is the breast a sexual object?

[eclectica]

A couple of months ago I saw a lady breastfeeding her baby on the subway. I thought it was pretty courageous of her as it was unusual for a woman to publicly show her breasts without the shame that comes from it. I was also watching the men on the train and how they reacted, and I noticed that a lot of them couldn't resist staring at her, and they didn't give the lady her privacy.

Breastfeeding is good for babys and mothers for a number of reasons, and the social stigma against public exposure of breasts has negative consequences, as it causes women to be reluctant to breast feed as much. Where did this stigma come from? Perhaps it came from the Jewish Bible, which has a story line with Adam and Eve developing shame about their unclothed bodies after being thrown out of the Garden of Eden. In any case this stigma can be found amongst societies of prudes. While the people upholding such prudish values claim to be upholding family values, clearly they are not as the lack of breastfeeding has been demonstrated to run counter to the health of the family.

This is not to say that the breast is not a sexual object, but to say that the breast is not exclusively a sexual object. The breast has non-sexual family oriented functions as well.

The Super Bowl #38 last year on 2004-02-01 had an incident during the half time entertainment in which Justin Timberlake pulled off the shirt of Janet Jackson, and exposed her breast for a couple of seconds. You can download the video of that scene here (http://www.p2pjihad.org/eclectica/Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake - Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show Breast Flash (Movie).mpeg). Later on the FCC fined CBS $500,000 for the incident.

The FCC claimed to be upholding standards of decency and family values when it imposed the fine upon CBS. We all know CBS could afford it, but the group hurt by that fine was not CBS, but the average woman who was once again reminded that her breasts are exclusively sexual objects as defined by the perverted FCC. I am disappointed that a US government agency has taken an official stance that goes against family values, by their willful sexualization of the breast.

There is a saying, that the apple never falls far from the tree. I see such a thing happening with Secretary of State Colin Powell and his son, the FCC chairman Michael Powell. Colin Powell disrupted and destroyed thousands of families by presenting before the United Nations a series of lies, used as the justification in a miserable war to invade Iraq. His son too has shown himself to be one of ill repute and of lowly character by making the sexualized breast official US government policy.

[assorted]

I'm casting my vote in favor of the exclusive sexualized breast. Those milk sucking little freaks ruin titties for everyone.

As for breast feeding in public, anyone who does anything in public can be stared at without fear, I feel, of feeling guilty about anything. Because it's... in public. So yeah, you have a right to breast feed in public - and I have a right to stare and comment on your titties. It's a free for all.

[slx]

as much or less as the hand, arm, shoulder or any other part of the body

it's the jesus freaks and a few puritan assholes that made us the way we are about sexuality and what's norm and what's not

i once badger'd a friend to show me her tits knowing it freaked her out because of her moral beliefs...

she had a habit of always going barefoot and one day, casually, as i walked by, i told her how a girls feet were a sexual turn on for me....

i never saw her barefooted again

[Dollar_Girl]

The breasts have many functions, i think they are used more as sexual objects through out a womans life than they are used to aid a child in development. Neither 'duties' of the breast are compulsory, a child can still develop without breast milk from a mother and a woman can still be beautiful and sexually desirable without breasts.

I think anything and everything on the body is or has the potential to be sexual, kinda like slx said. To each our own.

A woman breastfeeding in public will always gain numerous reactions. Rarely do u see a parents room where a woman can go change her child or breastfeed her baby. Most of the times a mother has to duck into a public toilet and close the door, hiding away from the world. When you walk down the street you see mass exposure of women and men, on posters, in movie adverts, in magazines, but breast feeding is still looked down on and considered private and innapropriate.

We had an incident in Parliament House, where a member of Parliament started breast feeding her child and she was escorted out.I thought that was inappropriate. She wasn't using her breast as a sexual object.

Janet Jackson on the otherhand was using her breast as a sexual object. I wonder if the reaction of disgust amonst the public and organisations would have been the same if she was shown breastfeeding after her act or something.

I guess the way people feel about breasts depends on their life circumstances. a boy at the age of 16 can't appreciate breasts for anything more than sexual objects. a girl at the age of 16 perhaps feels the same way. breasts are there to be shown off, to be decorated with nice bras, have a bit of cleavage. A mother who has children might feel diferently. a man who has watched his wife breastfeed might feel diferently. Maybe not? Some men feel disgusted watching a woman breastfeed, probably teh same way they scrunch their face up and turn away when talking about periods etc.

I guess the diversity of maturity and opinion differs. People are sexual beings. once the kids have been breast fed, the breasts go back to being sexual objects, instead of objects of necessity.

[nicobie]

As for breast feeding in public, anyone who does anything in public can be stared at without fear, I feel, of feeling guilty about anything. Because it's... in public. So yeah, you have a right to breast feed in public - and I have a right to stare and comment on your titties. It's a free for all.


I don't know how any one can argue with the above.

If U got it, flaunt it.

[slx]

if you recall.....when a & e ate the apple, in the garden with that snake in the tree....they each only wore a single fig leaf


in other words eve didn't wear 3 leaves, only 1


....all that's according to lore and in fact, has no scientific basis

[badfish_76]

I feel that ppl that make a big deal out of breast feeding in public should not be allowed to eat in public! LOL As far as how I personally feel about MY breasts.....I chose not to breast feed just because I personally felt the breasts a little too sexualized to be comfortable letting my child feed from them. I know it is bass ackward to feel that way but in my twisted fucked up head it just seemed kinda dirty for my baby and husband to desire my breasts. But if a woman wants to do it it is best and I have no problem with them doing it in public or anywhere else.

[eclectica]

I feel that ppl that make a big deal out of breast feeding in public should not be allowed to eat in public!

Some times I look at people eating in public and I find it grotesque because it is bestial. Maybe it should be no different to eat, shit, or fuck in public as far as what is accepted in society.

What I found offensive about viewing the Janet Jackson clip was not the sight of her breast, but the brutal nature in which Justin Timberlake approached her and ripped off her shirt. According to Jackson, what occurred was an accident and only the shirt was to be ripped off, leaving the bra underneath. I would have found that offensive even if it went as planned and her breast was not exposed. Violence concerns me more than nudity.

I have to be careful when I rent a movie, that it is not too violent, because my daughter watches the movies with us. Some of them are rated R by the MPAA, but they also have actual reasons explained for the ratings. If it is rated R for nudity and language, that does not bother me as movies with violence do. My daughter curses, but I should expect just as much because she's Miss Brooklyn. Ultimately children will take after their parents, so the way to stop children from cursing would be to refrain from cursing around them. I don't reprimand her for cursing; I just try to be a better role model.

The brutual violence shown by Justin Timberlake was not out of place for the alpha males and archair warriors who love to spend their day watching sports. What happened with Janet's boobies was exactly what everyone who was watching the Super Bowl wanted to see. If I were enforcing morality at the FCC, I would sooner ban boxing matches for violence, or ban the show Extreme Makeover, a show that produces shame for those lacking beauty. I would also ban all food commercials encouraging gluttony around dinner time because Americans are too damned fat and unhealthy, and that's why medical insurance is getting so high. I find all that to be more offensive than the display of Janet's boobies. Regardless of that the FCC shouldn't be enforcing decency and morality, but should stick just to technical tasks and specifications in the communications field.

[nicobie]

[QUOTE=eclectica]Some times I look at people eating in public and I find it grotesque because it is bestial.

[/quote ]

The begining to another run-off-at the mouth post.

I don't care 'lurkie....

[Semiblind]

I feel that if a mother is going to breast feed in public that she should have some kind of blanket or something similar to cover her breast with. I believe adults can handle seeing a breast used to feed a child, but its the young kids who are learning / developing that should be 'protected' if you will. I know that if i was a parent i wouldnt want my 8 year old kid looking over at a woman who is breastfeeding and asking me what was going on...i feel that is a little too early for the 'birds and bees' talk.

[slx]

its the young kids who are learning / developing that should be 'protected' if you will. I know that if i was a parent i wouldnt want my 8 year old kid looking over at a woman who is breastfeeding and asking me what was going on...i feel that is a little too early for the 'birds and bees' talk.protecting the kids is why we still live in such a close minded world

it's never to early to start teaching the kids...

suppose breast feeding was a common place as eating a burger....what then would you be protecting the child from

[eclectica]

Here are a couple of articles that I totally agree with:
http://www.007b.com/breastfeeding_sexual.php
http://www.wearsthebaby.com/whatarebreastsfor.html

[Pandemonium]

why would you need to bring up the "birds and the bees"? why not say what it is? It's a natural way for mothers to feed their babies. it is the way it was done before formula was invented.

My oldest daughter breastfed her son for 9 months. My youngest would always freak when we were in public. I always told her, would you rather kane not eat and she would say but mom its gross..so i would say, dont look.

you are always going to have people that think it is gross and those that think breastfeeding shouldnt be done in public cause it is a breast and those that think it is natural.

if kids see it done more often it wouldnt be a big deal. my youngest sees someone breastfeeding now and she doesnt think anything of it.


I feel that if a mother is going to breast feed in public that she should have some kind of blanket or something similar to cover her breast with. I believe adults can handle seeing a breast used to feed a child, but its the young kids who are learning / developing that should be 'protected' if you will. I know that if i was a parent i wouldnt want my 8 year old kid looking over at a woman who is breastfeeding and asking me what was going on...i feel that is a little too early for the 'birds and bees' talk.

[eclectica]

My daughter is two and two thirds years old and she sleeps in the same bed as my wife and I do. She sleeps between us and we have a king sized bed; 78 by 80 inches. Originally when she was born it was not our intention to have her sleep in the bed with us. It started out where as a baby my wife would pick her up from her crib to breast feed her in the middle of the night and then leave her there in the bed with us. When she was about two months old she was almost sleeping through the entire night without interruption. But my wife is a light sleeper so she would always get up every time the baby cried. To me I thought it was leading to a bad tendency and giving her bad habits. It ended up being that we would put her to sleep in her crib, but she would wake up crying after a couple of hours and we would take her into our bed and then she would go back to sleep. She woke up not for milk but for need of company.

After some more months it got so that I was the one who didn't want her to sleep on her own, because I would miss her in the night. She sleeps at the same time that we do so that works out good because it maximizes the time we have together as well as allows us to sleep late in the morning. One bad bad side of it is that it has created a dependency on her part because she doesn't sleep well by herself, but it may have some good aspects. She is very affectionate and outgoing towards us, and with other children goes up to hug them. She is self confident and she feels loved.

The latest parenting tips may instruct parents to get their children to sleep on their own, but I think there are good points to having the children sleep in the bed too, as far as emotional development is concerned. We eventually will have to get her out of the bed, and when the next baby comes maybe she'll sleep in the other room with the baby. It won't bother me as much because I know she won't be alone but will have her younger sister there.

In other cultures it is common for the children to sleep with the parents and for regular adults to share a bed with each other. My wife's brother and his room mate shared a bed with each other when they lived in Harlem. Senegalese people, though financially poor, are the warmest and friendliest people I have ever met. Perhaps there is something better in doing things their way that is a benefit we should try to seek, instead of following the latest parenting tips. Those parenting tips have been wrong before. At one time they were saying that breast feeding was wrong. You have to follow your instincts beyond the latest fad to know what's right and wrong. I don't think parents should feel it is really that bad to have their kids in bed with them.

Besides, all it would take to totally reverse a trendy parenting tip or turn the "conventional wisdom" around would be to do a study on the origins of some type of syndrome such as autism. I'm pretty sure that if they did a study they would find that parents who had their child in the bed with them have children with a lower rate of autism and social problems. I believe that autism is one of those syndromes caused by the emotional detachment between parents and children and is a product of Western culture.

People need other people. The paradox of the Western society is that it has created a vast amount of people who are lonely and isolated. Surrounded by people is like being in the sea surrounded by water: water water everywhere but not a drop to drink.

[badfish_76]

It is funny that you bring this up because co-sleeping is a practice that we also induldge in. Alot of ppl say that it is a bad thing but my baby is just now 3 months old and she has been sleeping thru the night for around a month (as soon as ahe hit 10 pounds she started as long as she was with me). I found that putting her in her crib she would wake after an hour and I was getting NO rest and almost falling asleep while tring to care for her. Alot of "experts" say that it is dangerous but I don't think that it is any worse than not being able to stay alert and care for her. Also I am very aware that she is in the bed and I don't move at all in my sleep. I am glad to hear that in the long term it will have some benefit for her as well. I hope your little one will adjust to moving out of the bed when your new one comes.

[nicobie]

Hi bad fish......

prolly not a good idea to look to 'lurkie for advise on kids or partners.

(L o Lovies)

[badfish_76]

Hi Nic!!!! You are still a rascal after all this time! It is good to see that some things stay the same because after this baby I feel like NOTHING is the same or will ever be the same again!!

[nicobie]

hi again..

[mass-delusion]

I guess what we are discussing is the many taboos of our society that are thrust upon us versus the 'natural law' that would often dictate the reverse.

In ancient Ephesus, community toilets were part of everyday social life where the upper class people could meet and talk. The toilets were outdoors in the open, and even featured live music and entertainment. In our society today, the closest thing might be for someone to take the newspaper to read in solitary while sitting on the bowl - otherwise the toilet experience is considered to be (if not demanded) a purely utilitarian, solitary function.

But for some reason, our culture encourages eating, drinking, and smoking to be social activities, but the by-product of food consumption must be performed in isolation and privacy. To do the reverse would subject those people to scorn and ridicule. By our standards, the ancient Ephesians might be considered some kind of odd perverts.

http://www.theplumber.com/images/toilets-ephesus2.jpg

Back to the subject of public breastfeeding. If violations of this taboo were to become commonplace, the next generation or two who grow up witnessing it as an everyday occurrence will probably wonder what all the fuss was about. Whether it is considered "sexual" is hardly important. The definition of "what is sexual?" is whatever our current culture dictates that we are taught that it is to be. And anything that an individual person might consider sexual, if it falls outside of that society-defined classification, would then be considered a fetish.