Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[swampfrog]

Not all boobs signal my sexual receptor. I have evolved to ignore certain sexual signals. I'm sure I could present some evidence here that would prove this true for any caveman.

Individual response isn't really the issue. You can't just argue that men must turn off their sexual receptors which have been selected for over millennia. That does not mean individuals cannot learn to control their response, but the initial receptor and thoughts won't be eliminated (and probably shouldn't be). And you have to train ever single one to do just that (which is done through social norms and other methods). Arguing that a naked breast should not elicit a sexual response is over-simplifying to the point of being useless. A nursing mother is in fact a marker for future reproductive fitness. Luckily were not lions.

[swampfrog]

Actually, I would argue that the conversation has to start with why folks in the US have such hang-ups on breastfeeding, when it doesn't even register with folks from other countries. Why do we fear that men and young men will be reduced to slavering, drooling, mindless piles of lust at the sight of a nursing mother? Because that's not a normal response.

That's the same conversation. It just requires to think about it from an evolutionary perspective and terms. Watch the video. There is individual variation because the receptors strength exists over a distribution. Men and women have co-evolved together. The male/female mode of reproduction is nearly universal, even in plants. Human females developed enlarged non-lactating breasts for a reason. Nature selected them. The obviously over-stated male response for rhetoric purposes above allows the conclusion which follows. Of course it isn't the normal response, because that could only possibly happen on one small tail of the male response distribution. The normal response is sexual curiosity. So how do you counter the normal response if it is undesirable? Social norms is one way, cultures have adopted various culture norms to adapt. Covering up is one, repeated exposure is another. Then we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods. But pretending the response itself is wrong and must be eliminated is pointless.

It's just a friggin' breast. Maybe the solution is to encourage coverless feeding in churches so that it becomes background noise and change the focus from "keep your thought pure at all times or sing a hymn" to "You will have impure thoughts. You will see sexual things. Acknowledge it, and then move on."

Exactly, except, "It's just a friggin' breast". which isn't a good place to start, you can't turn off evolved characteristics and is harmful to try and do so. It turns people towards depression when they can't overcome natural instincts.

[creekster]

Actually, I would argue that the conversation has to start with why folks in the US have such hang-ups on breastfeeding, when it doesn't even register with folks from other countries. Why do we fear that men and young men will be reduced to slavering, drooling, mindless piles of lust at the sight of a nursing mother? Because that's not a normal response.

I am reminded of the parable of the two monks who were walking and encountered an attractive young woman by the side of a river. She asked them to carry her across. Since they were forbidden to touch females, one monk declined. The other picked her up, carried her across, and put her down. The monks continued walking. After several miles, the monk who declined turned to his brother and said, "You know we are not permitted to touch women, yet you carried that woman. How could you do that?" The reply: "I set her down by the riverbank. Why are you still carrying her?"

It's just a friggin' breast. Maybe the solution is to encourage coverless feeding in churches so that it becomes background noise and change the focus from "keep your thought pure at all times or sing a hymn" to "You will have impure thoughts. You will see sexual things. Acknowledge it, and then move on."

Are you also be in favor of permitting women to be topless at will in any location, nursing or not?

[Pelado]

Are you also be in favor of permitting women to be topless at will in any location, nursing or not?

The attractive ones, sure.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A conversation cannot start with "just a breast", or "just boobs", etc. As pointed out in the video previously linked, of the 4000+ mammals on the planet, humans are the only one where breasts stay enlarged when not lactating. The evolutionary reason for that appears to be because they are naturally a physiological unconscious sexual signal of reproductive health. Which developed for a reason. Evolution doesn't care about manners, etiquette, morality, etc. Only what works to preserve the species. So if breasts are a sexual signal, they must be signalling a receptor in the male counterpart--that is also unconscious. The conversation has to start here. Men and women sexually signal one another all of the time, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. It's not productive to ignore that breasts are evolutionary selected sexual signals. The ramifications of this are discussed in detail in the previous videos linked.

Pshaw... You and your facts and logic.

[falafel]

The attractive ones, sure.

The attractive boobs?

[Moliere]

[myboynoah]

That's not what most people mean by breastfeeding with a cover. They mean they put a blanket, or a shawl, or an apron-like item that literally covers both the baby and the breast. And some babies will absolutely refuse to feed if they are covered like that.

An example:

[ATTACH]8949[/ATTACH]

That can work as well.

Actually, I would argue that the conversation has to start with why folks in the US have such hang-ups on breastfeeding, when it doesn't even register with folks from other countries. Why do we fear that men and young men will be reduced to slavering, drooling, mindless piles of lust at the sight of a nursing mother? Because that's not a normal response.

I am reminded of the parable of the two monks who were walking and encountered an attractive young woman by the side of a river. She asked them to carry her across. Since they were forbidden to touch females, one monk declined. The other picked her up, carried her across, and put her down. The monks continued walking. After several miles, the monk who declined turned to his brother and said, "You know we are not permitted to touch women, yet you carried that woman. How could you do that?" The reply: "I set her down by the riverbank. Why are you still carrying her?"

It's just a friggin' breast. Maybe the solution is to encourage coverless feeding in churches so that it becomes background noise and change the focus from "keep your thought pure at all times or sing a hymn" to "You will have impure thoughts. You will see sexual things. Acknowledge it, and then move on."

Yes, of course, the only reason one might be opposed to full frontal nudity breastfeeding is because of some puriant interest. And of course, because people in other countries do something that their culture allows we need to adopt that practice. This is seemless logic.

I stated my preference, with which I suspect most people agree. Why are you still carrying her?

And no one should ever say, "It's just a friggin' breast." Good hell.

[Katy Lied]

Menstruation is also a sign of fertility, yet I dont know of anyone who finds a prurient interest in such matters. Many religions and cultures put the woman away in shame, and she has to purify herself before she can come back into general society. Why would thousands of years of breasts-as-fertility symbol be a thing but not thousands of years of menstruation-as-fertility symbol be not a thing

[Jeff Lebowski]

Menstruation is also a sign of fertility, yet I dont know of anyone who finds a prurient interest in such matters. Many religions and cultures put the woman away in shame, and she has to purify herself before she can come back into general society. Why would thousands of years of breasts-as-fertility symbol be a thing but not thousands of years of menstruation-as-fertility symbol be not a thing

That’s funny. More seamless logic!

[Topper]

Are you also be in favor of permitting women to be topless at will in any location, nursing or not?

It would die down. There would be some displays but then women would go to what is comfortable.

[Northwestcoug]

Boom. The authoritative word on exposed breasts in church.

Embedded Tweet

From a bishop, no less!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Boom. The authoritative word on exposed breasts in church.

Embedded Tweet

From a bishop, no less!

Even more seamless logic!

[Bo Diddley]

That’s funny. More seamless logic!

Even more seamless logic!

I guess that means I can stop waiting for Napper to say something about busting at the seams.

[CardiacCoug]

Let me get this straight. Do some of the posters on this fine website believe it’s any man’s right or job to tell any woman to cover up while breastfeeding?

Just a simple yes or no will do. Just trying to understand WTF the dude and others are arguing for.