Breasts in the News

[Palerider]

There is nothing sexy about breastfeeding. Any man who thinks there is something sexually arousing about it has a problem. And women shouldn’t have to cover up when breastfeeding because some men have a problem.

Wouldn't disagree with this at all.

As I mentioned before, for me it's more of an intimacy/privacy issue.

This is not about you! You are not a nursing mother.

Calm down. I'm more on your side than you may think.

Interestingly and just out of curiosity, I checked on what constitutes public indecency in Utah. Utah has some very strict laws concerning indecency. But according to this lawyer's site:

"Some examples of behavior that can be charged as lewd conduct include masturbation or having sexual intercourse in public; exposing the genitals, buttocks, anus or pelvic areas; or, for a woman, exposing the breast below the top of the areola.

Generally the statute attempts to focus on behavior motivated by lewdness. However, even seemingly innocuous behavior, such as changing your clothes in a place where you may be visible to others (such as in your car) may be considered a violation of this statute.

One area where Utah laws are progressive on this issue is breastfeeding. Breastfeeding in any location where a woman can rightfully be, whether or not the breast is covered incidental to feeding, does not constitute public indecency."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.davidpau ... -utah/amp/

So I'm thinking that if Utah society (which is reflected in their laws) doesn't have a problem with this issue, why should the church?

But on the other hand the same could be said of the consumption of alcohol...and we know how far that would fly in being changed in the church.

The bottom line is, it's their organization and just as I would support THE RIGHT of a nudist colony to do their thing within the law, even though I wouldn't agree with it, I also support the church's RIGHT to set it's own criteria for membership, even though I don't agree with much of their doctrine and policies. It's called the Constitution and the rule of law.

If the religion offends one, then leave it. You're free to do so. If society's more's seem backward, then do ones best to change them within the law.

Because in the end, as a member of the public, it IS about me (us) and our opinions. And their are millions of people out there of both sexes who feel similarly to me.

But give us the benefit of the doubt.

We're actually willing to look at things objectively and even change our minds, but not to be shouted down and told our opinion doesn't count, because it does count and it counts in a big way.

If you want to change things give me a reasoned, logical argument without hystrionics and I'm more than willing to give you a fair hearing.

ETA: Don't know why this is in bold. I didn't intend for it to be but I'm too technologically challenged to change it....

ETA.2 Edited for punctuation.

[IT_Veteran]

I absolutely agree that the church has the right to demand that women cover up if they want to, pursuant to Utah law. However, I also withhold the right to point at it, call attention to it, and recognize the stupidity of the demand.

[Palerider]

I absolutely agree that the church has the right to demand that women cover up if they want to, pursuant to Utah law. However, I also withhold the right to point at it, call attention to it, and recognize the stupidity of the demand.

Exactly.

That's what American society and Democracy are built on. Too many people feel that "argument" is a dirty word or something that should be shunned at all costs. But "argument" in its proper context is a search for truth and can be done in a way that benefits everyone involved.

Debate is a great thing as long as truth is the ultimate goal. It only gets ugly when emotional appeals, political agendas and selfish personal agendas desire to twist the truth for their own gains.

If you want to call out stupidity when you see it. Give me a truthful, reasoned, informed, logical argument why you think it's stupid and I'll back you all the way.

[Just This Guy]

IN almost every state in the US, there are laws protecting a woman's ability to breastfeed in public. In Maryland for example, a restaurant cannot kick a woman out for feeding inside. You cannot tell a mother she has to feed in a restroom. You also cannot request that they cover up. Even if it is private property, if it is open to the public, the laws apply.

I know Utah has some laws protecting breastfeeding, but I'm not sure their extent. Since the church has "Public Welcome" on all their meetinghouse sign, did that bishop/SP just get the church into trouble by telling a mother she could not feed where she legally could in a publicly open place?

On a side note, It seams to me that almost any meeting house I go to has really crappy sound in the mother's lounge. When we has our fisrt child 10 years ago, I complained to facilities maintenance that the speaker in the Mother's lounge of our local building did not work properly. They didn't do anything to fix it then up until we stopped going 4 years later. I know of some people who still complain about it now.

The other problem we ran into is that the bishopric considered the Mother's lounge their overflow office. So they would barge in an insist that the women leave if they wanted to use the room, no matter what the women were into.

