Bitchfight in [community profile] parenting101

Jul. 5th, 2004 10:26 pm
conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
As we all know, pacifiers can lead to nipple confusion and interfere with the nursing relationship. They also can contribute to ear infections and cause parents to pay less attention to a child (since the child is always quiet). Somehow, this all blew up. Everywhere.

I wouldn't mind, really, except I post on that community, and, as most people realize, I'm never having kids. Or at least, probably never. I give a little leeway for insanity. And then, there's this one idiot... First saying "if you're not going to breastfeed, why do you have breasts?" And then, when I mention that I, personally, am not having kids, 1. demanding to know why I'm reading the posts there and 2. repeating the asinine question.

*rolls her eyes* Sorry, I wasn't aware that this was a closed community. OH CRAP! It's not!

And of course, she said "breasts aren't for men to play with" Well, neither are hands, but.... At any rate, nobody plays with my breasts, they'd hurt too much. NOT that it's any of her fucking business.

Can you tell I'm pissed? And yet, she's STILL better, in my view, than the one who said she couldn't "think of nothing more unnatural than breastfeeding". Um, excuse me? What about FORMULA feeding? Television? Computers? Condoms? Light bulbs? Books? Clothing? Shoes?

*sighs*

I fear for the world.

Date: 2004-07-05 10:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maladaptive.livejournal.com
Are these the same people that say breast pumps are wrong because OMG you need to bond with your child!! If you do not breastfeed you will not bond!

I know I'm not having kids, but hypothetically if something was sucking on them in a nonplatonic manner, I would not feel inclined to bond with them. I would desire them to cease immediately because I am easily squicked out. Breast pumps are not evil.

Breasts are for men to play with. If they weren't, our breasts would "deflate" when we're not nursing and they sure as hell wouldn't be filled with cumbersome fat deposits before our first pregnancy! The "boobs are only for breastfeeding, pervs" attitude annoys me to Hell and back. Yes breastfeeding is natural but I don't see it as the breast's "primary, one true purpose." It's one of the purposes.

Date: 2004-07-05 10:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maladaptive.livejournal.com
I've heard the anti bottle sentiment often enough. Perhaps some women just don't want an infant attached to their breast. I know mine are extremely sensitive (as in I can't touch them without being bothered. Not hot and bothered, but bothered and annoyed) and the less contact with them, the better. It's honestly a risk I'd rather take. Everything has its own set of risks and worrying about every possible little thing will drive a person mad!

Actually, in many cultures, they're not. But feet may be, or hips, or legs, or the waist. There's a whole body to sexualize, and different cultures pick different parts.

That's true-- and I'm not stating that's their purpose, especially today. But evolutionarily speaking, they helped attract mates. Much like things we find biologically attractive without sexualizing in our society (symmetrical faces, etc). So it's silly to say "a breast's only natural reason is to breastfeed!" when "full" breasts became a constant thing about the Homo sapiens sapiens female.

Date: 2004-07-05 11:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maladaptive.livejournal.com
That's true, but I can't possibly be the only woman with that issue.

And I like to debate. ::sulks.::

Profile

conuly: (Default)
conuly

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     12 3
4 5 6 78 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 1617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 18th, 2026 11:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios