Author Topic: Fisheaters Crashed - Public Breastfeeding - Unhealthy Trads (Read 35261 times)

wallflower · « **Reply #165 on:** October 06, 2010, 08:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: wallflower

It has nothing to do with "this day and age". Humans have always been highly sɛҳuąƖ beings and breastfeeding and pregnancy have always highlighted the unique beauty of the woman. I have no doubt that men throughout the ages have found it to be a nearly irresistible mystery.

That is true, but it is more, how shall I put this, predominant and uncontrolled these days. People are doing things today that would have landed you in a psychiatric hospital in saner days.

Ok, so what about the "normal" men who are Catholic or who uphold a sense of morality, are very grounded in their Faith(s), happy in their marriages, concupiscence quelled (so to speak) who also state that breastfeeding and/or pregnancy can have a sensual effect on them, even if they don't will it? I'm sorry but this is not something that can be swept under the rug as a crazy person's syndrome. Being moved by a woman's exceptional glow and beauty while bf or pregnant is not by definition, a fetish. It could become one, but in and of itself, it is not.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #166 on:** October 06, 2010, 11:19:08 PM »

This is much more interesting to me than talking about FE. :smile:

Am I right or wrong that the comments here are shaping up to prove that there is a difference between how a married man would react vs. a single man?

There are some public places that I've never felt inclined to leave in order to nurse a baby ... an OB or perhaps Ped office waiting area, for example.

I've also never felt inclined to move to another room when those present (say, a gathering in someone's home) are all married couples -- generally all with small children as well.

Would this still hold as OK behavior?

EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read the post above me and apparantly the "happy in their marriages" part slipped past me the first time :sad:

clare · « **Reply #167 on:** October 07, 2010, 03:25:40 AM »

How would the sight of a discreetly breastfeeding woman affect a man who comes from a large family, and grew up witnessing his mother breastfeeding his younger siblings?

I would guess he'd be able to take it in his stride.

clare · « **Reply #168 on:** October 07, 2010, 03:26:50 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: clare
I would guess that a man who cannot be aware of a woman discreetly breastfeeding without having impure thoughts, would probably also have issues with the sight of a pregnant woman or a woman with children.

Wow I actually agree with you for once!

:dancing: Thank you.

Belloc · « **Reply #169 on:** October 07, 2010, 06:59:37 AM »

Quote from: MrsZ

Just read the Song of Songs (or Canticle of Canticles) in the Old Testament. Every virtue of the young bride is described, including her breasts.

Have a feeling the breasts there described are actually not literal, but meaning something else....but, that said, I dont read that book...far be it from me to say waht is and is not scripture, I have 0 authority on that, but the book is not literal often and rather scandalous....inappropriate in salvation history....

Cristian · « **Reply #170 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:09:26 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: MrsZ
Just read the Song of Songs (or Canticle of Canticles) in the Old Testament. Every virtue of the young bride is described, including her breasts.

Have a feeling the breasts there described are actually not literal, but meaning something else....but, that said, I dont read that book...far be it from me to say waht is and is not scripture, I have 0 authority on that, but the book is not literal often and rather scandalous....inappropriate in salvation history....

I just finished to read the Songs (at least it was the second time) a couple of days ago... one question... what is scandalous and inappopriate in salvation history"?

MrsZ · « **Reply #171 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:30:46 AM »

Frankly, I'm not a fan of the Canticle of Canticles myself. But I remembered the reference and while I agree that it's highly symbolic, I think there is some significance to it's existence in the Holy Bible.

wallflower · « **Reply #172 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:51:23 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

This is much more interesting to me than talking about FE. :smile:

Am I right or wrong that the comments here are shaping up to prove that there is a difference between how a married man would react vs. a single man?

There are some public places that I've never felt inclined to leave in order to nurse a baby ... an OB or perhaps Ped office waiting area, for example.

I've also never felt inclined to move to another room when those present (say, a gathering in someone's home) are all married couples -- generally all with small children as well.

Would this still hold as OK behavior?

EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read the post above me and apparently the "happy in their marriages" part slipped past me the first time :sad:

I think married men are expected to be less sensitive but that's why I asked if these women have husbands to testify. Mine reacted in such a way that I don't believe married men are "exempt" from noticing the sensual side. It didn't affect him all the time, but at times it did. And I actually felt sexiest when pregnant and bf too so I understood where he was coming from. There is a vibrancy that many women feel at that time that can be very attractive.

wallflower · « **Reply #173 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:56:35 AM »

Quote from: clare

How would the sight of a discreetly breastfeeding woman affect a man who comes from a large family, and grew up witnessing his mother breastfeeding his younger siblings?

I would guess he'd be able to take it in his stride.

It may not affect every man, but it does affect enough of them, or it may affect someone at one time and not another. I personally would rather not do a survey before every nursing to investigate who would be bothered by it, not that they would admit it anyway, that would be rather embarrassing to admit in public.