[IT_Veteran]

If you want to call out stupidity when you see it. Give me a truthful, reasoned, informed, logical argument why you think it's stupid and I'll back you all the way.

Point 1: Women breastfeed children and many cannot or will not accept a bottle.

Point 2: Many infants will not nurse under a cover as it’s hot and has little airflow.

Point 3: The LDS church recommends breastfeeding as best for babies. They have declared it a natural and normal part of raising a child and important for bonding mothers and babies.

Point 4: Women are not responsible for the thoughts or morality of anyone around them.

Point 5: Breastfeeding women should not be excluded from their social group or the things they perceive as necessary for their personal salvation, such as the taking sacrament or the listening to the messages in the meeting.

Point 6: Breastfeeding is a protected activity in public places in Utah. The church may be private property, but as a member the woman in question should have the same protections as anyone that were visiting.

Point 7: The stake president could not point to any element of doctrine and apply it to the situation, so had to resort to sustaining her leaders. FTSOY is a guide used for the youth. It doesn’t cover breastfeeding because, well, the only way to get to breastfeeding is prohibited elsewhere in the pamphlet.

[Palerider]

If you want to call out stupidity when you see it. Give me a truthful, reasoned, informed, logical argument why you think it's stupid and I'll back you all the way.

Point 1: Women breastfeed children and many cannot or will not accept a bottle.

Point 2: Many infants will not nurse under a cover as it’s hot and has little airflow.

Point 3: The LDS church recommends breastfeeding as best for babies. They have declared it a natural and normal part of raising a child and important for bonding mothers and babies.

Point 4: Women are not responsible for the thoughts or morality of anyone around them.

Point 5: Breastfeeding women should not be excluded from their social group or the things they perceive as necessary for their personal salvation, such as the taking sacrament or the listening to the messages in the meeting.

Point 6: Breastfeeding is a protected activity in public places in Utah. The church may be private property, but as a member the woman in question should have the same protections as anyone that were visiting.

Point 7: The stake president could not point to any element of doctrine and apply it to the situation, so had to resort to sustaining her leaders. FTSOY is a guide used for the youth. It doesn’t cover breastfeeding because, well, the only way to get to breastfeeding is prohibited elsewhere in the pamphlet.

+1

Point 6 will be the stickler. "Should have the same protections" could be a matter for the courts to decide if both parties decide to take it that far.

The church would probably be better served to let this go and accept nursing mothers who are uncovered.

[IT_Veteran]

Agreed. They should also force this SP to apologize publicly for his error (though I won’t hold my breath for that one).

[alas]

If you want to call out stupidity when you see it. Give me a truthful, reasoned, informed, logical argument why you think it's stupid and I'll back you all the way.

Point 1: Women breastfeed children and many cannot or will not accept a bottle.

Point 2: Many infants will not nurse under a cover as it’s hot and has little airflow.

Point 3: The LDS church recommends breastfeeding as best for babies. They have declared it a natural and normal part of raising a child and important for bonding mothers and babies.

Point 4: Women are not responsible for the thoughts or morality of anyone around them.

Point 5: Breastfeeding women should not be excluded from their social group or the things they perceive as necessary for their personal salvation, such as the taking sacrament or the listening to the messages in the meeting.

Point 6: Breastfeeding is a protected activity in public places in Utah. The church may be private property, but as a member the woman in question should have the same protections as anyone that were visiting.

Point 7: The stake president could not point to any element of doctrine and apply it to the situation, so had to resort to sustaining her leaders. FTSOY is a guide used for the youth. It doesn’t cover breastfeeding because, well, the only way to get to breastfeeding is prohibited elsewhere in the pamphlet.

+1

Point 6 will be the stickler. "Should have the same protections" could be a matter for the courts to decide if both parties decide to take it that far.

The church would probably be better served to let this go and accept nursing mothers who are uncovered.

The church buildings are open to the public. Therefore most likely the law applies, just as it would to a restaurant or any other private property that is open to the public. Restaurants can have dress codes, and other restrictions, just like the church does, so I don’t see a difference between a church that is open to the public and any other privately owned building. Yes, it might have to go to court and I am not a lawyer, so just my con on sense answer is that the law should apply. The stake president is probably just like many people in Utah and think breast feeding falls under regular decency laws, but it does not. It is specifically exempt.

And I think the church would do better to back down on this one because women are pretty united on the idea that breast feeding should be allowed. It is not a “feminist idea” but one supported by most women, feminist or not. The church just might have a rebellion on their hands if they officially support this idiot sexist bishop and stake president.

[Hagoth]

I wonder if that SP is aware of this sculpture on, ahem, Temple Square:

[Palerider]

I wonder if that SP is aware of this sculpture on, ahem, Temple Square:

Whoa, Hagoth!

Nice catch!

But then we know that this is just an artist's conception and this sort of thing never took place in reality....

[Rob4Hope]

I love this^^^

Here is neat collection of vintage pics of women "not covering up."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/southerndispos ... .clKa0ME4o

Love the Big Bird pic!

#25 comic was funny too!

I choked when I saw #25. Hillarious!

[MoPag]

Wouldn't disagree with this at all.

As I mentioned before, for me it's more of an intimacy/privacy issue.

This is not about you! You are not a nursing mother.

Calm down. I'm more on your side than you may think.

My post did sound a lot b!tchier than I meant it too. I didn't mean to attack you. I like you Palerider.

Because in the end, as a member of the public, it IS about me (us) and our opinions. And their are millions of people out there of both sexes who feel similarly to me.

I guess this is what gets to me. Why are the opinions of people who aren't involved in the act of breastfeeding more important than the opinions/needs of of nursing mothers and their babies?

If you want to change things give me a reasoned, logical argument without hystrionics and I'm more than willing to give you a fair hearing.

IT_Veteran did an awesome job of this! Thanks IT_Veteran!! I would add to his list, that the diaper pail is usually in the mothers' lounge and so it frequently smells like sh*t.

[Rob4Hope]

I've seen this happen before where church motives and legal motives become colluded.

The SP was inside his right to remove her recommend. Now, before anyone gets freaked out by me saying this....a SP can do whatever the hell he wants. That is HIS right. Does he have to sign the form? Can someone force him to do that? Can he refuse for his own personal reasons?...or can we get a cop to come in and force him by holding his arm, to sign the document? And, if a SP can be forced to sign a form for whatever reason, can I force my neighbor to sign forms giving me all his money?...

You see my point?

If a member has a problem with a SP denying a recommend, then they can protest it or do whatever they want as well. But, let's take the TR off the table.

The real problem is the SP telling her that unless she stops nursing her child in public (and the article said the child was 18 months), she would be removed. THAT is the problem. And the question comes down to whether the law of the land applies to privately held buildings.

It would be interesting to see a suit of this type go through the courts in a state where the LDS church colludes so much with the law and government...
I bet it would get national news.
----------------------

PS. I think this SP should be released frankly. He is out of line IMHO. But, its not my call. And I am of the opion that a mother can take care of her child the way she see fit, provide there is no abuse. And nursing certainly IS NOT abuse.

[Palerider]

I guess this is what gets to me. Why are the opinions of people who aren't involved in the act of breastfeeding more important than the opinions/needs of of nursing mothers and their babies?

Your frustration is valid and palpable.

The interesting thing about a Democratic Republic is that even though it provides a good way to effect change, it is still at the mercy of the cultures from which it sprang.

That can be both a good thing and a miserable thing to deal with. On the one hand it keeps us from moving too fast and making changes that we later come to regret. Like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It smartly allows for some thoughtful deliberation to try and arrive at equitable solutions for everyone.

On the other hand it keeps good changes from being made expeditiously and thus, parts of society suffer while they wait.

America, while touting that its people govern themselves also has to contend with the people's own biases, ignorance and cultural prejudices. Things get messy.

There are people out their who still cling to Victorian era traditions. Some with good cause. To many, those traditions were what separated us from the jungle natives and the primitive heathens. It took a lot of wars (some even with ourselves) and advancements to get to Downton Abbey.

As an example I'm always amazed how long it took to get some laws passed regarding the ethical treatment of animals. Britain, Ireland and America all during the 1800's.

So many Western Europeans saw animals as just disposable tools. And my grandfather who was born in the late 1800's was one of them. I hated to watch how he worked with horses. It was cruel and gut wrenching.

I think it was some of those people of higher class society who made animal abuse laws possible. But it would have been those same people who would have seen open breast feeding or even a pregnant woman out of seclusion as a step back towards the jungle....

But some societal changes aren't really government related. Actually if the government can be kept out of it altogether that can be a good thing.

