Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Somehow I managed to miss out on this thread... I am nursing my 47 mos old son. When he was under a year old everyone seemed to accept me pulling out my boob in public to nurse him. But, when that magical 1 yr mark came everyone seemed to freak out, family, friends, strangers. I am not really the kind of person who cares too much about what people think but by the time my son turned 2 people were insinuating I was some kind of child abuser, and that did kind of get to me. I tried to print out articles for people I knew but it didn't have much effect. Strangely, soon after people seemed to just give up. My mom still says once in a while " you're still nursing him right? " I have to agree with a previous poster that nursing gets much easier after 2 1/2 or 3. I think it just gets easier to communicate and negotiate with the little one. When my son was 2 and still wanting to nurse around the clock and I was getting so much social pressure to stop it was really difficult. I was glad to have the support of my LLL list. Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere near the genitals. Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Yeah, but they look like a rump... B. On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:53:52 -0800, Lenz Kim, Charlie and Riley <lenz3@...> wrote: > > Somehow I managed to miss out on this thread... > I am nursing my 47 mos old son. When he was under a year old everyone seemed to accept me pulling out my boob in public to nurse him. But, when that magical 1 yr mark came everyone seemed to freak out, family, friends, strangers. I am not really the kind of person who cares too much about what people think but by the time my son turned 2 people were insinuating I was some kind of child abuser, and that did kind of get to me. > > I tried to print out articles for people I knew but it didn't have much effect. Strangely, soon after people seemed to just give up. My mom still says once in a while " you're still nursing him right? " > > I have to agree with a previous poster that nursing gets much easier after 2 1/2 or 3. I think it just gets easier to communicate and negotiate with the little one. When my son was 2 and still wanting to nurse around the clock and I was getting so much social pressure to stop it was really difficult. I was glad to have the support of my LLL list. > > Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> > > This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere near the genitals. > > Kim > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I find it strange that a man would compete for the tissues responsible for his child's nourishment. Why can't they share? Breasts are very sensual, though. How many of you men get sexually aroused when your nipples are caressed? Deanna > > > Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband > pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her > breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he > wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete > with his child. <giggle> > > This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our > culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are > not anywhere near the genitals. > > Kim > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 >> This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our >> culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. A gay man once told me, honey, everyone loves boobies. And I think it's in part the association with mama, and in this culture the lengths to which we take breast obsession can be traced to bottle feeding/early weaning. Nobody gets enough boob when they're babies and they're trying to make up for it later. Lynn S. who nursed #1 3 years and would have nursed #2 as long as she wanted but I had a heart attack and had to wean... ------ Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Kim, I have to agree... my hubby is supportive, because he trusts me to do what I think is best for them, but he wants them back too... I told him to discuss it with his mother! LOL > > Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her > to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he > would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies > so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> > > This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture > has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere > near the genitals. Too funny... I was just saying that the other night to my husband! Much to his chagrin! L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 " Lenz Kim, Charlie and Riley " <lenz3@...> wrote: Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> ########Gosh, didn't he learn to share as a kid? <weg> And doesn't he know that he might benefit from drinking some of that breast milk himself? I mean I can't think of a better way to get lauric acid, can you? I mean greasy coconut oil versus my wife's sweet boobies? I can't imagine what this guy is thinking? Can you? The dude is looking a gift horse in the mouth and doesn't even know it. This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere near the genitals. #######Nope, but if you have made it that far then the genitals aren't far behind. And that works both ways :-) (who can't believe he just said that) Throw Away Your Vote! If you must, vote for a third party http://snipurl.com/a8od " In The Abolition of Man, C.S. observed that the modern schoolboy is conditioned to take one side in a controversy which he has not learned to recognize as a controversy at all. That is, he is trained to assume a materialist and Darwinian outlook, without realizing that materialism and Darwinism have been subject to thoughtful criticisms from their first appearance. " Joe Sobran __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Kim- >This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture >has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere >near the genitals. It's pretty simple. Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic capable of strongly indicating a potential mate's fitness for child-rearing and therefore is a good (biological) indicator of attractiveness. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 - " strongly indicating a potential mate's fitness for child-rearing " Women who are flat chested can rear healthy children just like any other. Yes, breasts, in scientific circles, are named secondary sexual characteristics, but so is a man's adam apple. You don't see women going " Whoa, check out the size of that apple! " And in cultures where women don't cover their breasts and nurse their children freely in public, breasts are not a sexual fascination like in our culture. I think associating sex with breasts is something that is culturally specific. Also, the fact that we cover up that part of our body adds to the interest. I've read that back in n times men got a real thrill out of women's ankles because they hardly ever got to see them. Kim- who is glad she finally figured out what they're really for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > It's pretty simple. Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic capable > of strongly indicating a potential mate's fitness for child-rearing and > therefore is a good (biological) indicator of attractiveness. , Please explain how breasts indicate a potential mate's fitness for child-rearing. Are saying that in your opinion large breasted women are better fit for child-rearing? Rhea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Yeah, , splain. Inquiring minds want to know! Deanna, who has/thinks the jungle booty still reigns supreme in biological matters >, > >Please explain how breasts indicate a potential mate's fitness for >child-rearing. Are saying that in your opinion large breasted women are >better fit for child-rearing? > >Rhea > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:13:29 -0500 Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > Kim- > > >This could get a whole new thread started as to the reason WHY our culture > >has such a sexual fascination with breasts. Hello! they are not anywhere > >near the genitals. > > It's pretty simple. Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic capable > of strongly indicating a potential mate's fitness for child-rearing and > therefore is a good (biological) indicator of attractiveness. > > > > > - Hmmm...I sure you have a good explanation, but if I was a betting man, based on how I am understanding what you wrote (which could be wrong), I would say you are stepping into some deep doodoo with some of the women on this list <weg> " Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through a deeper factual analysis. " Murray Rothbard " Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side. Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner; and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is like a day without sunshine. " Brad Edmonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 You might be right ... 34A raising three wonderful children, nursing 52 months, and still going strong... Catz > > Hmmm...I sure you have a good explanation, but if I was a betting man, > based on how I am understanding what you wrote (which could be wrong), I > would say you are stepping into some deep doodoo with some of the women > on this list <weg> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 > Somehow I managed to miss out on this thread... > I am nursing my 47 mos old son. When he was under a year old everyone seemed to accept me pulling out my boob in public to nurse him. But, when that magical 1 yr mark came everyone seemed to freak out, family, friends, strangers. I am not really the kind of person who cares too much about what people think but by the time my son turned 2 people were insinuating I was some kind of child abuser, and that did kind of get to me. I wonder if people are more accepting of older kids nursing if they're girls? I don't remember when I stopped nursing in public, but after a while the only nursing we did was in bed, going to sleep. This ended when she was about 4.5 years old, when the dentist finally talked me into stopping nursing her to sleep at night. Naptime nursing wasn't enough to keep my milk flowing, and when the milk dried up, she was no longer interested (not the case for some kids). She still loves my breasts, though - she likes to fall asleep with her face against them. I suppose this could raise some eyebrows somewhere. > Luckily my husband is totally supportive. My sisters husband pressured her to wean at one year because he said he wanted her breasts back. Maybe if he would have been nursed by his own mother he wouldn't need his wife's boobies so much he felt he had to compete with his child. <giggle> My husband loved my breasts when I was nursing. I guess sometimes the woman isn't as receptive to sexual breast play when she's nursing, though. That could make a guy a bit wistful ... Has anyone else here ever nursed someone else's baby? I nursed both my nephews once or twice, when their mom wasn't available. Once it was in the context of a mom's group, and I had to fight a little for the privilege! Of course I love these kids anyway, but I noticed that my attachment to them intensified immediately after nursing them, and the effect lasted for about a week. Aven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Kim- >Women who are flat chested can rear healthy children just like any >other. Yes, breasts, in scientific circles, are named secondary sexual >characteristics, but so is a man's adam apple. You don't see women going > " Whoa, check out the size of that apple! " I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that all else being equal, flat-chested women will tend to produce less milk than women with large breasts. apples, however, have no actual purpose that I know of. They're residual. However, that said, you might find that a man without an adams apple looked strange and unattractive. >I think associating sex with breasts is something that is culturally >specific. Also, the fact that we cover up that part of our body adds to >the interest. I've read that back in n times men got a real >thrill out of women's ankles because they hardly ever got to see them. Certainly the covering of breasts contributes to their sexual appeal, but once clothed, breasts are pretty much universally considered desirable. BTW, I was nursed until I was 3 or 4, and I consider breasts sexually attractive. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Rhea- >Are saying that in your opinion large breasted women are >better fit for child-rearing? Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than smaller breasts? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 - > I >would say you are stepping into some deep doodoo with some of the women >on this list <weg> Yes, no doubt, but often the truth is unpopular. Man is a biological creature, much as many of us prefer to believe in a disembodied soul, a ghost in the machine, a blank slate, or what have you. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Idol " > I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that all else being equal, > flat-chested women will tend to produce less milk than women with large > breasts. Well, .... <drum roll> You're wrong. Milk is produced from the milk ducts. The rest is just adipose tissue. Short of ductal formation defect--some women are born with insufficient ductal networks, but this is very very rare, despite the ubiquitous stories of women reporting that they 'don't make enough milk'--all women are born with roughly the same amount of milk ducts. Size is merely degrees of fat tissue. --s, a less than A who invariably drowns the newborn in too much milk and makes enough for two or more nurslings at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Suzanne- >Size is merely degrees of fat >tissue. It's not a random variation, though, even if all women have about the same number of milk-producing ducts. It's due to factors like the prevalence of sex hormones, diet, and so on. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 >>Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than smaller breasts? -<< ~~~There is an, (I would think), obvious retort here, that has to do with the size of mens' organs, and what purpose they serve, since a small one gets the job done as well as a large one.......but which is generally preferred? (Rhetorical, of course.) Or, we can take that in another direction. Why are large eyes preferred in women over small eyes, or succulent full lips, as opposed to thin lips. You can take this to all sorts of extremes. There are simply features that are preferred, and almost universally preferred, that serve no practical purpose. BTW, I don't know this as fact, but doesn't milk production have more to do with general health etc., than it does size of the breast? I believe sperm production has more to do with such things than with the size of the organ through which it exits the body. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 >> I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that all else being equal, >> flat-chested women will tend to produce less milk than women with large >> breasts. The Japanese used to bind their breasts, and they Japanese men didn't seem to select for larger breasts (well, maybe now they do, I hear the culture has changed in that regard from watching Western movies). But the obsession with breasts is NOT universal: other cultures have different obsessions with parts of the female anatomy. I do suspect a lot of it is as others have said: Western males AND females never got enough of breasts when they were babies. That and we are programmed from birth to look for the " bull's eye " with our weak little newborn eyes so we can get some good food. I think it may be true that women with larger breasts and hips produce more estrogen though ... they seem to be more the " womanly " types in their speech and mannerisms too, from my observations. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 I don't think that's true, . In fact, I think that big-breasted women may have more problems breastfeeding than small-breasted ones. Aven > I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that all else being equal, > flat-chested women will tend to produce less milk than women with large > breasts. > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 > - > > > I > >would say you are stepping into some deep doodoo with some of the women > >on this list <weg> > > Yes, no doubt, but often the truth is unpopular. Man is a biological > creature, much as many of us prefer to believe in a disembodied soul, a > ghost in the machine, a blank slate, or what have you. > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Another thought: A truly FLAT-chested woman may be lacking the body fat to reproduce well. And some of us GO flat after nursing lots of babies. It seems to me that men love young, firm breasts, whatever their size - indicating a ripe young woman with enough fat to be healthy. Aven > Rhea- > > >Are saying that in your opinion large breasted women are > >better fit for child-rearing? > > Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than > smaller breasts? > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 > > > >>Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than > smaller breasts? > -<< > > ~~~There is an, (I would think), obvious retort here, that has to do with the size of mens' organs, and what purpose they serve, since a small one gets the job done as well as a large one.......but which is generally preferred? (Rhetorical, of course.) @In my experience (which is not all *that* extensive) penis size is about proportional to height. Perhaps larger penises are desirable because taller, stronger men have them. > > Or, we can take that in another direction. Why are large eyes preferred in women over small eyes, or succulent full lips, as opposed to thin lips. You can take this to all sorts of extremes. There are simply features that are preferred, and almost universally preferred, that serve no practical purpose. @My husband says big breasts are desirable because they're an exaggeration of a female trait. You could say the same about the traits you mentioned. @There's also the butt theory - if men like our breasts because they resemble our butts - well, big ones resemble it a lot more! But my husband vehemently denies that this is the attraction! Aven > > BTW, I don't know this as fact, but doesn't milk production have more to do with general health etc., than it does size of the breast? I believe sperm production has more to do with such things than with the size of the organ through which it exits the body. > Carol > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 I think some of it is pure fashion. Big butts are in, yet 20 years ago many (women anyway) were working hard in the gym to get rid of it. Now you can get implants there too. Oh, and mannequins have fuller booties now too. Deanna Carol wrote: > > > >>Why else do you think the general preference is for larger rather than > smaller breasts? > -<< > > ~~~There is an, (I would think), obvious retort here, that has to do > with the size of mens' organs, and what purpose they serve, since a > small one gets the job done as well as a large one.......but which is > generally preferred? (Rhetorical, of course.) > > Or, we can take that in another direction. Why are large eyes > preferred in women over small eyes, or succulent full lips, as opposed > to thin lips. You can take this to all sorts of extremes. There are > simply features that are preferred, and almost universally preferred, > that serve no practical purpose. > > BTW, I don't know this as fact, but doesn't milk production have more > to do with general health etc., than it does size of the breast? I > believe sperm production has more to do with such things than with the > size of the organ through which it exits the body. > Carol > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.