Bitchfight in parenting101

[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.

Comments

[conuly]

Nope. Must be thinking of somebody else. Well. Maybe freaky "cut of your boobs" lady. She's just messed up. People *will* mention that bottle feeding, even with EBM, presents the same increase in ear infections, tooth decay, orthodontics and sinus problems, but for most people, it's a necessary evil.

Breasts are for men to play with.

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.

[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.

[conuly]

Seriously, though, you're not having kids. Your reasons for not breastfeeding are all well and good, but it's a moot point. I mean, unless I forget, you also think pregnancy is disgusting. You can't breastfeed because you're never getting to that point!

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

That's true, but I can't possibly be the only woman with that issue.

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