And the way that seems to happen best is when people can show a verifiable, honest benefit for the change they want and get it wide spread public attention. Valid scientific studies seem to have a definite effect on the public mentality.

I've had to change some of my thinking just doing the little research I've done on the breast feeding issue. Things are not as cut and dried as they seem. Maybe the news coverage the church is recieving will give them enough pause to re-think their own position?

One can only hope....

[crossmyheart]

"She added that the mother’s room is through a bathroom and isolates her from the social aspect of being at church. Plus, she said she can’t hear the services well from the mother’s room and has asked for it to be rewired."

Sounds like the mothers room removes all the "beneifts" of going. Can't particiapte, can interact, cant hear. She may as well stay home......

I despised using the mother's room. First of all- they ALL stink. The smell of spit up and dirty diapers permeates everything. The chairs are usually broken and matted down with who knows what. I didn't see them as any more sanitary than a bathroom. You never really have privacy, and most of the time there is another mother in there who is just as grumpy and tired as you are who has already laid claim to the better chair. With all of the church's emphasis on families, I never felt more like a second class citizen than when my only option was to go in those smelly dungeons.

[alas]

"She added that the mother’s room is through a bathroom and isolates her from the social aspect of being at church. Plus, she said she can’t hear the services well from the mother’s room and has asked for it to be rewired."

Sounds like the mothers room removes all the "beneifts" of going. Can't particiapte, can interact, cant hear. She may as well stay home......

I despised using the mother's room. First of all- they ALL stink. The smell of spit up and dirty diapers permeates everything. The chairs are usually broken and matted down with who knows what. I didn't see them as any more sanitary than a bathroom. You never really have privacy, and most of the time there is another mother in there who is just as grumpy and tired as you are who has already laid claim to the better chair. With all of the church's emphasis on families, I never felt more like a second class citizen than when my only option was to go in those smelly dungeons.

I mentioned above my difficulty with my first child, living in Berlin Germany, but I didn’t explain the whole situation. The talk about how the mother might as well stay home reminded me of the emotional impact of that experience. We lived in a German apartment away from any other Americans or anyone who really spoke English. Because of the situation, I was a SAHM. I NEEDED the social interaction of church. It was my ONLY contact with any human other than my husband. This was before the three hour block, so, I would go to a meeting by 1 1/2 hours by subway. Go feed my baby, just in time to go back home. I couldn’t even fit one meeting in between. So, we go back home to feed us, and then feed baby, subway ride to sacrament meeting, feed baby in restroom, go home. I was paying to ride a subway for 6 hours a day, so I could spend my Church time in the restroom. No piped in sound at all. That was really my only contact with other Americans. We were too far away for visiting teachers to be asked to travel to see me. I was extremely isolated. And I got to spend church hiding in the restroom.

This attitude that breast feeding is something to be hidden NEEDS to change for the welfare of mothers and babies. Both medical doctors and psychologist highly recommend breast feeding as best for mom and baby. It help mom heal after birth. It provides bonding better than bottle feeding. It provides immunities to any disease mom has had to baby. It has the best nutrition. Yet society makes it so difficult. Why? Because some prudes are uncomfortable. Why the hell should the prudes get their opinion elevated over all the medical and psychological studies that say it is best? Why is their comfort the only important factor?

[slavereeno]

The mother's lounge sounds horrible. Ick.

What the breastfeeding Mom's need to do is to remove the gravy bucket from the mother's lounge and then rip that koala bear thing off the wall, then any Mom (or dad?) That tries to leave a mud bunny pie in there gets said pie delivered to the windsheild of there Escalade.

[Palerider]

I love this^^^

Here is neat collection of vintage pics of women "not covering up."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/southerndispos ... .clKa0ME4o

If I were arguing against public, uncovered breast feeding, I would take note that of the 22 actual photos/paintings (the rest are either cartoons or stylized illustrations) 14 of them either definitely are or most likely would be in private settings.

So in a way, on closer examination, this list IS helping make the case for breast feeding, which the vast majority of people already see as a good thing.....but it's almost working against public, uncovered breast feeding. Showing it to be less common.

My point is not about which side of the issue matters to me. My point is about how the argument is being made and what an opponent would readily and gleefully point out.

[2bizE]

I love breasts. That is all I have to say.

[Palerider]

I love breasts. That is all I have to say.

I got nothing....