Breastfeeding in public question

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, maize said:

There is a significant difference in that no-one needs to drink alcohol in order to live. Babies do need to eat--many times a day. Breastfeeding is the natural way for babies to eat, in fact for 99+ % of human history was the only way for babies to get the nutrition they need. I see no similarity between choosing, for example, not to serve wine when inviting teetotaller friends to dinner (and I am a teetotaller) and insisting that infants and their caretakers isolate themselves from normal human company every single time they eat.

I see your point, but as to the bolded, I never said that. I said that if they were knowingly making someone else uncomfortable and there was another alternative, it would be kind and considerate to use it.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

And certainly, if they are uncomfortable about what goes on under a blanket that they can't see, why would it make a difference if that same act was occurring in the next room? Wouldn't that be just as weird for them? Wouldn't they still know I was adjusting clothing and undergarments where they couldn't see me? I don't know how far this goes, really, but please clarify if I'm not reading you correctly here.

I appreciate and agree with some of what you posted--just not this portion. It often does make a significant difference if an action is occurring in the same room or in a different room. Some examples: changing clothes, engaging in physical intimacy, using the bathroom. I'm not *equating* any of these with breastfeeding; just pointing out that people use private parts of their body for all sorts of things and other people technically know this--but it is a totally different level of discomfort if it's going on in the same room as them.

Some view breastfeeding as a private thing because it involves private parts. You can disagree with that view and say that is wrong thinking, but it doesn't change the fact that it feels that way to many.

I'm willing to consider that my views on this [ETA: public breastfeeding] may be cultural. I'll think about it more. I'd be interested in what the early church did. BUT--I can't see myself changing anytime soon on two things--one, that women should cover their breasts in public, and two, that they should be considerate of others' comfort, as others should be considerate of theirs. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by MercyA

[MercyA]

40 minutes ago, Quill said:

Why are longer legs sexy for a woman? Why is more easily seeing the shape or parts of a lady’s body sexy? Because it’s a (primal, base) way of assessing whether she is good for sex. It’s like you’re not asking yourself why men just like how those features look. It’s not because long legs make her a better mother. A large number of what’s considered sexy (according to current US standards) are things that remind men of sex, but NOT of motherhood or producing babies.

Oh, I definitely think men like them because they make them think of sex. No disagreement from me on that. I'm just not seeing that it's because it makes women look vulnerable. 

[dirty ethel rackham]

12 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I see your point, but as to the bolded, I never said that. I said that if they were knowingly making someone else uncomfortable and there was another alternative, it would be kind and considerate to use it.

But, this makes banishing the nursing mother and her baby OK because someone else is uncomfortable?  If it makes someone uncomfortable, then HE can leave, he can avert his eyes, or he can just deal.  We need to stop putting up obstacles to breastfeeding.  If people can't deal then that is THEIR problem, not the nursing mother's problem. 

I haven't nursed a child in 16 years and I am terribly sad that this is still a conversation.  I long for the day when nursing in public is so commonplace that nobody notices.  

[maize]

3 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I appreciate and agree with some of what you posted--just not this portion. It often does make a significant difference if an action is occurring in the same room or in a different room. Some examples: changing clothes, engaging in physical intimacy, using the bathroom. I'm not *equating* any of these with breastfeeding; just pointing out that people use private parts of their body for all sorts of things and other people technically know this--but it is a totally different level of discomfort if it's going on in the same room as them.

Some view breastfeeding as a private thing because it involves private parts. You can disagree with that view and say that is wrong thinking, but it doesn't change the fact that it feels that way to many.

I'm willing to consider that my views on this may be cultural. I'll think about it more. I'd be interested in what the early church did. BUT--I can't see myself changing anytime soon on two things--one, that women should cover their breasts in public, and two, that they should be considerate of others' comfort, as others should be considerate of theirs.

Some of the earliest paintings of Mary with the infant Jesus depict her breastfeeding or with her breast bared for feeding. That is the best direct data we have with regards to how early Christians viewed breastfeeding.

More generally, prior to the modern marketing of commercial infant formula it was simply not practical to view breastfeeding as anything other than normal and natural. I am aware of no evidence at all suggesting that any culture prior to the past century considered a woman breastfeeding a child to be something obscene or unfit for ordinary company or public situations.

I've seen a contemporary drawing depicting a large conference of my own denomination in the 19th century with multiple women clearly breastfeeding infants in the middle of the congregation.

[MercyA]

Just now, dirty ethel rackham said:

But, this makes banishing the nursing mother and her baby OK because someone else is uncomfortable?  If it makes someone uncomfortable, then HE can leave, he can avert his eyes, or he can just deal.  We need to stop putting up obstacles to breastfeeding.  If people can't deal then that is THEIR problem, not the nursing mother's problem. 

I haven't nursed a child in 16 years and I am terribly sad that this is still a conversation.  I long for the day when nursing in public is so commonplace that nobody notices.  

I didn't say she should be banished. I said it would be kind of her to consider others' discomfort--as she likely does in other areas of life. I don't think there is anything so especially sacred about public breastfeeding that it's worth knowingly making others uncomfortable if there is an alternative. YMMV.

There are many things I don't do in front of other people because it would make them uncomfortable. Is that THEIR problem, not mine? Well, I often think so.  😉 But I still try to consider others' feelings and when possible put others first. It's not easy and I don't always succeed at it, but I think it's a good goal for me as a believer. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Oh, I definitely think men like them because they make them think of sex. No disagreement from me on that. I'm just not seeing that it's because it makes women look vulnerable. 

Ok, we disagree. What benefit is it to a man for a women to hobble around in shoes that  (may) hamper her stride, hurt her feet and make it impossible to move quickly (or at all) especially on certain surfaces (like cobblestone)? Like, what guy who cares about a woman can see her walking in a stilted manner and not say, “honey, why not wear shoes that you can wear for the duration of the activity?” 

IMO, it not only makes them think of sex but it makes them think of sex with someone vulnerable. 

[maize]

A few nursing Madonna paintings, most of these are medieval or Renaissance era but they do give an idea of how not-scandalous public breastfeeding has been through most of human history:

 

[MercyA]

3 minutes ago, maize said:

Some of the earliest paintings of Mary with the infant Jesus depict her breastfeeding or with her breast bared for feeding. That is the best direct data we have with regards to how early Christians viewed breastfeeding.

More generally, prior to the modern marketing of commercial infant formula it was simply not practical to view breastfeeding as anything other than normal and natural. I am aware of no evidence at all suggesting that any culture prior to the past century considered a woman breastfeeding a child to be something obscene or unfit for ordinary company or public situations.

I've seen a contemporary drawing depicting a large conference of my own denomination in the 19th century with multiple women clearly breastfeeding infants in the middle of the congregation.

Thanks, maize, I'll look into this. I'll be interested in how early the paintings were done, by whom, and for whom. I find many depictions of Mary problematic for other reasons--but I will research with as open of a mind as possible. 

I never said breastfeeding was obscene. I said it could be viewed as private. Those are not the same thing.

[MercyA]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

Ok, we disagree. What benefit is it to a man for a women to hobble around in shoes that  (may) hamper her stride, hurt her feet and make it impossible to move quickly (or at all) especially on certain surfaces (like cobblestone)? Like, what guy who cares about a woman can see her walking in a stilted manner and not say, “honey, why not wear shoes that you can wear for the duration of the activity?” 

IMO, it not only makes them think of sex but it makes them think of sex with someone vulnerable. 

Okay...but women are usually the ones who choose their shoes, right?

IDK. 🙂 I haven't read the article you linked earlier. I'll take a look.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, maize said:

Some of the earliest paintings of Mary with the infant Jesus depict her breastfeeding or with her breast bared for feeding. That is the best direct data we have with regards to how early Christians viewed breastfeeding.

More generally, prior to the modern marketing of commercial infant formula it was simply not practical to view breastfeeding as anything other than normal and natural. I am aware of no evidence at all suggesting that any culture prior to the past century considered a woman breastfeeding a child to be something obscene or unfit for ordinary company or public situations.

I've seen a contemporary drawing depicting a large conference of my own denomination in the 19th century with multiple women clearly breastfeeding infants in the middle of the congregation.

This is what I was thinking. Additionally, what tiny bit I know about French art history, the Académie tightly controlled all artwork because only religious themes were acceptable. So, religious depictions of Jesus, Mary, Saints, Biblical stories, etc. all had to conform to reverent depictions. It seems unlikely there would have been any Mother Mary breastfeeding art if the Académie felt the public consensus was that bfing was a private bodily function.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Okay...but women are usually the ones who choose their shoes, right?

IDK. 🙂 I haven't read the article you linked earlier. I'll take a look.

Yes, but within the cultural construct we have accepted. I personally want women to question their shoe choices and what they accept. I’ve worn many miserable shoes in my lifetime because I thought those are the shoes we’re supposed to wear with certain clothes. 

I mean, I could seriously wonder why any of us would ever buy shoes that constrain our movement and hurt our feet, except that I myself have done so many times. But I don’t anymore. 

You can read the article, but be forewarned: it’s not scholarly by any stretch. It’s just an article by someone whose opinion is almost identical to my own. 

[MercyA]

Okay, here's an interesting article about depictions of Mary breastfeeding:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-breastfeeding-jesus_n_2274119?utm_hp_ref=religion

I want to talk to my husband about this and think about it some more. Thanks, all!

Edited October 21, 2019 by MercyA

[MercyA]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yes, but within the cultural construct we have accepted. I personally want women to question their shoe choices and what they accept. I’ve worn many miserable shoes in my lifetime because I thought those are the shoes we’re supposed to wear with certain clothes. 

I mean, I could seriously wonder why any of us would ever buy shoes that constrain our movement and hurt our feet, except that I myself have done so many times. But I don’t anymore. 

You can read the article, but be forewarned: it’s not scholarly by any stretch. It’s just an article by someone whose opinion is almost identical to my own. 

Don't worry; I only wear comfortable shoes. 🙂 I don't have time to read the article right now--at least not thoughtfully!--but will do so soon. 

[maize]

Here's a 6th century depiction of Jesus breastfeeding:

Edited October 21, 2019 by maize

[Tanaqui]

You know, MercyA, ultra-Orthodox Jewish women wear a lot of shirts with three-quarter sleeves, because showing elbows is immodest. And in lots of cultures - lots and lots and LOTS - it's the knee or ankle that has to be covered. (Even if the breasts are just breasts.)

