alright with flashing nipples in public to bf would be alright with their teenage son having the top half of a playboy centerfold hanging on his bedroom wall.

 

Ladies, regardless of how you feel about the functionality of your breasts the fact is that most men view them as s*x objects. If you are showing them out in public, you may very well be arousing the man next to you. Not because he wants to look or be aroused, but simply as a biological response to nudity that he perceives as s*xual in nature.

 

Mandy

ETA Nothing nice to say. Never mind.

[Mandy in TN]

I have a friend who says to her children, "Just because you want to and can doesn't mean you should."

 

I have adopted this quote with my own children who have of course modified it and made it their own.

 

Now when they are doing something ridiculous like hopping up and down for no apparent reason and I ask why they respond, "I want to and I can and I won't get in trouble for it."

 

LOL- well, I guess you could say that is progress in the right direction.

 

Mandy

[Saille]

Actually, an appropriate comparison would be to ask if everyone who is alright with flashing nipples in public to bf would be alright with their teenage son having the top half of a playboy centerfold hanging on his bedroom wall.

 

Ladies, regardless of how you feel about the functionality of your breasts the fact is that most men view them as s*x objects. If you are showing them out in public, you may very well be arousing the man next to you. Not because he wants to look or be aroused, but simply as a biological response to nudity that he perceives as s*xual in nature.

 

Mandy

 

I find people's necks very sexy, but I don't question a person's right to use his neck to hold up his head, and if someone wears a collarless shirt, I don't get aroused. If I did, it would be my problem to deal with. I've helped injured/disabled people sponge-bathe, and that didn't arouse me either, nor would it have been appropriate to make an issue of it if it did. It's an inappropriate time to be aroused, but the behavior of the nude person is NOT the issue. They are naked for a very legitimate reason.

There is a difference between a playboy pinup (or a Victoria's Secret ad in the window of the storefront at the mall), and a breastfeeding mother at that same mall. A large and significant difference. And yet, we tolerate the overtly sexual ad, and demonize the breastfeeding mother. That's the wrong message to send a teenage boy who may someday have children of his own, or sisters and friends with breastfeeding children.

[hillfarm]

I think Doran hit on another BIG part of the socialization part of this and that is that there are just so many ways to socialize now. Phone, email, chat rooms, cell phones, pagers, etc. In the past, if you wanted to interact with someone, YOU had to make the effort and physically travel to their location and find them. That tended to weed out a lot of idle chatter because it just wasn't worth the effort.

 

In even the more recent past, if someone wanted to call, they had to stop what they were doing and sit within the cord's length of the phone. That, too, cut down on idle conversations.

 

How arrogant it is to assume that just because you want to chat with someone, they want to interact with you! There is a dear lady at my church with whom I would love to be friendly. However, she mentioned to me that she and her dh were not very social, that they mostly just sought out the company of each other. I was not offended by that, it is just the way she is. I enjoy our brief interactions on Sundays and if something of mutual interest came up, I would be certain to invite her. But I would never expect or demand her to attend or reciprocate. I have had to accept the sad (and outrageously unfair) fact that the world does not revolve around me.

[lionfamily1999]

I find people's necks very sexy, but I don't question a person's right to use his neck to hold up his head, and if someone wears a collarless shirt, I don't get aroused. If I did, it would be my problem to deal with. I've helped injured/disabled people sponge-bathe, and that didn't arouse me either, nor would it have been appropriate to make an issue of it if it did. It's an inappropriate time to be aroused, but the behavior of the nude person is NOT the issue. They are naked for a very legitimate reason.

There is a difference between a playboy pinup (or a Victoria's Secret ad in the window of the storefront at the mall), and a breastfeeding mother at that same mall. A large and significant difference. And yet, we tolerate the overtly sexual ad, and demonize the breastfeeding mother. That's the wrong message to send a teenage boy who may someday have children of his own, or sisters and friends with breastfeeding children.

:iagree:

[8circles]

I find people's necks very sexy, but I don't question a person's right to use his neck to hold up his head, and if someone wears a collarless shirt, I don't get aroused. If I did, it would be my problem to deal with. I've helped injured/disabled people sponge-bathe, and that didn't arouse me either, nor would it have been appropriate to make an issue of it if it did. It's an inappropriate time to be aroused, but the behavior of the nude person is NOT the issue. They are naked for a very legitimate reason.

