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

[AmeliaJade]

I think I work pretty hard to take a live-and-let-live approach to life. I don't begrudge you your opinion and I try pretty hard not to belittle anyone. I'm not sure what bits of your post were addressing me or my own actions.

 

I think anyone who participates in hot-topic threads has pretty tough skin but I know everyone has also had their feelings hurt at some point (I can also guarantee everyone who participates has meeker PMers giving them "you-go-girls"). There is a HUGE failing with this mode of communication in that you never see facial expressions, body language, hear tone of voice, etc.

 

I discuss contentious issues with my friends in real life who like to discuss that sort of thing. We do it with humor, with kindness, with love and if we have to agree to disagree, that's fine. I have other friends with whom I never discuss politics. I didn't say a word to my friend whose teenaged son was discussing ways to assassinate President Obama at church even though I was deeply horrified and offended. She scolded him for it but in a very "please don't say things that could get you hauled off to jail", joking manner. I let it go. I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she talked to him more seriously about it later, I hope she did. I extended her son grace-he is young and has a lot to learn about life.

 

I think throughout this thread I have shown humor and extended a lot of grace and benefit of the doubt. I haven't picked apart anyone's words or said anyone was anti-baby.

 

My problem is in how many people choose to express their opinions.

 

Things I have seen and in some cases been told directly on this board:

 

Anyone who is patriotic would agree with me.

 

Anyone who supports our military would agree with me.

 

Anyone with a Biblical perspective would agree with me.

 

If you were truly a Christian you would understand.

 

There are constantly assumptions made on this board by some people that all Christians, homeschoolers, people who live in the South, ladies who drink Mike's, patriotic individuals, people who support the military should think the same way. But they don't. That doesn't make them less Christian, less patriotic, less anything else than a person holding the opposing opinion.

 

I've seen less grace extended to people on this board under the veil of standing up for courtesy or decency than I can even begin to list. That's the problem I have with this thread.

 

:iagree:

[Carol in Cal.]

 

If I know (or am even pretty sure) that my actions will offend and I choose to do them anyway then I am not making every effort to keep others from "stumbling"

 

Some of the breastfeeding moms were stating that they would breastfeed however they chose irregardless or anyone's feelings about it. They feel that they have a right to breastfeed and if anyone takes offense to that then it is the other persons problem, not theirs. This kind of thinking is what I disagree with. Just because they have a right to do it doesn't necessarily make it right. If they know they could offend (or cause someone to "stumble") they should make every effort to respect that and try to breastfeed as modestly as possible.

 

 

 

I do think that it's nice to try to be courteous and to forebear, and avoid offense and stumbling blocks.

 

But sometimes you have to also balance that with righting a wrong. IMO, it is wrong to discourage bf-ing by making it seem so difficult and weird. It is wrong to s*xualize it. It is wrong to deny a baby the food and comfort that God made for him. And our society is guilty of that wrong, to varying degrees. Gradually that wrong is being righted. And to some extent, it is being righted by people who advocate for the rights of nursing pairs to bf publicly, and by their actually doing so.

 

I, personally, chose not to be 'in your face' about nursing. I decided to wear clothes in which I could be discreet and still nurse. (I don't think that blankets are discreet at all, actually. It's a lot easier to be subtle when you look a little more normal than that. It's also helpful to just look out at others instead of looking down at the baby--it tends to draw the attention away from the nursing, which is all good and proper.)

 

But, I do think that it was a good thing that I nursed in public, albeit discreetly. It was one little, incremental step, for some people, in making it more 'normal' to see. Hopefully society will gradually get used to it, as they should. I would like it if more and more people nursed politely in public, until the whole charged issue was diffused.

 

Advocacy--that's the other factor.

[sheryl]

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.

 

:iagree: Very well said and I AGREE WITH YOU!!

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm not for blantant breast showing while breastfeeding. This might be a small percentage of women who do this, but it gives all nursing mothers a bad name, and it isn't necessary. If we are considerate of others everyone can be happy. A mother can nurse discreetly (with or without a blanket) and baby's tummy gets filled, and others aren't made uncomfortable.

I am glad that you explained this better in several posts. I have tried to be discreet, but I was very worried that because my baby will not tolerate a blanket and would sometimes tug my nursing shirt away from his face that I was being told that nursing in public was wrong for me. I nursed him in an ergo carrier too, but with a nursing shirt, not pulling a shirt down or unbuttoning.

 

I am saddened to see moms point fingers at one another and say "BAD!" without knowing any of the details. Maybe the "immodest" nursers aren't the ones being inconsiderate. Maybe they are doing what they can, like we all do.

:iagree:

 

 

You can't. There is no way of knowing exactly what will offend. I was stating that if you KNOW that you might offend and choose to do the action anyway with an intentional disregard to the others feelings then you DO know and either don't care or believe that it is their problem not yours.

 

If I know (or am even pretty sure) that my actions will offend and I choose to do them anyway then I am not making every effort to keep others from "stumbling"

 

There is a difference between accidental offense and offense that occurs as a result of disregard for others.

 

Some of the breastfeeding moms were stating that they would breastfeed however they chose irregardless or anyone's feelings about it. They feel that they have a right to breastfeed and if anyone takes offense to that then it is the other persons problem, not theirs. This kind of thinking is what I disagree with. Just because they have a right to do it doesn't necessarily make it right. If they know they could offend (or cause someone to "stumble") they should make every effort to respect that and try to breastfeed as modestly as possible.

 

As I mentioned, this doesn't only apply to breastfeeding. It applies to all things in life. If I know or suspect that my actions might offend another then I should make every effort so as not to offend.

 

At least that's what I take from the "good book." :tongue_smilie:

I agree, I hope that I didn't come across that way. Perhaps I did because of my incorrect understanding of the term "discreet". I feel that the term should not be used at all for that reason.

 

At religious meetings I take my child into a private room, sometimes it is in a portion of the bathroom that is behind a wall separated from the rest of the bathroom.

 

My way of dealing with this issue with family members (father, father in law, brother in law, nephews) is to "warn" all males in the house that I am going to nurse my baby. If I am writing on the computer or watching a movie then they have a right to leave the room. They also have the right to avert their eyes and continue to enjoy my company. As a very tired mother with a demanding baby, I don't see why I should be the one to lug my child kicking and screaming into another room or up the stairs. ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

Maybe it is more of people are purposely being different just because they are different and they got tired of wasting effort trying to conform to the majority's rules. Just because they are the majority doesn't make them right.

 

I will admit I am one of the people you are talking about. I am kind and polite and I try to be neighborly and helpful but honestly, I am too busy dealing with the important things in life to worry about what small mind people are thinking. The truth of the matter is that once you get outside the black and white issues like murder, rape and assault into the grey areas like manners, where there is no definite rights and wrongs, where people's opinions can be mutually exclussive, the only was to maintain everyone's rights is to just agree to disagree. The minority doesn't have to adjust and the majority doesn't have to like it. Everyone has the right to act within the law, no matter how rude someone else may perceive it to be, and everyone has the right to be offended or complain when other's don't do what they think is right. That's is one of the truly great things about this country. We have the freedom to live our lives our way and complain with other's don't do the same (live their lives our way).

 

Me personally, I have a live and let live philosophy. I have strong opinions on some matters but for the most part I just accept people for who they are. I also rarely have the time or energy to be paying enough attention to people, who are not a part of my immediate life, to be offended by them. I guess oblivious is sometimes a good place to be. Good thing too because I don't know that my life could handle any additional, unneccessary stress.

:thumbup1:I loved this. It also made me think... in the OP it is the introverts who are terrorizing society by not having the desire to be sociable. Perhaps it is the extroverts who are terrorizing society by expecting introverts to use up their precious energy "being neighborly" when they see the other in the driveway or by attending a barbq... just saying.

 

I thought that it was a problem when people "care too much about what others think". I thought going out of your way to try to 'impress' others was a negative thing, and is generally looked down upon (but maybe I'm wrong).

People are easily offended by all sorts of things. I don't feel that it is my job to go out of my way to make sure I cause absolutely no offense to anyone in public (or not) ever. People offend me in public, but I just shrug it off and get on with whatever I was doing. If the offense is causing an actual problem/difficulty for me/my family/my friends, then I will do what I can to see that it is at least brought to the attention of someone in authority (the employer, the police, whatever is appropriate). Other than that, I understand that we are all different and we all have different likes/dislikes and none of us are going to be 100% happy with what others are doing 100% of the time- that's an unreasonable expectation IMO.

 

I'm not saying this as any sort of jab at the OP, and I'm saying this as gently as possible so please 'hear' it that way:

I think that complaining about other people's behavior rarely solves anything, and usually just causes more ill feelings/more hate to exist in the world. I think that being a good example and accepting people as they are goes a LOT further in improving the situation for everyone. You may not get a smile from the person you smile at, you may get a glare, but at least you didn't add to the negativity that was already there, KWIM?

There is SO much to complain about, and when it will make a difference then file a complaint. :) But when it's possible, just try to throw some positive energy at whatever is bugging you. If you hate seeing trash on the side of the road, then volunteer to clean it up and become a part of the 'solution' instead of talking about how filthy and disgusting the people who put it there are. I hope that makes sense, and I really, really, REALLY hope it doesn't offend anyone- as that is NOT my intent.

:hurray:*applause*

 

This whole discussion about breastfeeding is getting rather ridiculous. I don't recall anyone here advocating women baring their entire breast, hooking up the babe and parading down main street. (Please point out if I'm incorrect.) In my almost 50 years I have never seen a woman blatantly pull out her breast to nurse, other than a quick mishap which is quickly corrected. I believe those of you who say you've seen it, but from what I've read it's one or two occurrences. If this was something you run into everyday, I would see it as a valid concern. As it is, it just seems it's getting blown out of the water.

 

A much bigger concern to me is the woman at my dh's office who wears very low cut tops, padded, push-up low cut bras, and then leans over my dh's desk so it's all there to be seen. Absolutely intentional, yes. She's mentioned several times to dh how she could easily get a job at Hooters. And you're worried about women breastfeeding in public? How it might affect your husbands. I would be way more worried about the women he works with, the ones on the beach or at the pool in the summer or in the auto parts store with their string bikini on.

 

Janet

:hurray: Edited September 12, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[lionfamily1999]

This. Totally.

 

I am getting SO SICK of "THIS is the Only way to Follow God!" Really/ Someone write up the SOPs and send me a copy when you're done, OK?

 

Section 5 Breastfeeding God's Way

 

In order to obtain a Breastfeeding In Public Liscence the following rules must be followed.

 

1. You must not expose a breast while breastfeeding in public.

 

a. You are allowed no more than one square centimeter of exposed beewbie ABOVE the areola. There is no allowable skin exposure below the areola.

 

b. If the baby throws off the blanket, you are allowed 2.5 seconds to reconnect the blanket to your shoulder. Winding the blanket in your bra strap is not acceptable. (Seeing your bit of purple lace could cause a man to have lustful thoughts. The approve nursing blankets with Velcro neck straps can be bought at the Breastfeeding God's Way store. Your purchase will further the ministry of Thou Shat Not Offend, and you'll get God Points, redeemable on our next purchase.)

 

c. If you inadvertently expose a beewbie, you must apologize profusely in public on the box in the center of the town square at 12:00 Noon.

 

c.1 No other time is allowable. If you are not there, we will automatically reject your Breastfeeding In Public license. If another date needs to be scheduled due to sickness, please contact the Thou Shalt Not Offend headquarters, the parent company of Breastfeeding God's Way. Another time will be allotted to you. You are not allowed more that one rescheduling.

:w00t: I want to forward this to everyone I've ever had email contact with. I want this to make the rounds and end up BACK in my email in six months.

 

This was wonderful, clever, entertaining AND you got your point across without, imo, one single drop of smarm!?!:thumbup:

 

:hurray:That is a 10 out of 10.

[buddhabelly]

I don't think breasts are inherently sexual. Well, maybe a little bit in that men who choose mates that are wide-hipped and with breasts well-shaped for breastfeeding have successful offspring, and so these traits are perpetuated in future generations. But it would be interesting to know whether men who were "attachment parented" and breastfed are titillated by breasts (when not attached to someone they are kissing, that is). Lips and earlobes are more sexual than breasts, because they become engorged and red when we are aroused. That's the reason for lipstick. Shall we begin marketing earlobe reddener?

 

From Consumer Health Digest (online):

 

Carolyn Latteier, the author of Breasts, The Women's Perspective on an American Obsession, said in a TV program "All about breasts, "In many cultures, breasts aren't sexual at all. I interviewed a young anthropologist working with women in Mali, in a country in Africa where women go around with bare breasts. They're always feeding their babies. And when she told them that in our culture men are fascinated with breasts there was an instant of shock. The women burst out laughing. They laughed so hard, they fell on the floor. They said, "You mean, men act like babies?"

[JennC]

 

1 Corinthians 10: 31-33 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause ANYONE to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God-even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

 

This tells me that if the actions that I am doing might cause my fellow man to "stumble" then I should refrain from doing them. It doesn't matter if it's my "right" to do it. It doesn't even matter if they are wrong for wanting me to. As a christian, I have been instruction to not cause ANYONE to stumble.