This topic of modesty is very, very cultural. You think "oh, oh, breasts!" because in our culture, women typically cover their breasts - but not their hair, faces, elbows, knees, or ankles. (Or at least, it's not shocking if they don't.) If you went and spent some time in some other culture where they cover something else, you'd adapt probably a lot quicker than you think.

[maize]

39 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Thanks, maize, I'll look into this. I'll be interested in how early the paintings were done, by whom, and for whom. I find many depictions of Mary problematic for other reasons--but I will research with as open of a mind as possible. 

I never said breastfeeding was obscene. I said it could be viewed as private. Those are not the same thing.

 

You might say the same of sex--it is a private thing. But most people would not hesitate to say that it is obscene for people to copulate in public. 

Defecation is certainly normal and not wrong, but again it is considered obscene for people to do in public.

How do you designate a normal function of human life as only to be done in private without attaching to it a sense of obscenity if done in public? I think that sense comes directly from designating something as only ok in private.

And how is it OK for feeding an infant to be considered obscene under any ordinary circumstance?

[ktgrok]

I find these photos fascinating. https://www.littlethings.com/viral-vintage-breastfeeding-photos/1

[dirty ethel rackham]

58 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I didn't say she should be banished. I said it would be kind of her to consider others' discomfort--as she likely does in other areas of life. I don't think there is anything so especially sacred about public breastfeeding that it's worth knowingly making others uncomfortable if there is an alternative. YMMV.

There are many things I don't do in front of other people because it would make them uncomfortable. Is that THEIR problem, not mine? Well, I often think so.  😉 But I still try to consider others' feelings and when possible put others first. It's not easy and I don't always succeed at it, but I think it's a good goal for me as a believer. 

This isn't a "well, I'll refrain from picking my teeth in public" sort of situation.  Baby needs to be fed ... often.  So, whose discomfort should take precedence?  The person who has a childish discomfort with the God-designed manner of feeding a child?  If so, then the mom is temporarily banished because feeding needs to be done.  

[MercyA]

Okay. I had a long discussion with my husband about this. He is both very wise and very knowledgeable about ancient history. (I am not just biased. 😉)

A couple things:

1. Looking at the early Christian artwork and asking my husband about practices throughout history, it is clear to me that exposed breasts in public areas while breastfeeding have been normative for most of human history. It's extremely unlikely Jesus had a problem with it, yes? Sorry if I've been slow on the uptake in this area. Sometimes it takes me a while to adjust my thinking if I've been incorrect about something. So, open / uncovered breastfeeding is not *inherently* immodest. I think I've been looking at modesty as more objective than culture-based and have been wrong about that.

2. I still think not covering during breastfeeding--in our CULTURE--is immodest. But I haven't really seen anyone argue for that here.

3. I still think the principles of Romans 14 hold for believers--that we are to put others first, not be a stumbling block, not knowingly cause discomfort if we can reasonably help it. And that others should do the same for us.

Edited October 21, 2019 by MercyA

[Paige]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

 

I'm willing to consider that my views on this [ETA: public breastfeeding] may be cultural. I'll think about it more. I'd be interested in what the early church did. BUT--I can't see myself changing anytime soon on two things--one, that women should cover their breasts in public, and two, that they should be considerate of others' comfort, as others should be considerate of theirs. 

 

58 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I didn't say she should be banished. I said it would be kind of her to consider others' discomfort--as she likely does in other areas of life. I don't think there is anything so especially sacred about public breastfeeding that it's worth knowingly making others uncomfortable if there is an alternative. YMMV.

There are many things I don't do in front of other people because it would make them uncomfortable. Is that THEIR problem, not mine? Well, I often think so.  😉 But I still try to consider others' feelings and when possible put others first. It's not easy and I don't always succeed at it, but I think it's a good goal for me as a believer. 

There are places where seeing women's legs (shorts), hair, arms, eyes, etc may make a man uncomfortable because of cultural or family background. In the not so distant past in our own country, legs and ankles were scandalous and bathing suits were too restrictive for women to actually exercise or to even swim safely. This has changed only because women decided they were over catering to men's, or more broadly, the culture's, hysteria over women's bodies and behavior. IMO, we have a lot to thank to the women who put up with the stares, rude comments, and worse so that we have the freedom today to breathe and make choices without even thinking about it that would have been dangerous for the trailblazers. In some places what we take for granted is still dangerous and there are still trailblazers. I don't think accepting the cultural mores uncritically is a positive. Babies need to eat. Women need to participate in life. If we say breastfeeding babies need to eat away from where life happens, we are restricting the type of lives women who want to breastfeed can live. 

Too often even now women are always, always, always considering what makes others, mostly men, uncomfortable and keeping their mouths shut. We don't speak up when belittled because it would make a scene. We smile at the creep because we are taught to be polite or nice. We endure harassment in the workplace, schools, and even churches because we don't want to make things more uncomfortable. I understand what you mean about putting others first, in general, but sometimes we also need to tell people who are in the wrong, rude, condescending, and entitled that we have rights and what they want from us is not ok. Why aren't dads teaching boys that women need the right to breastfeed and not to make women uncomfortable? 

 

[Spy Car]

I don't get "militant" about a lot of issues, but standing for a woman's right to breastfeed her baby anywhere and any time she feels the need is one of those issues where the world will witness a very large and very grumpy papa bear if they dare intrude on something I hold as precious and beautiful.

Pity the fool who pulls this sort of crap when I'm around.

Grrrrrr.

Bill 

 

 

[MercyA]

And I did ask my husband if he is uncomfortable being in the same room with a woman who is breastfeeding and covered. He is, and he explained why. He worries that if he looks in the wrong place at the wrong moment (for example, if he would see motion out of the corner of his eye and automatically look over just as the woman is briefly uncovered) that it would be perceived wrongly and even as harassment. That is unfortunate because he is one of the most genuinely righteous and respectful guys I know.

Don't quote please. My DH is a private guy and I will delete later.

[maize]

18 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Okay. I had a long discussion with my husband about this. He is both very wise and very knowledgeable about ancient history. (I am not just biased. 😉)

A couple things:

1. Looking at the early Christian artwork and asking my husband about practices throughout history, it is clear to me that exposed breasts in public areas while breastfeeding have been normative for most of human history. It's extremely unlikely Jesus had a problem with it, yes? Sorry if I've been slow on the uptake in this area. Sometimes it takes me a while to adjust my thinking if I've been incorrect about something. So, open / uncovered breastfeeding is not *inherently* immodest. I think I've been looking at modesty as more objective than culture-based and have been wrong about that.

2. I still think not covering during breastfeeding--in our CULTURE--is immodest. But I haven't really seen anyone argue for that here.

3. I still think the principles of Romans 14 hold for believers--that we are to put others first, not be a stumbling block, not knowingly cause discomfort if we can reasonably help it. And that others should do the same for us.

 

I am impressed by your careful thought and discussion and willingness to reconsider your own assumptions.

With regard to your second point: if the modesty of covering or not covering is purely cultural then that is something that can change. Our best evidence suggests that breastfeeding without a cover was not considered immodest until very recently--not more than two or three generations. It is not considered immodest in most of the world. The way to return to a culture that normalizes public breastfeeding is for women to breastfeed publicly. Every woman should of course do what she is comfortable with--if that is covering, that is just fine. But those women who are comfortable not covering may be doing more to move our culture in what seems to me to clearly be a healthier direction--that is, back towards the normalization of natural infant feeding practices.

As for your third point, the less vulnerable person generally has the greater obligation to accommodate. That is certainly not an infant, and by extension not usually an infant-mother dyad.

Edited October 21, 2019 by maize

[maize]

I will say that, while I have nursed in all kinds of places over the years, I actually much appreciate nursing mothers rooms when conveniently accessible because they most often have comfy chairs. 

Comfy chairs sure make nursing easier.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Okay...but women are usually the ones who choose their shoes, right?

Actually, workplaces requiring high heels for women is still a thing. 

[MercyA]

18 minutes ago, katilac said:

Actually, workplaces requiring high heels for women is still a thing. 

That is weird.

[Rosie_0801]

33 minutes ago, MercyA said:

And I did ask my husband

 

Your husband should not worry about that.

[DesertBlossom]

33 minutes ago, MercyA said:

And I did ask my husband....

Deleted quote for privacy.  But I asked my husband too and he gave essentially the exact same answer. However, I know that he wouldn't expect a woman to leave the room to make him more comfortable.  And if someone asked ME to leave the room while nursing he'd he upset on my behalf.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Maize that infants and mothers do not need to be the ones to accommodate others. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

3. I still think the principles of Romans 14 hold for believers--that we are to put others first, not be a stumbling block, not knowingly cause discomfort if we can reasonably help it. And that others should do the same for us.

 

Whose discomfort are you prioritizing here, though? Some women might be made uncomfortable by seeing others leave to breastfeed, because they might perceive that THEY are not going to be allowed to breastfeed publicly, or might even be shamed or scolded for doing so privately. You are doing nothing to help them be more comfortable in doing what is necessary for their children. They may feel more comfortable breastfeeding at all if they see other people doing it.

Who is more important? The adult man who worries he might be accused of harassment, or the baby whose mother worries she might be made to feel ashamed for taking care of him?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Tanaqui

[MercyA]

11 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Whose discomfort are you prioritizing here, though? Some women might be made uncomfortable by seeing others leave to breastfeed, because they might perceive that THEY are not going to be allowed to breastfeed publicly, or might even be shamed or scolded for doing so privately. You are doing nothing to help them be more comfortable in doing what is necessary for their children. They may feel more comfortable breastfeeding at all if they see other people doing it.

It's not a matter of prioritizing one person's comfort over another. As a Christian, I am simply instructed to put others first, and I have to base that on my (admittedly imperfect) knowledge of others. If I know I will likely make someone uncomfortable by breastfeeding, I will (and did) leave the room. I suppose if I knew that another woman needed me to stay to be comfortable, and I had no knowledge of making anyone else uncomfortable by staying--I should do that. I don't recall ever being in a situation where I felt that someone needed me to stay to breastfeed and someone else needed me to leave--if I did find myself in that situation, I'd just have to follow my conscience.