There is a difference between a playboy pinup (or a Victoria's Secret ad in the window of the storefront at the mall), and a breastfeeding mother at that same mall. A large and significant difference. And yet, we tolerate the overtly sexual ad, and demonize the breastfeeding mother. That's the wrong message to send a teenage boy who may someday have children of his own, or sisters and friends with breastfeeding children.

 

Very well said. :iagree:

[wobeejoe]

I agree with the OP that there is less gentility in the world today, more selfishness and less concern about getting along with your fellow man even if he disagrees with you. But I think our great-grandparents said the same thing, and probably their great-grandparents did too. Every generation seems to think it was the best ever and everything afterward is in a handbasket headed south. I think we would all be a bit less upset if we tried to find the good that flourishes as well. Balance things out a bit.

 

Actually, an appropriate comparison would be to ask if everyone who is alright with flashing nipples in public to bf would be alright with their teenage son having the top half of a playboy centerfold hanging on his bedroom wall.

 

Ladies, regardless of how you feel about the functionality of your breasts the fact is that most men view them as s*x objects. If you are showing them out in public, you may very well be arousing the man next to you. Not because he wants to look or be aroused, but simply as a biological response to nudity that he perceives as s*xual in nature.

 

Mandy

 

Mandy, I live in Middle TN too, and unless we're running in completely different circles, I don't know where you're seeing all these breastfeeding moms flashing nipples everywhere. I've gone to La Leche League meetings in two states, the vast majority of my friends breastfeed, and am pretty darn earthy-birthy crunchy. I can't think of the last time I saw a nursing mom flash in public. Most of the time, even the crunchiest moms are discreet, even in their own homes. Being discreet doesn't mean they have to cover up with a blanket - they're already wearing nursing bras, nursing tops, a sling and have a baby in the way of anyone seeing their breast. Most times, covering up with a blanket is only going to bring MORE attention to the fact that they're nursing.

 

As for the argument that we need to cover up in order to keep men from thinking of us in a sexual manner, do you realize that's the same reasoning Islamic fundamentalist states use to force women to use burquas? From your sentence above, anything a woman does that might make a man become sexually aroused is her fault. That is a dangerous line of thought.

 

Instead, why don't we help educate our sons, brothers and husbands that a woman's body isn't primarily made to be ogled or gawked at, and instead respected as a source of life and nourishment. I would feel much safer with the world in general if I was looked at with a smile when feeding a child than with a leer for simply having breasts.

[Audrey]

I'm okay with people discreetly b-feeding, but I noticed in that thread where people noted that their babies couldn't be covered (for whatever reason) but they were basically just going to flop it out there in public anyway. *THAT* I have a problem with. I don't want to see other people's breasts even when they are b-feeding. I don't share the "oo, it's so natural and beautiful" feeling that they might have about it. A little discretion would be polite, and if you can't be discreet about it, then at least excuse yourself and find a more private area.

[ma23peas]

Instead, why don't we help educate our sons, brothers and husbands that a woman's body isn't primarily made to be ogled or gawked at, and instead respected as a source of life and nourishment. I would feel much safer with the world in general if I was looked at with a smile when feeding a child than with a leer for simply having breasts.

 

In utopia, this might exist, but teenage boys have hormones, sorry, hormones trump reason most of the time...I think it's just a higher road to cover up and it shows respect for those families who are struggling with those hormones..I would never breast feed my child without a blanket or cover up...it just wouldn't enter my mind, and yes, I guess I'm doing it as much for the public as for my own modesty....if you're in a nudist camp, go for it..stop letting your rights be hurt and assuming yours trump the others....they could argue that they have a right to shop for school supplies without having to deal with someone exposing a very private part of the body, why not be considerate for others above yourself...decency has lost its place over a person's right to be 'natural'...

[dirty ethel rackham]

I

There is a difference between a playboy pinup (or a Victoria's Secret ad in the window of the storefront at the mall), and a breastfeeding mother at that same mall. A large and significant difference. And yet, we tolerate the overtly sexual ad, and demonize the breastfeeding mother. That's the wrong message to send a teenage boy who may someday have children of his own, or sisters and friends with breastfeeding children.