 

I don't wish to debate this with anyone, but will chime in anyway. This passage in the Bible is not actually referring to 'offending' people by your choices such as wearing jeans to church, drinking an occasional beer/wine, bowling in a venue that plays rock music on the p.a., or breastfeeding in public.

this passage refers to causing your brother to stumble OUT OF HIS WALK WITH CHRIST.

People can be offended by just about anything, and in today's lingo, it could be argued that Jesus came to earth to offend people - right out of their sin.

 

 

My opinion on this debate is that it is just a time-killer. If a woman was walking around my supermarket with her completely undone, holding her infant with one arm & trying to nurse the babe, while getting milk, etc.; I know what I would do without question. I would absolutely approach her and say "Let me help you."

If I saw a woman on a park bench feeding her babe out of one breast with the other one "just hanging there", I would remember the time (don't remember the venue) when I did the exact same thing out of sheer momma exhaustion. I didn't even realize I was doing it and when I did realize it - I was mortified. What is the worst that could have happened if you gently sat down near her and politely said "did you realize you were open?" something, anything. We do better for a person with their fly down.

Recently, Oregon I believe passed a friend of breastfeeding law. To celebrate, there was a statewide nurse-in. Great for them - they were happy about it, but they didn't ride their bikes down main street buck naked like the actiivists who - I believe also in OR - were celebrating the "right to be nude in public law"

 

 

To Mrs F - You had some good points, your post was food for thought. You lost me immediately when bfing entered the post.

I disagree (maybe with you/maybe not) with the premise that while bfing in public one should consider the feelings of the myriad men/boys/uptight women, etc who could possibly be offended and . . . blah, blah, blah. Humans are mammals. Breastfeeding isn't a license to be rude. For any bystander. I submit that even if clumsy or unskilled, in no way is feeding a baby rude, nor can it cause a fellow Christian to fall out of their walk with Christ, or cause them to come under condemnation. But the attitude toward the nursing mom asked to "do that elsewhere" is condemning, at best.

 

Just my thoughts, and I thought, since I'm a thread-killer by nature, I'd just get it over with for this thread :D

 

Oh, and btw to Mrs Mungo, who would have thought that you and I have so much in common (re: your list of qualities in a previous later page post);)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

When the conservative Christians post, they post intimating that God is on their side, and with that comes an attitude of "You Should" and then a throw out a bible verse to back themselves up. Then, if people don't agree, shame and guilt get brought out. They may not THINK it's manipulation, but it is. And let me also say that NO ONE will be brought to Christ by having someone fling a row of bible verses at them in an online kerfluffle. I think more than likely the other person will only run in the opposite direction muttering, "Those Christians-why does anyone want to be a part of their group?"

 

 

 

 

So when it comes down to it, they only love the people that do it their way or the people that they can spiritually manipulate into doing it their way.

 

The non Christians are so tired of being put on the defensive that the shields automatically come up because that is what worn out people do. You come to a point of just not being able to take it anymore and so you don't.

 

Believe me, I know that most of the conservative Christians are now saying No! It's THEM-the UnGodly. It's their fault, we're the victims. But this is what we have to bear for being a follower of Christ. (which is another total victim mentality. When you are jailed, beaten, stoned and threatened to be killed, THEN you can pull out the victim card.)

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for understanding. Thank you for saying, as a xian, what non-xians may be feeling/thinking. (Well, this non-xian, anyway!)

[nmoira]

Just my thoughts, and I thought, since I'm a thread-killer by nature, I'd just get it over with for this thread :D

 

I can't think of a better way to end the thread. :)

 

If a woman was walking around my supermarket with her completely undone, holding her infant with one arm & trying to nurse the babe, while getting milk, etc.; I know what I would do without question. I would absolutely approach her and say "Let me help you."

 

If I saw a woman on a park bench feeding her babe out of one breast with the other one "just hanging there", I would remember the time (don't remember the venue) when I did the exact same thing out of sheer momma exhaustion. I didn't even realize I was doing it and when I did realize it - I was mortified. What is the worst that could have happened if you gently sat down near her and politely said "did you realize you were open?" something, anything. We do better for a person with their fly down.

[Orthodox6]

I can't think of a better way to end the thread. :)

 

:iagree: I've been waiting for this hissing cat fight to die abruptly and permanently.

[elizam]

I understand what you mean!

 

I have not read all of the responses yet.

 

My pet peeves lately involve Christians who are so wrapped up in hating Obama, Democrats, etc. and are blathering on and on about how we shouldn't help the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, etc. because they "choose" to be poor, mentally ill, homeless, etc. and that's "proven" by the fact that many do drugs...

 

I just feel like so many people are over the top judgemental and ignorant about these matters. Many people who do drugs ARE mentally ill. Many people who commit crimes are mentally ill. Ditto for homeless, etc.

 

Jesus wants us to help them and not shun them. But so many of the conservative Christians I know don't understand, dont' want to, and most certainly aren't going to rub shoulders with "those kind."

[elizam]

I understand what you mean!

 

I have not read all of the responses yet.

 

My pet peeves lately involve Christians who are so wrapped up in hating Obama, Democrats, etc. and are blathering on and on about how we shouldn't help the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, etc. because they "choose" to be poor, mentally ill, homeless, etc. and that's "proven" by the fact that many do drugs...

 

I just feel like so many people are over the top judgemental and ignorant about these matters. Many people who do drugs ARE mentally ill. Many people who commit crimes are mentally ill. Ditto for homeless, etc.

 

Jesus wants us to help them and not shun them. But so many of the conservative Christians I know don't understand, dont' want to, and most certainly aren't going to rub shoulders with "those kind."

 

 

I meant to add that those same Christians are very gung ho about going to Christian events, church, etc. and/or keeping their dc involved in intellectual activities and prestigious religious camps, etc. where they can be steeped in conservative debate, etc.....and avoiding the rest of the unsaved or nonconservative world...

[Word Nerd]

 

My pet peeves lately involve Christians who are so wrapped up in hating Obama, Democrats, etc. and are blathering on and on about how we shouldn't help the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, etc. because they "choose" to be poor, mentally ill, homeless, etc. and that's "proven" by the fact that many do drugs...

 

I would say that these Christians are about as numerous as nursing moms who walk around with their breasts flapping in the wind.

[unsinkable]

I understand what you mean!

 

I have not read all of the responses yet.

 

My pet peeves lately involve Christians who are so wrapped up in hating Obama, Democrats, etc. and are blathering on and on about how we shouldn't help the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, etc. because they "choose" to be poor, mentally ill, homeless, etc. and that's "proven" by the fact that many do drugs...