Speculating about possible consequences is not as important to me as doing what I believe to be right based on Scripture.

I believe that Christians (women AND men) should put others' comfort above their own. What anyone else does is not my business. 

[MercyA]

Thanks, @Rosie_0801. I always appreciate your input. 

And thanks to you, too, @DesertBlossom. That's very interesting.

Edited October 21, 2019 by MercyA

[maize]

3 minutes ago, MercyA said:

It's not a matter of prioritizing one person's comfort over another. As a Christian, I am simply instructed to put others first, and I have to base that on my (admittedly imperfect) knowledge of others. If I know I will likely make someone uncomfortable by breastfeeding, I will (and did) leave the room. I suppose if I knew that another woman needed me to stay to be comfortable, and I had no knowledge of making anyone else uncomfortable by staying--I should do that. I don't recall ever being in a situation where I felt that someone needed me to stay to breastfeed and someone else needed me to leave--if I did find myself in that situation, I'd just have to follow my conscience.

Speculating about possible consequences is not as important to me as doing what I believe to be right based on Scripture.

I believe that Christians (women AND men) should put others' comfort above their own. What anyone else does is not my business. 

Might this include putting the comfort of a baby above one's own? I would say this is usually what I am doing when I breastfeed. It is absolutely a primary reason I don't usually use a cover or blanket; my babies haven't been comfortable with their faces covered. 

[maize]

Adding up, I've got more than fifteen cumulative years of breastfeeding behind me. That would make for a lot of life missed if I were always trying to hide away from people.

[Jenny in Florida]

Oh, one other story from my own experience:

My daughter was born in mid-December. Christmas eve of that year, I sat myself and my two-week-old baby towards the back of the sanctuary, in case she got fussy and we needed to step out. A few minutes before the service was due to start, she started rooting around on my chest, and I somewhat sheepishly (being still very new to the whole breastfeeding thing) opened up the buttons under the flap of my nursing blouse and helped her latch on. I was sitting there, peacefully nursing and listening to the service and feeling a connection with Mary, who fed her baby exactly the same way. I was attending a Unitarian Universalist church, by the way, so getting caught up in the Christian story of the nativity was pretty new for me. Something about having a newborn during that time of year made the whole story feel different for me.

Anyway, there I was feeling a little overwhelmed by emotions and still a little nervous about whether anyone was going to be upset by the fact that I was nursing in church. 

My daughter fell asleep for a while, then woke up just before the end of the service and started nursing again. At the end of the service, the minister passed by me on his way out of the sanctuary. He stopped near where I was sitting, looked down at my baby and told me how happy it made him to see a baby nursing so contentedly.  I kind of stuttered out something apologetic about needing to keep her quiet, but the minister completely reassured me that there was no more appropriate place.

Those kind words were so sweet and kind, and they absolutely helped me feel more confident as a newly-nursing mom.

[maize]

Jenny your story reminds me of my grandpa when I visited for the first time with my oldest. I was sitting on the couch nursing her and he looked over and said to me "you know, a mother nursing a baby is the most beautiful thing in the world."

[MercyA]

25 minutes ago, maize said:

Might this include putting the comfort of a baby above one's own? I would say this is usually what I am doing when I breastfeed. It is absolutely a primary reason I don't usually use a cover or blanket; my babies haven't been comfortable with their faces covered. 

Sure. But I would also--if you asked!-- encourage you to maintain modesty in the culture you are in 😉and, if at all possible, avoid making adults uncomfortable as well. 

ETA: I need to stop posting. It's 1 AM and I'm making typos galore and not expressing myself well. 'Night, all!

Edited October 21, 2019 by MercyA

[rebcoola]

15 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Sure. But I would also--if you asked!-- encourage you to maintain modesty in the culture you are in 😉and, if at all possible, avoid making adults uncomfortable as well. 

ETA: I need to stop posting. It's 1 AM and I'm making typos galore and not expressing myself well. 'Night, all!

I’m just confused on how you know you’re making people uncomfortable?  Do you just assume men or modest Christian men will be uncomfortable?  I am Christian and while I am sure some have been uncomfortable because so much of our culture is no one has ever expressed this.  Many have assumed when I move to find a comfy seat or something that I want privacy.   I would have missed so much with my church community over the last 9 months if I left the room while nursing covered anytime their was unrelated male who might be uncomfortable.   I mean to the point I would be almost cut off from the church.

[DesertBlossom]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

3. I still think the principles of Romans 14 hold for believers--that we are to put others first, not be a stumbling block, not knowingly cause discomfort if we can reasonably help it. And that others should do the same for us.

I have tried to respond to this several times and can't find quite the right words, but I am going to try. Something about saying that the presence of a nursing mother could be a stumbling block for a man really bothers me. It is my personal belief that God holds mothers and children in the highest regard. I think it by divine design that woman nurture and care for babies the way we do. And if there were something inherently.... stumbling block-ish about nursing, God would have designed women's bodies differently. 