 

AMEN!!:thumbup1:

[Mandy in TN]

This was not a response to bf-ing in my area. My response was to a post that was deleted that equated radical bf-ing to s*xual assault on children. That was a horrible comparison, so I attempted to make what I perceive to be a more accurate comparison.

Men are wired differently and teenage males in particular typically have limited control over the biological response of arousal. Sometimes arousal happens even when they very much don’t want it to.

I bf all three of my boys. My youngest ds I bf until he was over 3yo. At that time my oldest ds was 14yo. I never exposed my bare top half (radical bf-ing) to him or his friends. It didn’t matter that I wanted to bf and could bf. I knew that I shouldn’t put any of them in a position of exposing them to something that may inadvertently cause them to become aroused.

As a wife, daughter, sister, and the mother of three sons, I wouldn’t want another woman intentionally exposing herself to the men in my life just to prove that her breasts can be used to nurse especially while flatly denying the s*xual aspect of nudity.

Oh, and remember I am the one who is comfortably married to an Iranian Muslim. I do believe in a certain level of non-government dictated modesty in dress, so take what I say with a grain of salt.:tongue_smilie:

 

No offense intended.

Mandy

 

[Word Nerd]

In utopia, this might exist, but teenage boys have hormones, sorry, hormones trump reason most of the time...I think it's just a higher road to cover up and it shows respect for those families who are struggling with those hormones..I would never breast feed my child without a blanket or cover up...it just wouldn't enter my mind, and yes, I guess I'm doing it as much for the public as for my own modesty....if you're in a nudist camp, go for it..stop letting your rights be hurt and assuming yours trump the others....they could argue that they have a right to shop for school supplies without having to deal with someone exposing a very private part of the body, why not be considerate for others above yourself...decency has lost its place over a person's right to be 'natural'...

 

Oh stop. It's entirely possible to be discreet AND breastfeed without a coverup. No one ever saw one of my nipples in public, and I exposed myself to no one but my baby.

Edited September 10, 2009 by WordGirl

[amy g.]

I would like to run for president of the I'm- well-within-my-rights-please-don't-try-to-control-me-with-your-excessive-sensitivity club.

[Mandy in TN]

I'm okay with people discreetly b-feeding, but I noticed in that thread where people noted that their babies couldn't be covered (for whatever reason) but they were basically just going to flop it out there in public anyway. *THAT* I have a problem with. I don't want to see other people's breasts even when they are b-feeding. I don't share the "oo, it's so natural and beautiful" feeling that they might have about it. A little discretion would be polite, and if you can't be discreet about it, then at least excuse yourself and find a more private area.

:iagree: This would be exactly where I stand on the issue. Sure, I bf in public, but most people didn't even realized that I was. I never with any of my three children had anyone ask me to cover up or go elsewhere.

 

Mandy

[adams101]

:iagree:Well said Audrey!

[Night Elf]

Why does the herd have to tolerate the wavemaker with a smile on its face when the wavemaker is the one choosing to be different?

 

Yes, I'm guilty of being the wavemaker in some cases. I got tired of being hurt time and time again by being expected to bow down to the crowd despite how I felt and/or what I needed. Why do some people expect that the wavemaker should be the one who tolerates the others with a fake smile on his face? If it isn't fair for the crowd to be that way, why should it be fair for the wavemaker?

 

Unfortunately, the wavemaker can become a loner. As much as I want a friend(s), I won't put myself in the position to be hurt, humiliated, and kicked down anymore.

[lionfamily1999]

Yes, I'm guilty of being the wavemaker in some cases. I got tired of being hurt time and time again by being expected to bow down to the crowd despite how I felt and/or what I needed. Why do some people expect that the wavemaker should be the one who tolerates the others with a fake smile on his face? If it isn't fair for the crowd to be that way, why should it be fair for the wavemaker?

 

Unfortunately, the wavemaker can become a loner. As much as I want a friend(s), I won't put myself in the position to be hurt, humiliated, and kicked down anymore.

My point exactly.

[wobeejoe]

As a wife, daughter, sister, and the mother of three sons, I wouldn’t want another woman intentionally exposing herself to the men in my life just to prove that her breasts can be used to nurse especially while flatly denying the s*xual aspect of nudity.

 

Oh, and remember I am the one who is comfortably married to an Iranian Muslim. I do believe in a certain level of non-government dictated modesty in dress, so take what I say with a grain of salt.:tongue_smilie:

 

No offense intended.

Mandy

 

 

Oops - I very rarely comment on the boards and don't keep track of who says what, etc., so I don't know who is married to whom. I hope I didn't offend you. Sorry. No offense intended. I just meant that requiring women to cover up to prevent a man from possible sexual arousal is a slippery slope that I don't see Americans wanting to start down. And starting with breastfeeding moms isn't the right place. Seriously, does anyone see nursing moms flinging themselves around and I'm missing this somehow? I'm not talking about radical nursers. I'm talking about standard, run of the mill mom whose 6 month old needs a feeding. She's probably paranoid about being seen already without making her feel like she's the reason for the downfall of Western Civilization! lol

 

Sorry to get totally off topic from the OP. I think people are more aware of other people's rudeness and disrespect because we hear about it from more outlets - we don't have TV and only get our news from the local paper and NPR and the Sunday New York Times, but I hear about tons of awful things on this and a few other boards I frequent and Facebook. People spread the bad stuff far and wide more easily these days instead of shaming privately any more.

[OnTheBrink]

Instead, why don't we help educate our sons, brothers and husbands that a woman's body isn't primarily made to be ogled or gawked at, and instead respected as a source of life and nourishment. I would feel much safer with the world in general if I was looked at with a smile when feeding a child than with a leer for simply having breasts.

 

Because males are hard-wired to be aroused by women's bodies.

 

I agree that males should be trained from infancy to not objectify women, but really, we want our men to desire us and our bodies, then we vilify them for being aroused by female bodies. It's really just not fair to them.

 

"For Women Only" is a great book by Shaunti Feldham about how men think and it addresses this "oogling" issue very well, imo. I learned a lot from it. Her information is garnered from surveys she gave men.

 

And, I'm absolutely pro-breastfeeding, but I'm also absolutely pro-modesty, respect and discretion, as well.

 

As for the other issues in the OP, all I can come up with is this, "every man did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6b

[8circles]

Men are wired differently and teenage males in particular typically have limited control over the biological response of arousal. Sometimes arousal happens even when they very much don’t want it to.

 

I bf all three of my boys. My youngest ds I bf until he was over 3yo. At that time my oldest ds was 14yo. I never exposed my bare top half (radical bf-ing) to him or his friends. It didn’t matter that I wanted to bf and could bf. I knew that I shouldn’t put any of them in a position of exposing them to something that may inadvertently cause them to become aroused.

 

As a wife, daughter, sister, and the mother of three sons, I wouldn’t want another woman intentionally exposing herself to the men in my life just to prove that her breasts can be used to nurse especially while flatly denying the s*xual aspect of nudity.

 

Oh, and remember I am the one who is comfortably married to an Iranian Muslim. I do believe in a certain level of non-government dictated modesty in dress, so take what I say with a grain of salt.:tongue_smilie:

 

[bold mine] I think this is a mischaracterization of BF in public. It is a mischaracterization of the pro-BF anti-cover-up opinions in the other thread. Anyone who is aroused at seeing the average uncovered BFer in public has a problem. I would advise that person to spend more time in prayer regarding this issue.

[Moni]

"I don't feel like talking to you...so I won't answer the phone, make small talk, be neighborly, etc..... Too bad if this hurts your feelings but I just don't feel like doing these things so deal with it." .

 

The Other Person's Entitlement.

 

If it's not one person's entitlement, it's another's.

 

...so complicated...

 

:seeya:

[Saille]

In utopia, this might exist, but teenage boys have hormones, sorry, hormones trump reason most of the time...I think it's just a higher road to cover up and it shows respect for those families who are struggling with those hormones..