 

I just feel like so many people are over the top judgemental and ignorant about these matters. Many people who do drugs ARE mentally ill. Many people who commit crimes are mentally ill. Ditto for homeless, etc.

 

Jesus wants us to help them and not shun them. But so many of the conservative Christians I know don't understand, dont' want to, and most certainly aren't going to rub shoulders with "those kind."

 

sounds like you need to meet some Catholics! :lol:

[Orthodox6]

sounds like you need to meet some Catholics! :lol:

 

Catholics AND Protestants AND Orthodox AND Jews AND Muslims AND. . . [fill in the blank] ! There are members of all faiths (and non-faiths) who "put their money where their mouths are". :)

[pqr]

I understand what you mean!

 

I have not read all of the responses yet.

 

My pet peeves lately involve Christians who are so wrapped up in hating Obama, Democrats, etc. and are blathering on and on about how we shouldn't help the poor, the mentally ill, the homeless, etc. because they "choose" to be poor, mentally ill, homeless, etc. and that's "proven" by the fact that many do drugs...

 

I just feel like so many people are over the top judgemental and ignorant about these matters. Many people who do drugs ARE mentally ill. Many people who commit crimes are mentally ill. Ditto for homeless, etc.

 

Jesus wants us to help them and not shun them. But so many of the conservative Christians I know don't understand, dont' want to, and most certainly aren't going to rub shoulders with "those kind."

 

 

Wow what a comment and what a demonstration of complete intolerance towards Conservative Christians.

 

Many conservative Christians do rub shoulders with just "that kind." Who do you think makes up a substantial portion of missionaries around the world where they deal with the poor and the ill? The difference is that many conservatives insist that people are responsible for their own behavior.

 

Case in Point: Not all drug users are mentally ill, but drug users made a conscious choice to use.

 

 

Liberals " I know don't understand, don’t' want to" understand that some of us believe in the small government, individual responsibility and are not "blathering on" but rather expressing an opinion that comes from a thoughtful examination of the world. We are not wrapped up in "hating" but rather would see the values enshrined in the Constitution and those held by the founders adhered to. Oddly enough we believe that we know better than anyone how to raise our families and (shudder) that we should be able to keep the fruits of our labor rather than support a faceless bureaucrat taking our money and giving to someone else. We oppose redistribution of wealth and believe that charity should start at home.

Edited September 12, 2009 by pqr

[mominbc]

I would say that these Christians are about as numerous as nursing moms who walk around with their breasts flapping in the wind.

 

:iagree:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Wow what a comment and what a demonstration of complete intolerance towards Conservative Christians.

 

 

 

Case in Point: Not all drug users are mentally ill, but drug users made a conscious choice to use.

 

 

Liberals " I know don't understand, don’t' want to" understand that some of us believe in the small government, individual responsibility and are not "blathering on" but rather expressing an opinion that comes from a thoughtful examination of the world. We are not wrapped up in "hating" but rather would see the values enshrined in the Constitution and those held by the founders adhered to. Oddly enough we believe that we know better than anyone how to raise our families and (shudder) that we should be able to keep the fruits of our labor rather than support a faceless bureaucrat taking our money and giving to someone else. We oppose redistribution of wealth and believe that charity should start at home.

 

 

Re: your remark about "Drug users made a choice to use drugs".....

 

 

PLEASE!! While it is true that they may have made that choice, what was behind that decision? The fact that he or she grew up in a home where they had to lock their door at night so Daddy wouldn't get into her bed again and do that thing that she can't talk about? The fact that their spouse is beating the tar out of them?

 

It's so easy to judge when you don't know. It's easy to not know when you don't want to get to know the situation.

 

Going on a missions trip is not the same as dropping the judgment and loving people where they are instead of where you want them to be! (universal YOU, not YOU, you!)

[pqr]

Re: your remark about "Drug users made a choice to use drugs".....

 

 

PLEASE!! While it is true that they may have made that choice, what was behind that decision? The fact that he or she grew up in a home where they had to lock their door at night so Daddy wouldn't get into her bed again and do that thing that she can't talk about? The fact that their spouse is beating the tar out of them?

 

It's so easy to judge when you don't know. It's easy to not know when you don't want to get to know the situation.

 

Going on a missions trip is not the same as dropping the judgment and loving people where they are instead of where you want them to be! (universal YOU, not YOU, you!)

 

...or perhaps the fact that it was "cool" or their boyfriend/girlfriend was doing it or any of a thousand other reasons. None of this changes the fact that a conscious choice was made.

 

Horrible things happen in this world, I agree, but we are all still responsible for our actions, be it using drugs or comiting murder or anything else.

 

As to your comment about going on missions, it all depends on the type of missionary work. Many of those missionaries that I know, and have known, are good, kind (and yes conservative) people. Many missionaries have laid down their lives for their flocks, look at Congo in the 60s, Angola in the 70s etc and even today they continue to do so. As to judgement...of course they judge (we all do) to argue otherwise is simply false. The point is that many missionaries love people (to use your words) "where they are" but make a judgement call in try to bring them to a better place.

Edited September 12, 2009 by pqr

[mommyrooch]

I don't wish to debate this with anyone, but will chime in anyway. This passage in the Bible is not actually referring to 'offending' people by your choices such as wearing jeans to church, drinking an occasional beer/wine, bowling in a venue that plays rock music on the p.a., or breastfeeding in public.

this passage refers to causing your brother to stumble OUT OF HIS WALK WITH CHRIST.

People can be offended by just about anything, and in today's lingo, it could be argued that Jesus came to earth to offend people - right out of their sin.

 

Yep, I know that this passage is not specifically talking about offending anyone. I never said it was about offense. In fact, you added my quote to your post where I said that we should try to avoid doing things that might cause our fellow man to "stumble". I referred to them "stumbling", not being offended. Refer back to the original post that I made and you will see that I used it in the correct context.

 

In my later posts I talked in general about not offending others but in the post where I included the passage I spoke of trying to not make others "stumble".

 

I spoke of a young, impressionable boy (or a grown man for that matter) being exposed to a woman who was not modestly breastfeeding and as a result possibly having a "sexual" response that he would then have to struggle with. In this scenario, this young boy or man could be made to "stumble" in his walk with Christ" He could be plagued with impure thoughts or desires as a result of such an encounter.

 

Now many of you might argue that these men or boys might be plagued with these impure thoughts everyday anyway because of provacotive ads or displays etc. Yes, you are correct but I say to that "two wrongs don't make a right"

 

Just because someone might be exposed to something that might cause them to "stumble" in their walk with Christ whether we expose them or not does not make our actions any less of a possible "stumbling block" for them. We should not add to their struggle. We should do everything we can to see that we don't make it any harder than it already is.

 

Again, this applies to everything in life, not just breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is actually a VERY SMALL offense issue compared to all of the other things in our society that might offend. Breastfeeding is a good thing that is unfortunately sometimes "perceived" as offensive while other things in our society are just flat out ugly, innapropriate and vulgar.

[nmoira]

 

I spoke of a young, impressionable boy (or a grown man for that matter) being exposed to a woman who was not modestly breastfeeding and as a result possibly having a "sexual" response that he would then have to struggle with. In this scenario, this young boy or man could be made to "stumble" in his walk with Christ" He could be plagued with impure thoughts or desires as a result of such an encounter

I think men and boys would be more likely to support breastfeeding if they see it as natural and nurturing, rather than something that should be shameful and hidden away. I also think boys benefit more from our trust rather than having things hidden from them because we don't think they can't handle it. Almost *anything* can excite a teen boy, and having to deal with it or struggle with it is part of growing up and learning self control.

[Donna T.]

 

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.

 

Wow! I have not read any of the comments to your original post. So many pages! But, I have to say... you have truly hit the nail on the head here. We are dealing with this very issue in our family. Someone has hurt our family very badly and yet they say they have no obligation to explain to anyone how they live their life :001_huh: or why they have done the things they have done. Nope. They "shouldn't have to" answer to anyone and have no obligation to do anything other than look out for themselves. And, all the while, innocent children look on and are hurt, confused & depressed. It is the nature of children to blame themselves when the adults in their lives do stupid things.

 

 

I'm looking forward to reading some responses. It just breaks my heart. It really does seem like everywhere my husband and I look lately we see selfish minded people who are so focused on themselves and their own "good" that they are unwilling to even consider how their actions effect others. Total destruction all around them and that's just too bad.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Donna T.

[JennC]

In fact, you added my quote to your post where I said that we should try to avoid doing things that might cause our fellow man to "stumble". I referred to them "stumbling", not being offended.

 

It doesn't matter if you used the word offended or the word stumble. The point of the verse is not what you state. First of all, the verse is a directive to Christians RE: other Christians.

If a Pre-Jesus Jew ate meat offered to idols, he knew he was under condemnation. After Jesus, that law was no longer binding, as Jesus replaced the law.

Therefore, there was no offense (or crime, if you will) in eating meat that had been offered to idols. However, if you were a Christian confident in your freedom to eat that meat, and you had a brother in Christ over for lunch, and he did not feel that freedom, but condemnation for eating the meat - you were not to compel him to eat the meat, nor should you serve it.

This argument that many people use to "protect" themselves or others from offense is simply not the intent of the teaching.

Breastfeeding, drinking, smoking, wearing jeans to church, boys piercing their ears, listening to rock music, dancing, rollerskating, mixed swimming, etc, etc do not apply to the teaching in the verse. True there are other passages in Christ's teaching that may refer to these behaviors, but this is not it.

 

Breastfeeding is not offensive. Humans are mammals. We were designed to feed our babies milk from our bodies. It is not sexual.

 

If a person believes it is sexual or offensive or rude or shameful, that person holds a deviant opinion (no I am not using my Christianity to condemn another person by saying that. It is not a judgment call, it is an adjective. I also consider bottle feeding an infant deviant - it deviates from the norm. We are not born with bottles, but breasts. That is not a judgment call, either. If a woman chooses to use a bottle that is none of my business, but the norm is to feed a baby mammal with milk produced by the mammary glands of that animal's mother).

 

Whether a breastfeeding mother is a Christian or not has no bearing on this conversation. It is not a Christian/non topic. If we used this verse to dictate behavior such as this, than would it be ok for a non-christian to breastfeed with her shirt open?

If a mother chooses to leave the room to feed her baby, that is her business. If she doesn't, that is also her business. If she shows some skin, she shows some skin. If that show of skin causes a man to have a sexual response, that is not a bfing mom's issue. And I don't believe that her not being there breastfeeding would prevent that response. Research shows that the average man between the age of 16 and some other number has a sexual thought or feeling something like 10 times a minute. No I don't have a link - but if you want to find one more power to you. This does not mean that all women and girls everywhere must protect him from visual images. Burqa, anyone?

For the record, and to save anyone from the typing, I did not just say that men cannot help themselves. Rather, my assertion is that men do control themselves - hundreds of time per day; and that unless someone is looking to be offended or to complain or simply to reassure themselves that their world still revolves around them, this idea is simply an excuse.

 

If I have a drink with my meal at a resataurant and a couple from my church, who I know do not drink alcohol, walks in, I will not hide my gin & tonic. If I decide I want to have a cigarette, I will not feel ashamed to go to my local country store and buy a pack of cigarettes - even if I think a child will see me do it. If it is a hot day, and I am working in my garden, which is near a road, I will wear a summer top with spaghetti straps (which by the way shows WAY more than bfing), even though I live next door to a school. If I am sunbathing in my backyard and undo my bkini top while on my belly to avoid tan lines, I will not apologize. There is a chance that a neighbor or acquaintance will do a double take or wonder or whatever, but it is not a salvation issue. I have no responsiblity to "protect" people from those actions.

 

Random thought: As an alcoholic, it is an individual's responsibility to refrain from frequenting establishments that promote drinking alcohol.

 

There are cultural, regional, personal preferences and customs on many issues, but that does not justify them by itself. Politeness, manners and courtesies are good, but manmade. There is no "higher authority" that one group should put onto another group. This is closer to the jist of the quoted verse than the routinely used "do not cause ANYONE to stumble" phrase. We are not to impose our own morality onto others in non-salvation issues. And of course, Know that I am referring to issues where there is not a specific teaching from Christ, because those do exist, but this is definitely not one of them.

 

And my last thought on this is that as a Christian, I really detest it when other Christians use isolated verses from the Bible, misinterpreted or not, to "prove" to others that they are right. And for what it's worth, I also detest it when non-christian do the same things to condemn Christians.

[8circles]

Breastfeeding is actually a VERY SMALL offense issue ...

 

Hmmm. BF is not an offense issue at all IMO. If someone finds it in any way offensive or an "offense issue" then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

It doesn't matter if you used the word offended or the word stumble. The point of the verse is not what you state. First of all, the verse is a directive to Christians RE: other Christians.

If a Pre-Jesus Jew ate meat offered to idols, he knew he was under condemnation. After Jesus, that law was no longer binding, as Jesus replaced the law.