[Tanaqui]

But lots of things could potentially make people uncomfortable, MercyA. There are certainly people out there who are made uncomfortable by seeing people wearing crosses, or saying grace, but you don't stop doing those things in public for their sake, do you? Some people are very uncomfortable when they see same-sex or interracial couples, as though two people simply holding hands is exactly the same as stripping down then and there and putting on a public show, but we don't say "Okay, so you're uncomfortable, therefore they have to all go back in the closet". There are undoubtedly people out there who are uncomfortable seeing people with visible disabilities, or pregnant people, but again, we don't make all those folks stay home so that other people can be more comfortable.

As for stumbling blocks - I mean, some people are really into all sorts of odd things. If some dude came up to you and said that he got really turned on by the sight of earlobes and would you please help him out by hiding your ears, would you even give him the time of day? Go down that path and pretty soon you'll never leave your house, but wouldn't you know, there's somebody out there who's turned on by the thought of that. Walks by the window, mmm, all those ladies inside. You can't win.

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, MercyA said:

Okay. I had a long discussion with my husband about this. He is both very wise and very knowledgeable about ancient history. (I am not just biased. 😉)

A couple things:

1. Looking at the early Christian artwork and asking my husband about practices throughout history, it is clear to me that exposed breasts in public areas while breastfeeding have been normative for most of human history. It's extremely unlikely Jesus had a problem with it, yes? Sorry if I've been slow on the uptake in this area. Sometimes it takes me a while to adjust my thinking if I've been incorrect about something. So, open / uncovered breastfeeding is not *inherently* immodest. I think I've been looking at modesty as more objective than culture-based and have been wrong about that.

2. I still think not covering during breastfeeding--in our CULTURE--is immodest. But I haven't really seen anyone argue for that here.

3. I still think the principles of Romans 14 hold for believers--that we are to put others first, not be a stumbling block, not knowingly cause discomfort if we can reasonably help it. And that others should do the same for us.

First, it's awesome you are so open minded to consider your preconceived notions about this. Really. And yes it is cultural. CS Lewis has a section on this in Mere Christianity. Modesty is about not drawing attention to oneself, not about what is or isn't covered. 

Besides, Romans 14 is about not tempting someone to sin, not about making them comfortable. Jesus didn't preach that Christianity would be comfortable. We have no right to comfort, that's not something Christianity talks about, that i can find. As for not causing a stumbling block, sure, but I do not think anyone in seriousness is saying that a woman feeding her baby is causing lust. If she is, that's as weird as a guy finding ankles sexy, and not enough of a reason for women to stop showing ankles or breastfeeding. Now, as for not causing discomfort, remember, Jesus eating with the tax collectors made people very uncomfortable when they saw it - and yet he did it anyway. As others said, interracial marriage or relationships make others uncomfortable, but it was for the good of society that they continued to be in public, so that beliefs could change. Women in pants made people uncomfortable, women working made people uncomfortable, women doctors made people uncomfortable - the way things change is by normalizing them. 

 

[Momto6inIN]

12 hours ago, MercyA said:

 

Interesting thoughts to consider here.

Going back to my alcohol example. My church (the Wesleyan church) recently changed their official position on the use of alcohol and because of that I was finally able to join my local church this month. 🙂(No one was preventing me from joining before, but I couldn't in good conscience do so.) I am personally of the opinion that it was harmful and wrong for my denomination to insist that members not drink alcohol. I won't go into all the reasons I believe that to be so; suffice to say that Jesus Himself would not have been allowed to join. 😉

There are still people in my church who are very whole-heartedly against the use of alcohol. I think they're wrong. But based on my understanding of Scripture, my response should not be to knowingly force them to be uncomfortable by drinking in their presence and hoping it will change their mind. In fact, I'm not even to judge them for what I believe to be wrong convictions. Now, if it came up in Bible study or conversation, I would freely share my thoughts with them and hope that they might eventually be led to a different understanding.

Please keep in mind that I am talking about genuinely held convictions about modesty and breastfeeding. I'm not talking about jerky guys who hang bikini calendars on their walls (do people still do that? 😉) but think breastfeeding is gross. I think it would be okay to tell those guys, "Hey, you don't seem to have a problem with breasts in general, so why are you giving me a problem about this?" 

I do make an effort to nurse around people that I kniw for a fact will be uncomfortable. The problem is that when I'm in public and the baby is hungry NOW that I just don't have time (or inclination, really) to assess whether I think every single person in my immediate vicinity might be uncomfortable. And even if I did, how would I go about doing that? That involves making a whole lot of assumptions. And honestly I think the verses in the Bible about forbearing one another apply here - I can forbear their possible wrong thinking and they can forbear what they see as my immodesty - and it's a mutual forbearance.

10 hours ago, Quill said:

Why are longer legs sexy for a woman? Why is more easily seeing the shape or parts of a lady’s body sexy? Because it’s a (primal, base) way of assessing whether she is good for sex. It’s like you’re not asking yourself why men just like how those features look. It’s not because long legs make her a better mother. A large number of what’s considered sexy (according to current US standards) are things that remind men of sex, but NOT of motherhood or producing babies.

We’ll possibly have to agree to disagree on whether or not men subconsciously like women to be vulnerable because IMO, I see that construct all around. Why would a man who cares about a woman want her to teeter around on crippling shoes? 