Alexandria · « **Reply #174 on:** October 07, 2010, 01:41:33 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: wallflower

It has nothing to do with "this day and age". Humans have always been highly sɛҳuąƖ beings and breastfeeding and pregnancy have always highlighted the unique beauty of the woman. I have no doubt that men throughout the ages have found it to be a nearly irresistible mystery.

That is true, but it is more, how shall I put this, predominant and uncontrolled these days. People are doing things today that would have landed you in a psychiatric hospital in saner days.

Ok, so what about the "normal" men who are Catholic or who uphold a sense of morality, are very grounded in their Faith(s), happy in their marriages, concupiscence quelled (so to speak) who also state that breastfeeding and/or pregnancy can have a sensual effect on them, even if they don't will it? I'm sorry but this is not something that can be swept under the rug as a crazy person's syndrome. Being moved by a woman's exceptional glow and beauty while bf or pregnant is not by definition, a fetish. It could become one, but in and of itself, it is not.

You have the unique ability of putting words in someone's mouth.

I wasn't sweeping anything under the rug as a "crazy person's syndrome". If you go back and read all of my posts on this subject, you would see that.

A man is a man. Period. Do you think being traditional removes the effects of original sin in a man? Turns him into an angel? St. Alphonsus de Liguori was beset with impure thoughts and temptations when he was in his eighties!

Don't breastfeed except in private. Plus, I have seen no evidence that it is healthier either. The children in traditional chapels seem to be more sickly than "regular" children. Whether this is because of the health food obsession that makes the rounds in trad chapels, the absence of vaccinations, or breastfeeding - maybe a combination of all three - but they do seem to be not as healthy.

I will now await the assaults. Good thing I brought my buckler and shield with today. :boxer:

MaterDominici · « **Reply #175 on:** October 07, 2010, 01:48:53 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

I think married men are expected to be less sensitive but that's why I asked if these women have husbands to testify.

I do and I did!
He can tell you himself if he so desires, but in summary it was only possibly bothersome to him (as a single man) in a roundabout manner -- baby+mom = married woman = I wish I were married ...

This, of course, seemed mostly a symptom of living in the "I wish I were married" mindset 24/7.

Quote from: wallflower

Mine reacted in such a way that I don't believe married men are "exempt" from noticing the sensual side. It didn't affect him all the time, but at times it did. And I actually felt sexiest when pregnant and bf too so I understood where he was coming from. There is a vibrancy that many women feel at that time that can be very attractive.

I can also see that a married man would react differently to seeing his wife bf vs. a stranger... especially if his wife feels most feminine when doing so (I'm quite the opposite).

MaterDominici · « **Reply #176 on:** October 07, 2010, 01:55:36 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Plus, I have seen no evidence that it is healthier either. The children in traditional chapels seem to be more sickly than "regular" children. Whether this is because of the health food obsession that makes the rounds in trad chapels, the absence of vaccinations, or breastfeeding - maybe a combination of all three - but they do seem to be not as healthy.

That's interesting that you see them as actually being more sickly ... I wonder why ... I've not personally noticed any patterns good or bad, but I'm also never around many children (except my own) other than at church.

PS. If I had to rate my reasons for breastfeeding, #1 would probably be the affordability of it. : )

Matthew · « **Reply #177 on:** October 07, 2010, 02:22:19 PM »

Lack of vaccinations = children more sickly?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. As if vaccinations contain some kind of vitamins or make you more healthy?

Alexandria, the ONLY way a non-vaccinated child would be more sickly, would be if the child ACTUALLY CONTRACTED one of the diseases they vaccinate against. And even then, unless the disease involved permanent damage to one's health (usually they do not), there would be no difference between the children you see and the vaccinated ones.

And how does health food make children more unhealthy? I don't get that one. Maybe it's debated what constitutes healthy food -- if they were feeding their children a vegetarian (or vegan) diet, that would certainly have an affect on their health. But that's not true health food! If they eat a variety of foods that God made, that's healthy.

Matthew

Belloc · « **Reply #178 on:** October 07, 2010, 02:23:57 PM »

I had few and am heading toward the big 4-0 this May.....gee, how deprived I now feel, lacking massive mercury and what not....

Matthew · « **Reply #179 on:** October 07, 2010, 02:27:33 PM »

Processed food is not healthy. Period. It might not kill you right away, but it certainly causes problems. Those who can afford alternatives should do so as often as possible.

Eating healthy isn't a "Yes" or "No" proposition -- there are an infinite degrees in eating healthy.

We buy processed chicken sandwiches (or hamburgers) for $1 at a drive-thru on the way home from Mass every Sunday. We live too far away to make it home, and it's hard to bring "real food" with us without a microwave around. Sure, we could bring frozen food and use the church's microwave, but how would that be any different (health/cost) than buying fast food?

Anyhow, we try to eat healthy as much as possible, while forgiving ourselves a few exceptions. It's not like if you can't "100% healthy" you should just "give up" and take up smoking, alcoholism, give up exercise, and eat 100% processed food, and eat lots of foods with MSG and Aspartame. I think that would be borderline suicidal. Can a Catholic "give up" in good conscience and not take care of his health AT ALL? I don't think so, not without sin.

Matthew