Therefore, there was no offense (or crime, if you will) in eating meat that had been offered to idols. However, if you were a Christian confident in your freedom to eat that meat, and you had a brother in Christ over for lunch, and he did not feel that freedom, but condemnation for eating the meat - you were not to compel him to eat the meat, nor should you serve it.

This argument that many people use to "protect" themselves or others from offense is simply not the intent of the teaching.

Breastfeeding, drinking, smoking, wearing jeans to church, boys piercing their ears, listening to rock music, dancing, rollerskating, mixed swimming, etc, etc do not apply to the teaching in the verse. True there are other passages in Christ's teaching that may refer to these behaviors, but this is not it.

 

Breastfeeding is not offensive. Humans are mammals. We were designed to feed our babies milk from our bodies. It is not sexual.

 

If a person believes it is sexual or offensive or rude or shameful, that person holds a deviant opinion (no I am not using my Christianity to condemn another person by saying that. It is not a judgment call, it is an adjective. I also consider bottle feeding an infant deviant - it deviates from the norm. We are not born with bottles, but breasts. That is not a judgment call, either. If a woman chooses to use a bottle that is none of my business, but the norm is to feed a baby mammal with milk produced by the mammary glands of that animal's mother).

...

There are cultural, regional, personal preferences and customs on many issues, but that does not justify them by itself. Politeness, manners and courtesies are good, but manmade. There is no "higher authority" that one group should put onto another group. This is closer to the jist of the quoted verse than the routinely used "do not cause ANYONE to stumble" phrase. We are not to impose our own morality onto others in non-salvation issues. And of course, Know that I am referring to issues where there is not a specific teaching from Christ, because those do exist, but this is definitely not one of them.

 

And my last thought on this is that as a Christian, I really detest it when other Christians use isolated verses from the Bible, misinterpreted or not, to "prove" to others that they are right. And for what it's worth, I also detest it when non-christian do the same things to condemn Christians.

 

:iagree:

[mommyrooch]

Breastfeeding is not offensive. Humans are mammals. We were designed to feed our babies milk from our bodies. It is not sexual.

 

Offense is in the eye of the beholder. What might not be offensive you to might be very offensive to another.

 

While breastfeeding may be a completely natural act as "mammals designed to feed our babies milk from our bodies" so are mammels "designed" to have sex. Sex is also a natural act of mammals that was "designed" so as to reproduce the species but sex would certainly be "perceived" as sexual. To say that breastfeeding is absolutely not offensive and should not be perceived as sexual is as innacurate as saying that sex is not offensive and should not be perceived as sexual. Both are "natural" acts as mammals so according to your reasoning they both should not be perceived offensive to others. Correct?

 

No matter how "natural" the act, I happen to believe that if I were to do the hanky panky in public I would most assuredly "offend" some people. Not only would they be offended by the act but I am NOT a young spring chicken anymore and I would probably scare some folks if I were to frolick around in my birthday suit. :tongue_smilie:

 

If a person believes it is sexual or offensive or rude or shameful, that person holds a deviant opinion (no I am not using my Christianity to condemn another person by saying that. It is not a judgment call, it is an adjective. I also consider bottle feeding an infant deviant - it deviates from the norm. We are not born with bottles, but breasts. That is not a judgment call, either. If a woman chooses to use a bottle that is none of my business, but the norm is to feed a baby mammal with milk produced by the mammary glands of that animal's mother).

 

Our devient opinions as humans are what make these things rude or shameful. Not the acts themselves. This I agree with you on. You could argue the same thing for sex however. Sex is actually a beautiful thing too. It was orignially "designed" as a sacred act between a man and wife so that the two could become one and procreate. Our reactions to sex are what make it "sexual, offensive, rude or shameful." The sex itself is also quite "normal" but I wouldn't openly do this in public because it would be "percieved" as offensive. Just as I wouldn't bare my boobie in public (even though it's natural) because it could be "perceived as offensive. I know you ladies haven't done that. I'm just giving an example.

 

And my last thought on this is that as a Christian, I really detest it when other Christians use isolated verses from the Bible, misinterpreted or not, to "prove" to others that they are right. And for what it's worth, I also detest it when non-christian do the same things to condemn Christians.

 

I refuse to use the word detest when talking to you because to me that word sounds very mean and hurtful and I have no desire to be mean or hurtful to you. :grouphug:

 

With that said, my last thought on this is that as a Christian I really "dislike" it when fellow Christians think that they have the market on what the Bible says and automatically assume that it is the other person misinterpreting it or using it to "prove" to others that they are right.

 

I never said that I was right on any of this. In fact, if you look back through my posts I quite clearing stated that I screw up every day. I even said that I screw up on this very thing. I most certainly am not always right. :tongue_smilie: I do not profess to have any answers but I DO interpret the passage I included to say that if ANY of our actions (yes, even drinking, smoking, jean wearing, etc.) might cause our fellow man to stumble in his walk with Christ then we should refrain from doing such actions while in the presence of that person. It doesn't matter if what we are doing is right or wrong. If it is "perceived" as wrong and causes our fellow man to stumble in his walk with Christ then we should refrain from doing it while in their presence.

 

I DO believe this passage to say this. For you to write in and call me out on a scripture and say that I am flat out wrong and you are right is hurtful and it doesn't send out a very good message of tolerance. Just because you "interpret" this to say something different does not make me wrong. Just because I "interpret" it to say what I believe doesn't make you wrong. We both have our convictions on this and I firmly believe that God lays on our individual hearts what we need to hear and what he wants us to take from the Bible.

 

I would never tell a fellow Christian that they were wrong in their belief. First of all, I do not hold that high of an opinion of myself. I can be wrong and I often times am. Second, even if I "believe" with every fiber of my being that I am right I will not call out another Christian because they don't "believe" what I believe. I do not know how God has worked in their life or what he has "told" them. I might tell them what I believe but I would not tell them they are wrong or that "this is not what it says" How can I know for sure what it "said" to them?

 

It is this kind of intolerance that causes Christians and non Christians to have an aversion to Christianity. We profess to be the ones walking with God but we often times are the first ones to cast the first stone. No wonder a lot of people don't want to be a Christian. If those that are "supposedly" the closest to God are attacking each other and have minimal tolerance for others then what message does that send them? Hey, come be a Christain so that you can be shamed and told that you are wrong by other Christians. This is probably not the message we should be sending. ;)

 

I don't think you're wrong or I'm right. I just think that we took different things from that passage.

 

I don't care if you "agree" with me or not. I do not need for you to agree with me in order to respect you and show tolerance. That is what I am called to do so that it what I will do. I will love you as myself. I love you as a fellow Christian and we will simply just have to agree to disagee on this. ;)

 

I also invite your opinions so feel free to share them with me anytime. :grouphug:

[mommyrooch]

I think men and boys would be more likely to support breastfeeding if they see it as natural and nurturing, rather than something that should be shameful and hidden away. I also think boys benefit more from our trust rather than having things hidden from them because we don't think they can't handle it. Almost *anything* can excite a teen boy, and having to deal with it or struggle with it is part of growing up and learning self control.

 

:iagree:

[Mrs. Frankweiler]

 

I'm looking forward to reading some responses. It just breaks my heart. It really does seem like everywhere my husband and I look lately we see selfish minded people who are so focused on themselves and their own "good" that they are unwilling to even consider how their actions effect others. Total destruction all around them and that's just too bad.

 

I hope you still feel that way while you're reading. Good luck. Apparently I let the genie out of the bottle and I really regret starting this thread. People will find a way to argue about anything. :sad:

[Saille]

While breastfeeding may be a completely natural act as "mammals designed to feed our babies milk from our bodies" so are mammels "designed" to have sex. Sex is also a natural act of mammals that was "designed" so as to reproduce the species but sex would certainly be "perceived" as sexual. To say that breastfeeding is absolutely not offensive and should not be perceived as sexual is as innacurate as saying that sex is not offensive and should not be perceived as sexual. Both are "natural" acts as mammals so according to your reasoning they both should not be perceived offensive to others. Correct?

 

Oh. You sucked me back in.

 

Sex is not an immediate biological need. You can wait until later to have sex. If ovulation was an instantaneous event that only occurred, say, three times in a lifetime, most likely we'd restructure society in such a way that the limited opportunity to procreate could be honored.

[Lovedtodeath]

Both are "natural" acts as mammals so according to your reasoning they both should not be perceived offensive to others. Correct?

 

No.

 

It almost sucked me back in earlier. But since someone else commented I just had to.

 

I just wish people would stop shaming women into using bottles.

 

Yes. Any talk along these lines shames women into feeding their babies an inferior product. It is unconscionable.

 

Breastfeeding has been very difficult for me. My doctor has been clear that my breastmilk was the best thing for my babies with severe allergies. Yes, I had to cut things out of my diet, but formula would not have worked. My brother was severely ill for a long time b/c they tried so many formulas. He had to be on a prescription type made from meat, and still had a hard time. I am so sad when others will ask me for help with their infants who have severe allergies and they have already switched to formula; it is too late. So sad.

[mommyrooch]

Oh. You sucked me back in.

 

Sex is not an immediate biological need. You can wait until later to have sex. If ovulation was an instantaneous event that only occurred, say, three times in a lifetime, most likely we'd restructure society in such a way that the limited opportunity to procreate could be honored.

 

Yep, you are absolutely right. It is not an immediate need.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall anyone saying that a mom shouldn't feed their babies WHEN they are hungry. What has been discussed is the how, not the when. I completely support a mom breastfeeding her baby immediately when their baby is hungry. I also support her doing it as modestly as possible.

 

The argument given by another poster was that since breastfeeding was "natural" it was not offensive and was not sexual. I was merely pointing out that just because it was "natural" did not mean that it wouldn't or couldn't offend people no more than sex would or could offend people. The fact that breastfeeding is an immediate need and sex isn't is a moot point. The when of the actions are irrelevant to whether or not a person could "perceive" them as offensive. The "when" of the actions was not the issue. The response to the actions was the issue.

 

Breastfeeding can be "perceived" as sexual and offensive just as sex can be "perceived" as sexual and offensive. It doesn't matter "when" you do them. I was only discussing whether or not both actions were "natural" in nature and whether or not both actions could be "perceived as sexual or offensive.

 

Just because breastfeeding is "natural" does not mean that it wouldn't be offensive to some or that some might be "sexually" affected by it. That is the point I was trying to make.

 

And for the record. I am VERY pro breastfeeding. I think that a mother has the right to feed her baby anytime in any place. I am personally not offended in the least. I breastfed both of my kids and would do it again in a heartbeat.

 

However, I am also pro breastfeeding in such a way that is modest and considerate of others.

 

Not that you haven't done this. Heck, I'm just debating this in general. All of you ladies may very well breastfeed modestly and you may be respectful of others. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just debating this in general.

[Lovedtodeath]

Like I said earlier, any time someone says "breasfeed modestly" or "discreetly" there is some confusion as to what exactly that entails.

 

I assumed that my nursing shirts with a fidgety baby were not good enough. Many new moms with a 4 month old who is starting to look around and fiddle while feeding will start using bottles because it is no longer possible to breastfeed "modestly and discreetly", when they read things said in this thread. Others will decide to not even try to begin with.

 

Whether you realize it or intend it or not, the things you are saying are shaming some women into not breastfeeding. I do not call that "pro breastfeeding".

[Mrs Mungo]

I just wish people would stop shaming women into using bottles.

 

Yes. Any talk along these lines shames women into feeding their babies an inferior product. It is unconscionable.

 

I could not possibly agree with this more. What is the greater wrong:

a) someone perhaps glimpsing something unintended but probably less than they would see on your average commercial

 

or

 

b) shaming women into not breastfeeding or making them believe it's too much trouble.

 

I say b is the greater wrong, by far and I'll leave it at that and agree to disagree at this point.

[Orthodox6]

/

Edited September 13, 2009 by Orthodox6

[JennC]

Sucked me back in too.

 

How about compare eating to . . .

 

 

 

Eating. Adult mammals eat in a different way. Shouldn't we ban them from doing it in public, too.

 

Moving on to an entirely different topic altogether::

 

As far as interpreting scripture, I do not do that. Go to the Greek. Not the Jennifer (or anyone else translation). I did not mean to imply that you misinterpret the Bible. I merely stated that "misinterpreted or not, the Bible should not be quoted one verse at a time to win an argument." (especially in a non-salvation discussion)

As far as what God has led someone to do, through the Holy Spirit - I believe this happens today. But let's not say "scripture says so" unless it actually does. And I do not believe that the Holy Spirit will guide a person against God's will. And again, don't read anything into that. It's just a statement.

I was definitely not trying to hurt your feelings - I don't use smilies in real life, so I forget to use them when typing here. But saying "I detest" IMO is not a Miss Manners banned term that I know of - & I really do detest it. I didn't say, nor do I, detest You. You were very strong in your assertion that the verse you quoted instructs Christians to NEVER offend ANYONE. I was asserting that I disagree with that.

 

SMILES EVERYONE :)

[mommyrooch]

No.

 

It almost sucked me back in earlier. But since someone else commented I just had to.

 

I just wish people would stop shaming women into using bottles.

 

Yes. Any talk along these lines shames women into feeding their babies an inferior product. It is unconscionable.

 

Breastfeeding has been very difficult for me. My doctor has been clear that my breastmilk was the best thing for my babies with severe allergies. Yes, I had to cut things out of my diet, but formula would not have worked. My brother was severely ill for a long time b/c they tried so many formulas. He had to be on a prescription type made from meat, and still had a hard time. I am so sad when others will ask me for help with their infants who have severe allergies and they have already switched to formula; it is too late. So sad.

 

Carmen, please, please, PLEASE do not think that I was doing that. I am SOOO sorry if that is how it came across.

 

I am VERY pro-breastfeeding. I breastfed both of my kids. I support ANY mom that is breastfeeding her kids. She has every right to do so and others should be understanding, supportive and tolerable of that.

 

I was only disagreeing with the comment that was made stating breastfeeding was not offensive and was not sexual. I was only pointing out that whether or not an action is offensive lies in the eyes of the beholder. What isn't offensive to one person may be offensive to another.

 

While I don't "perceive" breastfeeding this way others might. I was only stating that we as breastfeeding moms need to be conscious of others feelings and we should attempt to breastfeed as modestly as possible. I in no way meant to insinuate that breastfeeding was bad or shameful. It is a beautiful thing. I even stated that in my previous posts. It should not EVER be viewed as offensive but unfortunately sometimes it is. I was just saying that I would be conscious of that and I would make an effort so as not to offend.

 

Again, I am sooooo sorry if I gave you or anyone else that impression. I hate not being able to express myself very well over a computer. :grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

BOTTLES ARE NOT EVIL.

 

I BOTTLE-FED MY BABIES.

 

I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST WHY THIS WAS NECESSARY.

 

I am so sorry. :grouphug:

 

I have posted in other threads about not assuming things and judging mothers when we see them with a bottle. I know that there are reasons for using bottles. Feeling ashamed of breastfeeding is one of the main reasons. It is not a good one. You had a good one. You did. Really you did.:grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

Carmen, please, please, PLEASE do not think that I was doing that. I am SOOO sorry if that is how it came across.

The problem is that any talk of being modest while breastfeeding will shame mothers into not doing it. Any talk comparing it to sex, urinating or defacating will shame mothers into not doing it.

 

Yes, it will.

 

That is my point.

 

But your apology will go a good way to correcting that should a new mommy read the whole thread.:)

[mommyrooch]

The problem is that any talk of being modest while breastfeeding will shame mothers into not doing it. Any talk comparing it to sex, urinating or defacating will shame mothers into not doing it.

 

Yes, it will.

 

That is my point.

 

But your apology will go a good way to correcting that should a new mommy read the whole thread.:)

 

This is a perfect example of how things can be incorrectly perceived. You perceived my words to say that breastfeeding was shameful when I never said that. I never said that it was and I never thought that it was but it was "perceived" by others that I did.

 

It's unfortunate that body language can't come across over a computer. It would probably eliminate a lot of misunderstandings.

 

OTOH, we might all start throwing tomatoes at each other. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

OTOH, we might all start throwing tomatoes at each other. :D

:lol: I don't have any tomatoes, how about tomatillos? Will that work?

[mommyrooch]

:lol: I don't have any tomatoes, how about tomatillos? Will that work?

 

That sounds just fine to me. :D I'll zig and you can zag. ;)

[JennC]

:lol: I don't have any tomatoes, how about tomatillos? Will that work?

 

I will trade tomatoes for tomatillos :D

And I'll throw in zucchini to sweeten the deal:lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

To all mothers who have bottlefed babies:

 

I never intended for my words to make you feel shame or regret. I am sorry. We all do what we think is best don't we? I questioned many times if breastfeeding/ continuing to breastfeed DS was the right thing for my family, for him, for myself...

 

I researched immunizations. I thought I made a good decision. One day the nurse questioned me in depth about my son's allergies. I found out after almost all of the immunizations for both of my children that they were making them seriously ill. That the next one could kill my son. I felt terrible. I didn't connect his issues with the immunizations. I am so grateful to that nurse. Now, when a discussion about immunizations comes up I feel terrible. Shame, regret... but I have had to come to peace with it. I have to realize that I did the best I could.

 

You did the best you could. Don't let the breastfeeding advocates make you feel ashamed and guilty. :grouphug: The purpose of advocating breastfeeding is to help mothers and babies now, not to make people feel bad about past decisions.

[OnTheBrink]

If someone is "shamed" into not breast feeding because someone somewhere thinks bf is offensive, then that person has more problems than deciding how to feed their child. Seriously, that's just silly. Parenting is about doing what's best for your child, regardless of what others may think. I think encouraging people to be discreet ≠ shaming them. I think that's quite a stretch. I bf my son until he was 15 months old, and in public, when I had to. If someone had said that bf was gross or disgusting, I'd have called them ignorant. I was, however, always discreet about it. I wouldn't go to a bathroom (gross!) but I would sit in the back of a restaurant with my back to the crowd or sat in the car if the weather permitted. I wanted to make sure the baby was fed, feel comfortable doing it and not cause anyone else to be uncomfortable, as much as I was able.

 

I've known a lot of breastfeeders; more of them than bottle feeders, and I've never met a bottle feeder who said they were bottle feeding because someone shamed them into it. But, that's my experience, YMMV, que sera, etc. (And, personally, I couldn't care less if someone bottle feeds. For the most part, I trust parents to make their own choices for their own children. If they ask my opinion on bf, they'll get it; but not unless they ask, and even then, I'd really hope that my opinion wouldn't be the only one they'd rely on to make a decision for their own child)

 

And, I have acorn squash to add to the veggie throwing.

[JennC]

And, I have acorn squash to add to the veggie throwing.

 

And we were all being so NICE throwing soft stuff :D

[OnTheBrink]

And we were all being so NICE throwing soft stuff :D

 

I'll roast them first. :D

 

It's all I have left. Peppers aren't ready yet, tomatoes are all harvested and canned and the zucchini is going to become relish. I guess I could hurl mint leaves, but what fun is that?

[JennC]

I'll roast them first. :D

 

It's all I have left. Peppers aren't ready yet, tomatoes are all harvested and canned and the zucchini is going to become relish. I guess I could hurl mint leaves, but what fun is that?

 

do you have much growing season left? I had a light frost (just the top leaves of beans and squash) the other night.

No corn? I'm just glad you didn't say pumpkins :)

[Slartibartfast]

I have watermelons.

 

 

 

:lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

I have corn on the cob....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in my freezer! :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

I could put a watermelon in my freezer but that might require a trebuchet for launching.

 

That would certainly be an interesting project.