For that matter, a lot of women like tall men but men wearing high heels has not been a typical fashion here for hundreds of years. And AFAIK, even men in heels never wore tiny pin-point heels as a typical fashion. There’s no (current) fashion for men to wear heels even though very many women like a man who is taller. Nobody is manufacturing high heels for men just because women find tallness attractive. Or consider other parts of men’s bodies that women like. A lot of women find broad, strong shoulders attractive on men. But a well-dressed man is not displaying his strong shoulders; in fact, a well-dressed man is typically displaying his economic status. So general consensus: women look attractive when they look good for having sex with (NOT for having babies with) and men look attractive when they look like a safe bet for economic stability. 

I think this is true. But not sure I agree that most men associate "good for sex" with "vulnerability". I still think the opinions of other women drive most of women's fashion choices. When I pick out a new outfit, I rarely think about what DH will think of it, never think about what any other men will think of it, but often think about what mmy friends will think of it.

[maize]

7 hours ago, MercyA said:

Sure. But I would also--if you asked!-- encourage you to maintain modesty in the culture you are in 😉and, if at all possible, avoid making adults uncomfortable as well. 

 

6 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

I have tried to respond to this several times and can't find quite the right words, but I am going to try. Something about saying that the presence of a nursing mother could be a stumbling block for a man really bothers me. It is my personal belief that God holds mothers and children in the highest regard. I think it by divine design that woman nurture and care for babies the way we do. And if there were something inherently.... stumbling block-ish about nursing, God would have designed women's bodies differently. 

 

I think DesertBlossom has this right; if adults are uncomfortable in the presence of a mother feeding a child, one of the most basic, important, and fundamentally good manifestations of nurturing and loving and giving and caring, there is a problem and it is not on the part of the infant or mother. 

And I maintain my conviction that catering to a twisted sort of thinking that would ascribe any degree of impropriety to such a good and godly act would be the worse stumbling block. 

Am I going to be intentionally exhibitionist in nursing my child? Pull off my shirt entirely or something with no need? Of course not! I have never seen a nursing mother do something like that. Treating breastfeeding as some sort of exhibitionism is wrong, and yet that is exactly the twisted perception I would be reinforcing if I acted as though me and my baby needed to hide under a blanket or exile ourselves from company to perform such an act.

Refraining from an innocuous act in order to not offend (say, not eating or drinking something another person considers forbidden in their presence) is not the same as hiding away to perform good acts because your good act might offend someone who does not understand that it is good. Those men who feel uncomfortable--first, any decent man can understand that his discomfort in the presence of something good is his problem to deal with; second, as more women breastfeed openly, the good act of breastfeeding will eventually be normalized again and men will stop feeling uncomfortable around it.

Edited October 21, 2019 by maize

[maize]

Mercy, you might consider what your husband said about why he would feel uncomfortable in a room with a nursing mother. He did not think he would find some kind of lustful temptation. It seems to me that he is basically worried that if he observed a woman nursing he might catch a glimpse of her breast at some point and that could be socially misconstrued as him doing something wrong. It's a very convoluted sort of thinking and I believe it stems entirely from our contemporary unfamiliarity and lack of comfort around breastfeeding--which arose largely because we went through a period when formula feeding was heavily advertised as the best way to feed babies and a couple of generations of women and men grew up not observing normal and natural breastfeeding very often. It's an artifact of our society's vulnerability to the manipulations of corporate greed.

 

[Aura]

Coming from a very conservative background with a natural desire to smooth conflicts, I understand the desire to make others comfortable. Besides Romans 14, there's also Romans 12:18: ...as much as possible...live peaceably with all men. 

It took a long time for me to realize that smoothing over possible conflicts, avoiding confrontation, and allowing others (usually the stronger or louder people) to be comfortable is NOT trully living peacefully or being compassionate in any way. If we are to use Jesus as our example, he did not shy away from confrontation. He was nice to people (mostly) but more importantly, he set an example even if it made people uncomfortable. True compassion means standing up for the weak, the oppressed, the marginalized. And in America, breastfeeding mothers are still marginalized.

Jesus called the disciples out when they wanted to keep the kids away from him. Maybe having the kids around was culturally unacceptable. Maybe it made the disciples uncomfortable to let little kids around while they're talking grown-up religious stuff. I bet it was certainly a distraction. But Jesus did the compassionate thing: he made them face their assumptions and reminded them what was really important.

Another parallel is the Martha & Mary scenario. Remember that Martha was doing the culturally appropriate and respectable thing, but she's the one who got called out. Not Mary. Martha is the one who had her priorities mixed up.

Breastfeeding mothers who refuse to be relegated to another space are more like Jesus than those who meekly go hide in privacy because of what others think or feel.  