 

I disagree. Involuntary arousal happens. It happens to women, too. It happens for no good reason when everyone is clothed. To state that one must change otherwise normal behavior to protect teen-aged boys from their own hormones is a problem. It implies that men are less responsible for exercising impulse control if they are aroused by something they see, and from a legal and ethical standpoint, this is quite simply not true. I do not like the way this line of argument paints young men and their ability to choose moral reasoning over a reflex.

[wobeejoe]

Because males are hard-wired to be aroused by women's bodies.

 

I agree that males should be trained from infancy to not objectify women, but really, we want our men to desire us and our bodies, then we vilify them for being aroused by female bodies. It's really just not fair to them.

 

"For Women Only" is a great book by Shaunti Feldham about how men think and it addresses this "oogling" issue very well, imo. I learned a lot from it. Her information is garnered from surveys she gave men.

 

And, I'm absolutely pro-breastfeeding, but I'm also absolutely pro-modesty, respect and discretion, as well.

 

As for the other issues in the OP, all I can come up with is this, "every man did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6b

 

I haven't read this book, but really - is that fair to men? They're hard-wired to be aroused, so seeing a breast means automatically they're aroused? Wow. That's unfair. I know many, many, MANY men that aren't that base. You do too. The men I know and go to church with and live in my neighborhood with know that a breastfeeding mom isn't working her wicked wiles on him and instead think it's great that you're feeding the baby (and keeping it quiet so he can continue worshipping/talking to you/enjoying his meal without a screaming fussy baby in his ear).

 

And I personally am not very interested in men desiring me for my body. I would much prefer to be desired for my mind. My body will change a lot over time, not for the better. My mind will. :)

 

And again, breastfeeding in public IS mostly done modestly with respect and descretion.

[unsinkable]

You know what my evidence is that people just don't care as much as they used to care?

 

Urine covered toilet seats. And I mean yellow urine, not just water that might have splashed up from a flush.

 

It is getting worse. every. year. Stores, restaurants, parks, etc... it seems like every toilet is covered with urine!!!

 

It is selfish & disgusting not to mop up after yourself.

[wobeejoe]

I disagree. Involuntary arousal happens. It happens to women, too. It happens for no good reason when everyone is clothed. To state that one must change otherwise normal behavior to protect teen-aged boys from their own hormones is a problem. It implies that men are less responsible for exercising impulse control if they are aroused by something they see, and from a legal and ethical standpoint, this is quite simply not true. I do not like the way this line of argument paints young men and their ability to choose moral reasoning over a reflex.

 

 

:iagree: Yeah! What she said!!!! :)

 

My husband doesn't act on his every whim/arousal, and we are teaching our sons and daughters to do the same thing.

[Saille]

You know what my evidence is that people just don't care as much as they used to care?

 

Urine covered toilet seats. And I mean yellow urine, not just water that might have splashed up from a flush.

 

It is getting worse. every. year. Stores, restaurants, parks, etc... it seems like every toilet is covered with urine!!!

 

It is selfish & disgusting not to mop up after yourself.

 

Now *there's* a platform I can get behind!

[hillfarm]

Popping in again--today I am waiting for an incubator of chicks to hatch, so have enough time to play on the computer!

 

There is so much talk about whether the male should or shouldn't get aroused in a public breastfeeding situation or what he should or shouldn't be thinking. Oh, please! Let's put the responsibility for this squarely where it belongs - on the woman choosing to feed openly or not. The OP was lamenting the loss of consideration for others in our society.

 

The woman breastfeeding in complete disregard to whether it might be uncomfortable or create a negative effect in others is taking a very self centered position. She may be within her rights, but she is showing no kindness or caring to others who may be struggling with their own weaknesses.

 

"Anyone who is aroused at seeing the average uncovered BFer in public has a problem. I would advise that person to spend more time in prayer regarding this issue."