Can you imagine what Jesus might say if he were sitting in a small room Bible study and a woman gets up to leave so she can breastfeed simply because she might make the men uncomfortable? He would know why she was leaving. And if he knew that she was leaving because some of the men were uncomfortable with her nursing in the same room, I think he'd have a few choice words to those men...maybe something along the lines of reminding those men where their priorities and focus should really be. And I think he'd encourage the mother to stay.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Aura

[hjffkj]

My dh was 25 when we started dating and he had never been around anyone who breastfed. So, the first time he ever saw a woman breastfeeding, my sister who was lying in a nest on the floor, he didn't even know that is what she was doing. He just figured she was cuddling my niece to sleep. He was calm and relaxed while meeting my sister for the first time, until she joked that they'll always remember they met while she was lying on the floor nursing her dd. His level of comfort immediately shifted. He thought he had done something wrong by not giving her privacy. He actually felt really bad about it.  The next day at a party my other sister was nursing her ds in a room filled with friends and family, all who were completely comfortable with it. Dh walked passed that room and headed to another one purposely because he was uncomfortable. It was a long time before he realized that this natural thing was not something to be uncomfortable with and the only way he got there was with exposure from my family and then how I handled breastfeeding D's about a year after his first exposure of breastfeeding.

His family was the same as him. They'd offer me a quiet room when I needed to nurse and with my first a took that room because that was their comfort level. Even though I think they were wrong to feel that way I didn't want to mess up my relationship with my in-laws. They were the only people I allowed my discomfort for being shunned into a separate room to come second to their discomfort. I didn't allow anyone else's discomfort trump my discomfort about the idea that it was ok to act like breastfeeding was unnatural.

Now dh's family is very comfortable with breastfeeding because they've watch me do it with 5 kids and dh's 2 sisters with their kids. The ones that are still a bit uncomfortable now recognize it as their issue and will excuse themselves or just position themselves in the room where they are more comfortable.

There is nothing immodest about breastfeeding in public uncovered and people who feel uncomfortable with breastfeeding will only have a chance to become comfortable with it through exposure to it. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Momto6inIN said:

I do make an effort to nurse around people that I kniw for a fact will be uncomfortable. The problem is that when I'm in public and the baby is hungry NOW that I just don't have time (or inclination, really) to assess whether I think every single person in my immediate vicinity might be uncomfortable. And even if I did, how would I go about doing that? That involves making a whole lot of assumptions. And honestly I think the verses in the Bible about forbearing one another apply here - I can forbear their possible wrong thinking and they can forbear what they see as my immodesty - and it's a mutual forbearance.

I think this is true. But not sure I agree that most men associate "good for sex" with "vulnerability". I still think the opinions of other women drive most of women's fashion choices. When I pick out a new outfit, I rarely think about what DH will think of it, never think about what any other men will think of it, but often think about what mmy friends will think of it.

I don’t think you’re wrong about women caring about how other women appraise their appearance, but I think it is a holdover from women having really no options in life but to get married to someone who could keep her from starving. So, women compete with other women to look like the best choice for a male to choose. Of course the optimal thing for a woman was to secure a marriage, but if she couldn’t do that, her other option was to be used for sex work. So it was imperative to emphasize or improve on the features that made a woman look like a good sex choice and that got mixed in with fashion, even as women have moved away from a need to get a guy to ensure life. 

I believe our cultural opinions on what clothes and shoes are beautiful still largely harken to this competition. Women needed men to desire them sexually, either so they could marry or so they could be “kept” for sex work, so many standards of female attractiveness were shaped around this and we still see (many!) vestiges of it.

 

[Scarlett]

11 hours ago, Quill said:

Yes, but within the cultural construct we have accepted. I personally want women to question their shoe choices and what they accept. I’ve worn many miserable shoes in my lifetime because I thought those are the shoes we’re supposed to wear with certain clothes. 

I mean, I could seriously wonder why any of us would ever buy shoes that constrain our movement and hurt our feet, except that I myself have done so many times. But I don’t anymore. 

You can read the article, but be forewarned: it’s not scholarly by any stretch. It’s just an article by someone whose opinion is almost identical to my own. 

I am not sure I agree that men like those shoes because it makes the women vulnerable.  I asked my husband and he said he thinks it is more about how  high heels make a women look especially while walking. He said some women---not all. Some women cannot walk in high heels to save their soul.  And like you I am just over high heels for the most part.  I have one or two pair that are comfortable for several hours....but I am not doing all day events in uncomfortable shoes.  Nope.  Just over it.  

My niece and my DIL both can not wear high heels due to injuries.  My poor niece is only about 5'1" so she does miss high heels....she can wear a 1 1/2 inch wedge and that is about it....and not for long.  My DIL is 5'8" and she never did wear heels that I can remember.  

[Paige]

I don't think a preference for vulnerability would be a good evolutionary preference. Men prefer signs of fertility and health, but the evolutionary best choice would include strength. They should prefer a woman who looks like she's able to protect the children or at least live long enough to nurse them and not be eaten by the bear. 

I believe heels accentuate the legs and the muscles of the legs and the accent on the musculature and length is what many people find more attractive. 

[unsinkable]

12 hours ago, MercyA said:

I see your point, but as to the bolded, I never said that. I said that if they were knowingly making someone else uncomfortable and there was another alternative, it would be kind and considerate to use it.

I'm missing why you're getting so much pushback on this point when there are posts here which (generally) say something similar. There are posts which seem to indicate that in a small family setting, if the BF ing couple wwould make people uncomfortable, they wouldn't do it, they'd remove themselves to another room.

as an aside...I had loud nursers...the smacking, the sighing, the gurgling, the gulping, the humming, the babbling... We could be completely "covered" but there was no doubt someone was sucking on something...LOL