 

I could run around in extremely suggestive clothing because it might be cooler than what I normally wear. I could say that my farmer neighbors have a problem because my clothing would put inappropriate thoughts into their heads. And I could march around, arrogant and stalwart in my position. OR I could have compassion on these people. I could think about the struggles they and their wives have been through and determine that I would suck it up and sweat a bit more and wear something that would not add to their problem. I could be a part of the solution, not adding fuel to the fire. If only I cared enough about my fellow human beings to inconvenience myself just the littlest bit. If they had improper thoughts, is it their problem not mine? Of course. Should they pray about their inadequacies? Of course. Am I reasonable to expect them to be perfect? Of course not. Am I? (That doesn't even deserve an answer!:D)

 

Each of us has the option of choosing to help our fellow human beings along in the struggle of life or to disregard them as we plow forward meeting our own needs, leaving them behind to deal with their own problems.

 

I am a busy homeschool farm mom. I don't have time to spend in idle chatter but I definitely love others enough to curb some of my conveniences and pleasures to try to make sure that we all make a success of life. I would hate to live in a society where no one else was willing to do the same.

[tadbhoward]

You know what my evidence is that people just don't care as much as they used to care?

 

Urine covered toilet seats. And I mean yellow urine, not just water that might have splashed up from a flush.

 

It is getting worse. every. year. Stores, restaurants, parks, etc... it seems like every toilet is covered with urine!!!

 

It is selfish & disgusting not to mop up after yourself.

 

 

Sit down already people! That is, after all, why they are called toilet seats.

[OH_Homeschooler]

I've noticed this on many threads on this board, but lately on the anti-social/introvert thread. There seems to be a recurring theme that, "I don't feel like talking to you...so I won't answer the phone, make small talk, be neighborly, etc..... Too bad if this hurts your feelings but I just don't feel like doing these things so deal with it." Meanwhile, the person being ignored feels bad because the introvert doesn't feel like making any sort of effort to live in society.

 

OK, well as a participant in that thread, I have to say that while I HATE the phone, and can't always get to it when it's actually ringing, I do return all calls. I communicate this way, I communicate the way the other person prefers, because the other person prefers it. I hate it, but I do it. Is it selfish that sometimes I wait to return the call until I'm up for small talk, which may not be until the next day? I'm sure you think it is. I don't. I am sure I speak for many participants in that thread when I say this.

 

I saw the same thing in the breastfeeding thread a few weeks ago. The theme on there was, "I will show my breast, areola, nipple, wherever and whenever I want because my kid needs to eat right this very second." Even though half the population doesn't have breasts, (or breastfeeding ones) and it might make them uncomfortable. But, no....the bfeeding mom has no responsibility to them...just to her & baby's needs...screw what everyone else feels.

 

I know others have addressed this, but I just have to say this is a truly ignorant thing to say. I didn't even BF. But I have to say that a newborn who is HUNGRY trumps the person who might just be a little uncomfortable at the sight of a breast functioning as it was designed to, which is, to FEED a hungry baby. So in this case, I guess the mom is selfish regardless of what she chooses. She's selfish from the baby's perspective if she chooses to wait until she can shield herself, or she's selfish from the stranger's perspective if she chooses not to make the baby wait. Oh, and she's selfish for allowing the baby to continue screaming for food and making strangers hear the noise.

 

Look, I really hate anyone complaining about "people these days" and this definitely falls under that. I don't think people are any better or any worse than they always have been. I think society changes and people learn things and find ways to adapt. Or else they become very irritated at everything they encounter. It's your choice.

[Guest Katia]

Yes, I'm guilty of being the wavemaker in some cases. I got tired of being hurt time and time again by being expected to bow down to the crowd despite how I felt and/or what I needed. Why do some people expect that the wavemaker should be the one who tolerates the others with a fake smile on his face? If it isn't fair for the crowd to be that way, why should it be fair for the wavemaker?

 

Unfortunately, the wavemaker can become a loner. As much as I want a friend(s), I won't put myself in the position to be hurt, humiliated, and kicked down anymore.

 

I was trying to decide how to post what I was thinking and feeling, but....you did such a great job that I'll just agree with you.

 

The other thing that I see as a problem, is that there are so many people who feel it is their right and duty to TELL you that they are offended by what you have innocently said/done/not done/not said that they perceive to be impolite/selfish/wavemaker-ish and they then expect an apology from you because....well....they deserve it!

 

Easier to just stay away from the crowd and be perceived as the dreaded society loner, eh?

[lionfamily1999]

Now *there's* a platform I can get behind!

Or hover over... :rofl: