Saturday, June 13, 2015

Breastfeeding and Modesty

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. - Ecclesiastes 12:13


A recent status shared by my husband on his Facebook wall has made me realize how much confusion there is amongst Christian ladies and mothers regarding breastfeeding and the question of modesty.




As the verse at the top of this post says, it is important that we look at God's commandment(s) regarding this issue, so we know what to follow rather than being led by our sex-crazed society that puts women on birth control wholesale, and sees them mostly as objects to gratify men's lusts rather than as nurturers and mothers.

First off, let's see how God defines nakedness

Exodus 28:42  And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

nakedness = loins unto the thighs, or what we would call waist to the top of the knee

Isaiah 20:4  So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt

God in Leviticus 18 talks about all sorts of scenarios between both men and women of who should not uncover who's nakedness, but there is no alternative definition of nakedness given for women that expands it to include the upper body. 

Quite to the contrary, by relating "uncovering a woman's nakedness" with "uncovering the fountain of her blood," the Bible reiterates that nakedness is referring to the part of the body from waist to knee (loins and thighs in Bible words). 

Leviticus 18:19  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 

Leviticus 20:18  And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.


THAT is the only correct definition of nakedness - loins to thighs. My husband has been preaching this all along, even as far back as 2006.

Not radical Islam that says a woman must be covered literally from head to toe, including gloves and a screen over her eyes, because virtually any part of a woman's body can be sensual in nature to men. Examples are: dainty feet, luscious lips, tender eyes, a perfectly curved calf, hair in soft curls, feminine hands, etc.

Not the nudist idea that says if you have a hat on you are not naked.

Sometimes, vague verses are used to try and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, such as 

1 Corinthinans 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 
The argument being that even though the Bible does not define breasts as nakedness, we all know that they are. Well, we DON'T all know that, and one cannot just add to God's Word to suit their opinions or "common sense." In the passage in Corinthians, God does not leave us to guess what correct hair length is, along the lines of, "Well, I don't need to talk about hair length, because you all know about that in your heart anyway." On the contrary, God devotes a huge section to telling us about the length of men's hair and women's hair, and He just follows it up with a comment that even just nature itself also confirms this law of God. Get it? Nature confirms the law as fully expressed in the Bible, it does not substitute for the law, or generate it. The verse does not give someone who feels in their heart that something is right or wrong a cart blanche to impose that opinion on others.

Nakedness is a very shameful sin, except between husband and wife. As such, God gave us clear, consistent commandments in the Bible as to what defines nakedness. It is not left up to personal opinions that disregard the Bible. The upper body is never once defined as nakedness, and I defy anyone to post a verse to the contrary. 


Breasts, breast, breasts


If the word "breast" makes you cringe, consider this: the Bible uses "breast" 18 times, "breasts" 27 times, "paps" 4 times, and "teats" 3 times. 

Indeed, if the word "breast" makes you cringe on the inside, you have been influenced (and not for the better) by our weird, twisted society that views women only as objects for the sexual gratification of men since reproduction has all but gone by the wayside, an afterthought of sorts. Breasts have been blown out of proportion as sexual objects because we have lost touch with the fact that women are mothers and nurturers first and foremost. Under normal circumstances, a woman's breasts will be used ten times as often to feed a baby, than to satisfy their husband's righteous desires.

To further illustrate my point of breasts being overly sexualized, consider this: it is entirely acceptable to use the word "nipple," but only in the context of "bottle nipple." We even try to make them look and feel and function as close to the real deal as possible, yet nobody bats an eye if you pull your fancy breast-replica bottle nipple out, or even drop it off with baby in the nursery.



Personally, I have always found these rubber replicas to be far more explicit than a woman breastfeeding without a cover, since the real nipple is actually in the baby's mouth and out of view. If someone made a replica of the part of men's or women's private parts that the Bible defines as nakedness, I certainly wouldn't want to show and pass that around any more than the real thing, because even a replica would still be obscene. 

If breasts are nakedness, or even just terribly immodest, why are we publicly displaying these life-like replicas without so much as a blush?

Before you pass out, read on, because then there is 

The question of modesty

1Timothy 2:9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 

Proverbs 31:25  Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

Are breasts sexually appealing? Of course they can be! Is that their primary or even predominant function? No. 

Many guys find ladies' feet and/or calves appealing, too. In fact, for decades, many churches taught that ladies ought always to wear closed shoes and hosiery in order to not lead men into lusting after them. On the other hand, there is an entire style of shoes - high heels - that accentuates this part of ladies' bodies. But the primary function of our feet is still to get us from point A to point B, not to strut around and get attention. You will never see me wearing such "hooker shoes". Not because they expose my nakedness (because they don't), but because they are immodest, drawing attention to my body merely for the sake of drawing attention, rather than for any practical purpose. It is the presentation that makes such displays immodest, not the very fact that I have feet, that I use them, and that I don't cover them in tights and closed shoes. 

By the same token, if women go topless, have plunging necklines over push-up bras, have implants, show cleavage, etc. they are doing all this for the sensual and vain reason of putting their body on display. Immodesty = seeking attention

A woman breastfeeding, on the other hand, is doing so 100% for the express and practical purpose of feeding her child. She is not seeking the attention of gawkers, and is therefore not immodest. 

By this correct definition of immodesty, a woman who struts around in high heels, with a fancy hairdo, covered in jewelry and make-up is still immodest, even if she covers up when she breastfeeds, because she is seeking to draw vain attention to her physical features. 

Lamentations 4:3  Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.
Here is a quick science lesson: whales (or sea monsters, as the Bible calls them) do not actually have breasts in the sense of that being some appendage like an udder; they have mammary slits. Nor do they have anywhere to pull these breasts out of, nor do they have hands to pull them out with. God is using this metaphor to say that even whales do more for their young than these wicked women, who should be the ones drawing out the breast and giving suck to their young. 

Drawing the breast out of where? The clothes, of course, since there is nothing else to pull them out of. Drawing out the breast, to then cover it with a blanket? Hardly!



Why not just cover up?

Well, why don't YOU eat your meals under a blanket? There are many reasons, such as 

- heat and stuffiness for mom and baby
- baby wants to see mom
- mom wants to see baby
- baby wants to study and learn about the world around them
- baby wants to hear what's going on
- new moms have a difficult time getting a good latch blindly
- blankets and those hideous nursing bibs draw more attention, not less
- covers further push the idea of over-sexualized breasts

However, all these pale in comparison with the biggest reason not to cover up while breastfeeding: Because it hampers healthy breastfeeding. 

A baby wants to eat under a blanket as much as you want to eat by yourself in a sterile white room without being allowed to read, talk, look out the window, play on your phone, etc. You would hurry up and finish the meal, so you can get back to the funner parts of life. So yes, get a baby hungry enough, and he might sit still under a blanket long enough to fill his tummy, which in a baby over 3 months takes about 3 to 5 minutes. But they will not want to linger at the breast, suckling on lazily while taking in the world around them. THAT kind of nursing is prerequisite for most moms to make lactational amenorrhea (LA) work for them. If you only ever, or mostly, cover up while nursing, your baby will spend a small fraction of the time on the breast that it would if they were uncovered. Not to mention all the bonding and close contact you and baby miss out on when separated by a "veil". 

God could have made milk come out of our pinkies if He had so chosen. He could have made it so babies eat table foods from birth. But no, in His wisdom He designed our bodies to nurture our babies in our bosoms, where they can smell us, see our faces at the ideal distance that their little eyes are attuned to at birth, and hear our heart beat that is so familiar to them from the womb. We moms, while gazing down at our baby's sweet face that God designed to be most appealing to us in its features, are so much more likely to sit and linger, put our feet up for a much-deserved rest, and admire God's perfect handiwork, rather than just getting the job of feeding baby done in a matter of minutes, and propping him up in some bouncy gadget while we tackle the never-ending housework.

Breastfeeding is God's design to allow a lady's body to recover from one pregnancy before embarking on the next. Breastfeeding hormones, like all hormones, are fickle and easy to disrupt. Just as the baby needs to be skin to skin with mom, suckling all night by her side, to make LA work, so extended breastfeeding throughout everyday activities is crucial. It's simply not possible under a blanket - no baby wants to do that.

Other suggestions, such as nursing without a cover, but off in another room, or staying home from all outside activities while baby is breastfed, are too ridiculous for me to address in detail. Obviously, no mom of many can leave the main part of the house and retreat to her bedroom, leaving the other kids unsupervised, for hours each day. And no husband wants to take on the outside responsibilities of his wife for two to three decades of their married life.

Women who pontificate about breastfeeding under a cover likely only have their token child or two, or they use birth control. If they don't, they will have children spaced very closely. Sure, there are a few women who will never have a cycle even if they just nurse their baby once every 24 hours, but that is the exception. Most moms, unless they breastfeed extensively each day, will have their cycles return too soon to be healthy or sustainable. 

There are many reasons why we should allow God's design to space our children. One important reason is that it allows us moms to "reset" our bodies between pregnancies, lose the baby weight instead of packing on more and more over time. Also, when our hormones are not out of whack, we women tend to be better wives and mothers, which in turn sets the atmosphere for the home. Cover up at what expense? So you can be a short, snippy, angry wife and mother, run ragged by having a baby every year? There is nothing like sitting down with baby for a half an hour, nursing and cooing, to lift mom's mood through endorphins and calm her frayed nerves. She might even sneak in a short nap! Under a cover? No baby will go for that for more than mere minutes.


But what about men's lusts?

A scantily clad  woman will be viewed as a sex object, and lusted after by unrighteous men. A lady breastfeeding is viewed as a mother, and as such, occasions little to nothing in the way of temptation. 

Only a hypocrite would expect women to only breastfeed while covered, even as they watch TV every day where women are flashy, immodest, and show their breasts for purely sexual appeal all day long. Cover up in front of your teenage son, who is sitting next to you on the sofa watching some harlot on TV? Yeah, that's really important - not!

Just because a lady does not use a blanket to cover up while breastfeeding, does not mean she has to be completely exposed. A shirt can easily be pulled down if need be, and baby's body is covering most of mom's midsection.



If a man is making a point to gawk and catch a glimpse of skin, if he is drawn into temptation and lust from seeing a non-descript sliver of skin that may as well be part of the upper arm as part of the breast, then there are far greater problems at work. A man who is satisfied with his own wife, having his appetites met by her in righteous marital intimacy, will not struggle with lust from seeing a breastfeeding woman, or catching a glimpse of her breast. Ladies, keep your husbands fed, and they won't go through life so starved that breastfeeding mothers suddenly start looking appealing.

Proverbs 27:7  The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

Furthermore, as stated above, we cannot expect ladies to cover up to accommodate all of men's personal whims, unless we want to mandate burqas. The Bible has enough commandments in it, we don't also need to add our own to it. 




In conclusion

If you want to cover up, more power to you. But don't impose your opinions on others, as there is no command in the Bible that tells ladies to cover up to feed their babies.

Per law, mothers can breastfeed in any public or private space that the mother is legally allowed to be in, in every state in the U.S. Don't let anyone tell you differently! 


 1871 in church

 1891
 1898

1900s

 1920s

1930s

1943

1946




 


 


For more beautiful breastfeeding pictures, please click here. It's worth a click, trust me!
Think these photos are anecdotal, the exception? Please share with me all the old pictures of women breastfeeding while covered, from back in the day when birth control was not used and we had normal views of breastfeeding mothers. Because they don't exist.

79 comments:

  1. I really appreciate this. I rarely cover while nursing, and when I do I use a light blanket. Whenever I do, the baby yanks it away! If I am using a blanket, it's more likely to hide my stomach than my breasts. I feel embarrassed by my 4-baby-belly showing, but I'm not at all embarrassed about feeding my baby.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nikki you can buy tank top and put slits where your breasts are and then your mid section is covered a tip I used from some LLL moms
    They sell nursing tanks they are pricey though!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The same people who throw fits about a women breast feeding in church or public are amazingly the same people who have no problem letting their daughters wear the the really short shorts and tank tops that expose far more than they should. I grew up in a Southern baptist church where that kind of hypocrisy was rampant. They fuss about Harry Potter ,but then they go see every Disney movie that comes out. It's ridiculous.


    Brittany G.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beautiful photos!!! I do not cover at home at all and have 5 other children who don't bat an eye when I am feeding. I also don't cover in front of my mom, sisters, nieces or other ladies. I do use my cover around any adult men which is Usually just at church.......but you are right about baby not feeding as much....so this has me thinking! I was made to sit in a small dirty storage closet in the nursery at our last church to feed.. .I protested and sat in my van to feed...then they said I didn't have to feed in the closet but had to turn my chair to face the wall in the nursery! THAT Church Ended Up Teaching Turn From SIN To Be Saved So We Left anyway...lol. =)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, definitely a lot of information I've never heard before, especially about nakedness vs modesty. I always found it weird that most church/Christian events say that women must wear one-pieces or tankinis. I don't think tiny bikini tops are appropriate, but why the emphasis on covering the top when allowing so much skin on the bottom? I'm glad you wrote about this in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And Arizona or anywhere down South isn't the only place a baby will swelter under a blanket. If you're acclimated to a Northern winter and try to put a baby's head under a blanket in the summer chances are... They will feel just as warm.
    With my first child i was too embarrassed to try and breastfeed baby in public... I was to embarrassed to even try to do it in the car, or at a friends house... Or anywhere outside of my own living room with the curtains tightly drawn shut with Clothes pins on them to make sure they wouldn't open even a sliver... One of my issues was my baby had lip tie, which made latching very hard! Especially with a cover! Now i'm pregnant with my second, and i plan to do my best to feed my child in public...
    I do think even though now it's coming back as "Breast is Best" I think formula was over hyped for far too long. So, a lot of people think "Well you're out in public just give the baby a bottle" Many breastfed children won't eat formula, and there are nursing mothers who can't get anything using a pump. Plus if skip a feeding and do nothing, not even pump... Not only can doing it a lot hurt your supply... But just doing it once can cause Blocked ducts... And that could lead to infection... Which could lead to you hurting your supply.

    A lot of these things such a Breast Feeding, Non-Vaxxing, Not Circumcising, Eating Organic, etc. Are all viewed by many liberals as "Modern Day Fads" However when you look at everything listed... I do believe it was all around before Formula, vaccines, circumcision (Which is in the bible but it's a law for the Jews... So unless you're Jewish why are you cutting off your sons foreskin? Unless there's some other medical necessity that called for it which is rare), GMO's, Pesticides, Growth hormones, Formaldehyde (Yes you can find that in food, shampoos, and everyday hygiene products along with Aluminum), And every other chemical you inject, ingest, or others wise put into your bodies....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its ridiculous, the attitude about this. Its feeding babies. Only if your husband says not to do it in the company of others, especially men, then you should obey him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if your husband says "You should breastfeed anyplace, Pastor Anderson says its good." If you are not comfortable doing it in the company of others, esp. other men, do you have to obey your husband then? What is the right thing to do?

      Delete
    2. Second anon, that is a silly question. It reminds me of the Sadducees' "there was this woman who had seven husbands" story.

      Delete
    3. I find the question not silly at all. Perhaps the relationship is in some kind of turmoil? What should a woman do if the situation arises where her husband is lack respect in his wishes? Unfortunately, I don't live live in Tempe and attend FWBC. I also don't have family here.

      Delete
    4. I guess I will respond to this question as soon as

      (a) Pastor Anderson says it's good to breastfeed anyplace (he certainly believes that, but we are talking about my blog post)

      and

      (b) there is a husband who actually demands that.

      Until then, the question is theoretical and yes, silly.

      Delete
    5. Your question is not silly. Silly was sugar coating what it really is. Its ridiculous, you are just a troll. Time shouldn't be wasted on this, and your husband should monitor you on the internet better. Perhaps limit your time. Listen to your husband, if you are not so dingy you would understand him.

      Delete
  8. The nursing mother is the very icon of all that is feminine and wholesome. Is it no wonder that she is mocked, scoffed at, driven out of sight, stuffed into closets, scorned and treated with disdain? She is in the will of what God desires for her life: loving her children with selfless devotion. This world hates her. It hates that she is so selfless. It hates that she has given up alcohol and prescription drugs so that her child receives only the best of what she can possibly offer. It hates that she chooses to stay home to bring up her own children instead of passing them off to strangers. It hates her because she has succeeded where other women have failed at feeding their own children. And isnt is interesting how men and women enjoy the tight harlot attire exposing nearly as much as the breasfeeding mother does, yet they call that mother nasty, gross, disgusting? You see that is just it. The entire world hates motherhood. They hate what she is with all their hearts because THEY are in sin. What is this sin? Why, its the "I want a career and power!", "I want a pink one and a blue one and done!", "I want the perfect sexual body and the power to weild it before the eyes of men", "I want to be free to consume any beverage or pill to make ME feel better." , "I dont want to be tied down at home under the thumb of my husband and children.", and its the "I'M FREE". Its the sin of selfishness.
    The purpose of bearing children within the safety of a marriage covenant, is to teach us selflessness. The biggest difference between children and adults is selfishness. God's desire is that we are selfless and humble. Breastfeeding is a huge neon sign of all that is unselfish. A mother putting her own desires aside and convenience, to serve her husband and her children with all her heart giving them all what is best is not disgusting. Its beautiful and its the will of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rehbecca, I had to leave a note to let you know how much I LOVE this comment! Beautifully said!

      Delete
    2. I must agree with Rehbecca, beautifully written, and oh so true. Thank you for your insight!

      Delete
    3. Isaias 47:2-3 does define the bosom as nakedness. When referring to the united states (Babylon) under the figure of a woman it says " (2)Take a millstone and grind meal: uncover thy shame, strip thy shoulder, make bare thy legs, pass over the rivers.(3)Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me." When it says "strip thy shoulder, make bare thy legs" in verse 2: it is called nakedness in verse 3. So even legs are nakedness.

      The Bible calls St. John naked because he was only clothed in his undergarments (St. MK. 14:50-52). The Bible calls St. King David naked because he was stripped of his regal garments (2 Kings 6:20). The parallel verse - 1 Paralipomenon 15:27-29 - states St. King David was wearing garments when he danced before the Ark: though not his regal garments. Thus Michol looked upon him as if he were naked: as King would look if he appeared in pajamas. In Isaias 20:2 Isaias took off his sackloth and shoes even though it does not say he took off his under garments since all wore them. The fact that he was without his upper garment (i.e. was barechested) was considered nakedness in the public. He was insufficiently or poorly clothed. In St. John 21:7 the Bible calls St. Peter naked for only wearing a swimsuit and not having his outer garments since it was improper docorum to be in the presence of the God-Man in that fashion.


      It was sinful for you to say that "breasts" can be used by women to "satisfy their husband's righteous desires." That place of the body was created only for infants to feed and not to satisfy lust. Lust is not righteous. According to your reasoning that the aforementioned part of the body is not nakedness and is therefore a neutral body part like eyes or the face etc then it is fine for women - as is perversely allowed in the city of New York - to walk outside without being dressed from the waist up. If you arbitrarily say that women who do such things have a sinful intention then logically you would have to extend that reasoning to other neutral places of the body like the eye or face.


      As for being unshod (i.e. being barefoot) in public: prior to the early 1920s it was viewed as obscene and an indecency in the united states and was a taboo. So in order to promote communism in the US: North American born sodomite women decided to dance unshod in theatres provided by Kuhn, Loeb & Co and other Jewish companies. Wild/sodomite women like Angela Isadora Duncan a communist follower of Aleister Crowley (who actually met her) and Maud Allan in her blasphemous dance called 'Salome' (where she reenacts the dance of the woman who beheaded St. John the Baptist) shocked theatregoers when she was unshod and it represented a decline of morality. Her brother was a Baptist leader who enageged in Satanic blood sacrifices of animals and always poured the blood on himself in brothels- before fornicating with the prostitutes. He was hanged for a double murder mutilation of females and was even nicknamed "The Demon of Belfry." It is notable that in the early 20th century close to the 1920s being unshod became acceptable and so did women wearing pants and so did feminism: though the public itself did not practice it in large numbers until the 1960s.

      In ancient Palestine it was a common custom for house servants to untie the shoes and wash the foot of guests. It was a common courtesy since the road was dusty. Then the guests were given some refreshments to eat or drink. The God-Man and the 12 Apostles were unshod just in their traveling as a sign of humility and poverty. Certain Religious Orders have their members unshod in order to remind them not to be attached to the goods of this world. Certain other virtuous people make vows to do this. Outside of these few exceptions: being unshod (especially in public) is generally to be avoided in the united states: given its particular history and how it was viewed as perverted and evil back when moral standards were decent.

      Delete
  9. Very intelligently and beautifully written article. Truly you are full of the wisdom and love of God. Thanks for speaking the truth in love - I love the pictures too btw. Goodness, I dress modestly in skirts and dresses that cover my thighs, but how foolish of me would it be to think that "oh, that's it, the guys are safe now, they'll just see me as a friend and not be attracted to me". Insofar as the man is not a darkened sodomite, he WILL find something attractive about me even if I am covered up. It's only natural. Sometimes all a woman has to do is TALK and the guy would be swooning.

    I caught the sermon clip that pastor Romero preached where he made the blanket statement that "breasts are nakedness" using the verse in 1 Corinthians 11 that you mentioned. I respect pastor a lot, but I don't think he justified the point he tried to make even with the Bible. Maybe if he said it was "immodest" to expose one's breasts, then I would have given him that. But I think he took it a little far. I think it's also dangerous for a pastor to preach in the way that he did. If he's tempted - that's his personal temptation, but he doesn't have to teach it as the doctrines of men because not all men go 0 to 100 in a flash.

    Colossians 2:20-23 are some great verses on this topic:

    20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
    21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
    22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
    23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great verses, thank you for sharing!

      Delete
  10. Your argument that women should dress modestly but not as modestly as muslim women is kind of bizarre and full of double standards. In both cases there are verses in the bible and the koran that urge women to dress modestly (interestingly in the Koran modest dress includes covering breasts.) In both cases though it is more about how humans interpret the law and interpret intention vs the clothes itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a double standard, because the Bible is the word of God, whereas the Koran is the word of (a perverse) man.

      Delete
  11. While the simple fact that breastfeeding is the way babies were designed to be fed, as well as being protected by law, is enough reason for me to think a mother does not have to cover if she doesn't want to, it's good to see a biblical basis for supporting this argument as Christians can often be the loudest about immodesty and temptation when it comes to breastfeeding. For me, the Bible doesn't hold any weight as evidence in any debate, but I'm pleased to see that you have taken the time to find evidence in favour of breastfeeding without shame for those who do follow the teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Zsuzsanna? Did you get my apology I left on the church phone for you? I tried to apologize through the original wallpost but it wouldn't let me, I couldn't even private message you. I know we are completely on the opposite spectrum of this topic, but I don't want that to create hard feelings between us. I definitely said a couple things that were very unloving and untrue, and I can't express enough how sorry I am that I hurt you like that. At the time, I felt like I was being personally attacked for things that weren't true, and maybe you didn't mean to do that and I just took it the wrong way. Either way, it gave me no excuse to treat you as unkind as I did. I really do want you to forgive me, it's tearing me up inside that I offended you so badly especially not knowing if you've forgiven me for it. You were right, I do have an anger problem that I've struggled with for my whole life, and I've always been ashamed of it. I just can't seem to conquer it no matter how hard I try (my husband says I'm getting better, but I can't tell myself). There were a few things you claimed I said that I didn't, but it's very possible that the way I worded things gave you the impression that that's what I meant, and I'm extremely sorry it came out like that. I wish I could tell you which one's they were to ease your mind that that's not how I really feel about you or your church, but I don't want to reopen wounds or specify in front of the others what went on between us. Your church and family has meant a great deal to me, more than you'll ever know. Your husband's sermons have meant a great deal to both my husband and myself. I have met you once, I know you don't remember, but the memory I have is a very pleasant one. I'm sorry I couldn't control my temper well enough and behave in a christian manner towards you so that you could remember me with pleasant thoughts. There are many that only remember me for my temper and I am ashamed of that. Please know that I don't ever mean to persecute you or other women for breastfeeding with the breast uncovered in front of men. I am apposed to it very strongly; but if I ever saw it happen, I wouldn't go up to the person and confront her about it. The most I would do is tell my husband not to look in that direction and it would be left at that. Again, I really do hope you can forgive me for being uncharitable to you. And if you would still like to see the verses, just private message me or call me (I think I left my phone number on the answering machine?), if not, I understand. I promise I will not comment on any more of your posts with topics we disagree on. I don't want to cause any more contention between us. I really do enjoy the pictures you post of your little ones and I hope that you'll be ok if I comment on them once in a while (positive comments, of course). Only one thing more (I know, a wall of text. Someday I'll learn. ;) ) and I mean this in a fun loving way, no dictionary needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I did not get the apology on the church phone, as I do not check those messages, but my husband mentioned it to me. No need to apologize, and please don't feel bad. I was not upset with you personally at all. No hard feelings. God bless you!

      Delete
  13. I have a few questions if you ever find time to respond! In light of biblical nakedness, what do you think of Christian women allowing their children or other female relatives to witness their home births? Also, when do you teach innocent children that nakedness is a sin, or is it something they naturally learn as they grow? Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's fine as long as all parties want to be there, or want the other to be there.

      Children naturally learn as they get older and become conscious of these things, just as they become conscious of their spiritual nakedness (= need for salvation). Of course, we should gently teach them and guide them from a young age, such as reminding them to keep clothes on, sit nicely, etc.

      Delete
  14. I can't say a big enough AMEN to this post. And there's nothing else to say - AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. Yes to every point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I was curious to hear your reaction.

      Delete
  15. I really appreciate the time you took to put this biblically informative post together - Brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think a lot of it depends on what your husband wants. Mine doesn't want me 'whipping it out' just anywhere. So I nurse in the car, dressing rooms, or bedrooms if we are visiting friends. Its really not that big of a deal. Plus, that allows me a quiet place to bond with baby, and to take a breather from everyone. I live in Illinois, and it tends to get super hot in the summer, but its not hard to work around nursing in private. I have nursed SO many times in a car with the ac running. I nurse my babies to a year, and have never scheduled them, always nursed on demand, and have always been able to accommodate nursing while out and about. I don't mind women nursing in public, but please don't look down on those of us that are more private about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing in my post suggests I look down on anyone who wants to nurse privately. In fact, it repeatedly says that if you want to nurse covered, go for it - just don't persecute those who don't.

      Delete
  17. Mrs Duggar and Mrs Bates covered. They obviously don't use birth control. I also, with six children, use a light cover that has boning to see the baby in a very open space. Lots of air. Lots of light. Baby is not under a heavy blanket. All our babies nursed perfectly for 25 months. I don't use a cover at home, but in public, I choose to, because I don't want to show my breasts to any one. I don't feel I must prove myself. This is very feministic. Also, my breasts, are to satisfy my husband, and to feed my children. Yes, obviously that is the oldest argument. If other men lust while I'm nursing covered or in covered, it's their fault. Yet, I don't have to reveal myself to feed my babies. Maybe you should try a light weight muslin fabric while nursing before you point the finger. Do you teach your daughters that a low cut shirts are ok? Cleavage is ok since its not part of the modest parts...? Of course you don't, since it's not modest. So, I believe it's my part in honoring my husband and teaching my girls. Also, there was NOT the Hollywood huge porn addiction, darkness back in the day as there is now. Was there sexual sin, obviously, there has been since the beginning. But not like we have today. It is not wrong to cover your breasts with a light cover while nursing. People with a Biblical world view and view children as gifts and never have used birth control, cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Did you really just use Mrs. Duggar as a viable example of how to approach modesty? For one, her kids are spaced much closer than is healthy or sustainable. Secondly, their weird closeted thoughts on breastfeeding and modesty very likely had a part in their son Josh being so curious about the difference between boys and girls that he took it upon himself to fondle his own sisters. Out of curiosity, as the parents assured us, and not because he's a pedophile. NO THANKS! Maybe if she had not been off in another room nursing, she could have supervised them better.

      2. Did you read the post? I neither point a finger at those who nurse covered, nor do I teach or allow my daughters to be immodest. But breastfeeding has nothing to do with "revealing myself", or having something to prove.

      Delete
  18. The pictures you post about yourself are very modest and cover up. I don't see how you can say that you are breastbeefing uncover when you are not showing any part of your breast like the others ladies on the pictures.

    Plus you being inconsistent on your argument, it is wrong to show out your boobs in public but somehow if you are feeding a baby makes it ok?

    ReplyDelete
  19. When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden they made aprons to cover themselves. But God didn't think this was sufficient and provided them with coats instead. If nakedness only refers to the section of the body from the waist to the thighs, why then would God provide COATS of skin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see my reply on the comment below yours

      Delete
  20. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I think it is interesting that way back in the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve sinned and became ashamed of their nakedness they tried to hide it by making an APRON of fig leaves. However God covered their nakedness with COATS. That leads me to believe His definition of nakedness goes beyond the lower body. Breastfeeding may be a natural thing to do, but there are lots of natural things people do that do not need to be done out in public view (ie. using the restroom, having sex...). Besides, whether or not breastfeeding should draw attention to a woman is besides the point, it does and therefore is immodest. I'm not saying you need to cover your babies' face, especially in a climate like yours, but most babies are capable of going 3-4 hours without nursing which is a decent amount of time to run errands or grocery shop. If your away from home longer than that with a young baby and are no where you can find a quiet place, you really need to ask yourself if you are being a keeper at home or doing what is best for your baby in the first place. Also, you need to decide if you really trust God with your family planning. He knows what is best for you and your body. Worrying about whether or not issues dealing with breastfeeding are going to effect your menstrual cycle is really trying to take control not surrendering. I know what I've said will probably make some mad, but it's something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This argument does not hold water.

      The Bible (narrator) tells us that Adam and Eve KNEW they were naked:

      Genesis 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? [...]

      Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

      Adam and Eve knew they were naked, whereas before the fall, they were unaware of it. So, knowing they were naked, they made aprons (lap aprons, presumably) to cover their nakedness. These aprons covered their nakedness, that was the whole point of them. Their idea of nakedness was correct, and their aprons covered this nakedness.

      Notice how the verse about the aprons actually mentions nakedness, whereas the verse about the coats mentions it as clothing:

      Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

      Surely, I need not point out that not all clothing is to cover our nakedness - especially not coats! Unless you want to argue that they were like those perverts in nothing but a trench coat lurking at city parks. God made them coats of skin because it was a picture of the robe of righteousness which God will give us, purchased with the blood of a sacrificial animal (picture of Jesus) rather than our own works (apron of leaves). The verse never mentions, or insinuates, that it was to cover their nakedness.

      Also, exclusively breastfed babies typically do not go 3-4 hours between feedings. What about going on day trips, etc.? Even so, people who claim that breasts are nakedness cover at home in front of their sons, or at least they would have to in order to be consistent. After all, we all would agree that we should never be naked (below the waist) in front of our male family members.

      God provided lactational amenorrhea as a healthy, natural way to space babies, which is best for all parties involved. There is no need to intentionally undermine it, and then claim it was God's will for us to have a baby every 9 months.


      Delete
  21. Sorry if that comment apears as my husband name. Just want to make it clear is not him but his wife. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just FYI, no other comment of yours has come through.

      Delete
    2. Oh no, Anyways I want to say that I agree with breast feeding on demand and doing it on public. Also the bible does not defined breast as nakedness and that this argument is more an issue of modesty. Which for me is more about a decision between a person and God, for the reason that modesty is a grey area.

      What brings my attention to your opinion is that you believe that a woman is being inmodest when she shows her breast cleavege or wears a bikini top, but it is ok for a woman to show her breast when she is breastfeeding?
      I see this as an inconsistency on your standards, because in both cases they are showing the same body part to strangers. Plus I don't understand how are comparing yourself to breast feed uncover when on your pictures you are covering your breast; in comparison to the rest of the photos when you can actually see their breast. Plus why use old photos to support your argument that it is ok for breastfeeding moms to show their breast on public, when culture and history should not be our reason of why we take a stand on what we believe is right, but that we should always base them on the word of God.

      I am just perplexed at the fact that you condem women being inmodest if they wear a bikini top or a shirt that show the cleavege of their breast, but it is justified if it is for the purpose feeding a baby. In both cases they are showing the same amount of breast wether they are trying to be seductive or not. Another point, using animals as an example to justify showing our breast it is irrelevant to this argument. Yes God describe his desing on animals to nature their babies just like he did for humans but the reason why animals do not need to cover their breast is because they are not seductive to men unless they are reprovates.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "If a man is making a point to gawk and catch a glimpse of skin, if he is drawn into temptation and lust from seeing a non-descript sliver of skin that may as well be part of the upper arm as part of the breast, then there are far greater problems at work. A man who is satisfied with his own wife, having his appetites met by her in righteous marital intimacy, will not struggle with lust from seeing a breastfeeding woman, or catching a glimpse of her breast. Ladies, keep your husbands fed, and they won't go through life so starved that breastfeeding mothers suddenly start looking appealing.

    Proverbs 27:7 The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

    Furthermore, as stated above, we cannot expect ladies to cover up to accommodate all of men's personal whims, unless we want to mandate burqas. The Bible has enough commandments in it, we don't also need to add our own to it."

    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

    The whole post is amazing & 100% true, but that was definitely my favourite part.
    You, your husband & his ministry are an incredible blessing to me & my family!
    We really can't stress enough how much we appreciate everything you guys do & the solid unchanging stand you all take for God! Keep up the good work :)

    P.S. Can't wait for your next Q&A!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, there are extremely many married men who have strange urges and will do some shameful things if they can get away with them, no matter how well "fed" they are kept by their wives. It´s no good to make an innocent wife responsible for what her husband does. Even if they weren´t fed at all (there can be legitimate reasons for that, like illnesses), they still should not go out perving or whoring. But I agree with you in regards to the other stuff, love this post, the blog and the whole Anderson family! :)

      Delete
  24. It sounds like you are saying that it is the intent of the woman that matters. Since her intent in breastfeeding is to feed her child, then she is not immodest.

    Similarly, if a little girl's intent is to swim and have fun, then surely she is not immodest if her stomach shows briefly. No normal male would find that enticing anyway, same as with a nursing mom's breast.

    If a cover is unnecessary to hide the breast of a nursing mom then there is no need to cover the stomach and legs of an innocent little girl.

    Are you sure you are not defining modesty to fit the things you want to do? That is, you want to breastfeed in public, so it is modest to do so. You want to cover your girls' legs and stomach while swimming, so that's necessary for modesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought this as well. It seems contradictory to say breastfeed in public is being modest (I agree, btw), but letting young girls wear a typical swimsuit is immodest. The last thing that a young child would be thinking of is getting that sort of attention, nor would a normal adult be offended by the child wearing less clothing as they are simply playing comfortably.

      Delete
    2. I don't really think little girls wearing bikinis is immodest, myself. Yes, there are pedophiles out there that would be attracted to them, but hopefully the children are protected enough that that would never be an issue. The reason I think it is wise to have little girls wear one piece swimming suits and not two piece swimming suits is because it creates the habit of modesty in preparation for their teenage years.

      Delete
  25. Again, as a European atheist with diametrically opposed views in lots of aspects, I agree. Not with the Bible part (as I obviously do not believe the Bible should tell us how to live our lives), but with the breastfeeding part.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Americans make a big deal about breasts. It is not a big deal here in Europe.
    Americans allow abortions at 16 but one has to be 21 to have a beer. Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I love your blogs. We may not agree on everything but I love that you are very honest and well intentioned. You also back up your opinions with reasons and research. I'm curious,have you heard of the blessed little homestead family? I'm curious as to your opinion on it. Also,do your children do well visits with a pediatrician? This is an often passed around topic in home school circles. I know I've had this discussion with other moms. We don't vax either. Some of my friends have concerns with taking their children to doctors. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As anon commenter on 5/15/15 @ 1:31 PM asked, is exposing one's breasts wrong or not? If it is OK to do so while feeding a child, is it OK to do so for other reasons in public?

    You posted pictures of other women exposing their breasts but not yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Does it have to be either/or? I would love to breastfeed my babies someday (no children yet), but I also know already that due to a particular health issue I have, it's very likely to be difficult or even impossible. I do not WANT to bottlefeed at all, but sexualizing BOTTLES when sometimes they are necessary makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think my comment went through. I was just wondering, what about ladies who can't breastfeed for medical reasons? In theory I agree with a lot of this post, and I'd love to breastfeed someday, but I'm unlikely to be able to. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  31. I enjoy your blog. I tried to find an email to contact but I guess it makes sense that its not that easy to write to you! I am a homeschooling mother of 5 and found your blog looking for reviews for the best van for families that are big and growing! Reading your blog made me feel like I found a long lost friend! <3 and prayers to you and yours! p.s. i love this blog- i feel like i will die of heat exhaust under a cover when I nurse- the baby hates it- and it makes it a miserable rather than beautiful natural experience.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Zsuzsanna, if you don't mind sharing, I was just wondering what the age spread in your children month wise is, and if that really is truly just because of breastfeeding. We have 3 kids, ages 6, 4 & 5 months, and never worried about birth control before (I had 2 miscarriages between the last 2), anyway my last pregnancy ended up being a c-section, and now I am scared to death to get pregnant because they say you should wait 1-2 years after having a c section. My 5 month old sleeps 10 hours every night, so I'm not sure how dependable breastfeeding is for that (The only thing else at this point would be abstinence, but my husband is not for that).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Please be a little more cautious in your comments about implants. Many breast cancer patients choose breast reconstruction, if they are medically able to have it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nice article, I'm not sure how I feel though. I usually put the bub under a cover (with boning so they can still see me and breathe). I live in Australia, and our summer is hot. I found my babies liked the shade and security with the cover. Unless it was really humid. A few times I forgot my cover (or on days that are humid, I'd leave it) and would go and sit in a private area, just so other people don't feel awkward...like a secluded park bench. I also turn my body away from other people, and they can tell I'm trying to be discreet with breast-feeding, and no one has ever batted an eye-lid when I do this...they give me space, and don't fuss. They don't stare either. My husband hates it if I just pull out the breast (without a cover and in an open area with lots of people). He requests I use a blanket, or finds a quieter spot for me. Sometimes some women, try and prove a point about breastfeeding in public, and are quite aggressive about it, deliberately being contentious, or trying to get a response. I'm not sure if that is modest either... Your breast feeding pics are nice and discreet though.

    Anyway what happened to Pastor Anderson's recent wednesday evening sermon? Can't find it on youtube...bummer...

    ReplyDelete
  35. OK, this comment is not related to breastfeeding. (However, I did exclusively and on demand breastfeed my five and not one of them let me cover them even when I wanted to ;)). The reason for my comment is in response to your Facebook post about little Stephen and his bee sting. I am not on Facebook so I cannot comment there. You probably now have an EpiPen Jr., but for future reference, if you get on the manufacturer website they offer a $0 copay card/coupon that is good for one year and multiple fills. They seem to offer this each year and it can help a lot with the cost. Just wanted to pass along the information. God Bless. Tiffany F

    ReplyDelete
  36. I agree with your post... But I have a (honest) question. You say and support with scripture that the upper body is not considered immodest. If someone like me who finds the heat really hard to tolerate (I am a person who runs "hot" at the best of times) then chooses to wear very open vests, wide necklines, bare arms, go bra-less etc for this reason, and not to attract attention, do you consider this immodest or permissible?
    Anna

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Zsu,

    I was wondering where you found the information about hormones and nursing covers - I've never seen it before. I've always read that how soon you start menstruating again has to do with how long between nursing sessions - so people who don't co-sleep and train their children to sleep through the night very quickly would have their periods return quickly. This has been the case for me, I've never started ovulating again until my babies go through the night without nursing. Is there more information about how nursing covers affect these hormones? I tried to find it myself but could not.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Let's just make things simple and stop shaming mothers - all mothers - when they are feeding their baby...however they are feeding their baby.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It always makes me happy when I find common ground with someone I regularly disagree with (I would describe myself as a non-religious eco-femanist. I have always been a supporter of breastfeeding and have felt that the insistence to cover or remove yourself comes from (and perpetuates) the culture of sexualisation of women.

    I also agree that when the bible discuss "modesty " it is not about how much of you is covered but rather about not "showing off" or drawing attention to yourself. Modesty could be considered as a partner quality to Humility. One could completely cover themselves with a sheet but if they do it in order to draw attention to themselves it would be immodest.

    I have a question that many of your readers may like your take on:

    When my eldest was a baby, we spent the summer visiting my inlaws (in Budapest). My father-in-law was uncomfortable with me breastfeeding and would leave the room when I did but never commented. I felt awkward for making him uncomfortable in his own home but as we had ttravelled so far to be with family (and to have them spend time with the new baby) that it wouldn't make sense to remove ourselves from the rest of the family for up to an hour about 4 times a day. Coming together to eat is an incredibly bonding activity (it is even one of the the few ceremonial activities that Jesus instructed his followers to do) and removing ourselves ourselves to eat seemed counterproductive to our purposes in creating family bonds.

    How would you have handed it?

    I would also be interested in your opinion on Modest Fashion Blogs which seems to be a bit of a trend among young Christian woman. While they may have their bodies covered, they are drawing attention to themselves, their clothing and their bodies. In an addition there is an element of showing off for being so very virtuous which is neither humble nor modest.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I follow your blog for years now, and after much thinking I have come to the conclusion that there is something false about your husband and especially you. Your overconfidence comes across very robotical to me, as if you have been programmed to say what you are saying in the way you are saying it. The christian life is full of questioning, asking, sometimes being confused or even unsure where we are standing with God, as we can see from the characters in the Old and New Testament. Even the prophets, who heard directly from God, sometimes doubted if they were going in the right direction or if they should continue prophecying due to the persecution and hardships they experienced.

    You and your husband always try to come across as people who have it all together and who have all the answers, despite your rather young age. At the same time you are heartless, void of emotion (other than that which you display in regards to your children) and somehow not acting like a human. As I said, you come across robotical, mechanical, cold, not as a person of flesh and blood.

    This is rather unusual and therefore I would not be surprised if you are some gouvernment or Jesuit agent. This is the only explanation I have. Perhaps you don't even know that you are an agent due to trauma based mind control and resulting split personality. Perhaps you should look into this.

    What would be the plan behind this? I could imagine that you rise to some christian celebrity status and than there will be a planned out fall, extremely deep and ugly, convincing the public that christians are hypocrites and cannot be trusted, which would then result in very serious persecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect you have too much time on your hands. The idea that the Andersons are government agents is ludicrous and to suggest they are Jesuit shows you know absolutely nothing about Jesuits. Why don't you take the peace and wisdom offered in this blog and let them bless you, rather than looking for conspiracies that exist only in your mind?

      in His peace,
      Miriam

      Delete
    2. Time for your pills Anon@4am

      Delete
    3. Wow lady. You need help.

      Delete
    4. JESUIT AGENT? ???

      You fool. The "Jesuit" conspiracy was INVENTED by people who spread disinformation
      to cover up the Zionest movement.

      Delete
    5. I agree totally with this comment, especially describing her personality as robotic, and also agree with the "certain to come fall out", especially as her children get older. I hope she's ready for any one of her sons to be judged as harshly as she has judged Josh Duggar.

      Delete
  41. Your nursing pics are very modest. All those other pics of women with their breast exposed while nursing could have easily pulled things closed and covered. I don't think its right to just let it hang out. I do think it's totally normal and natural to nurse whenever needed, but there are ways to easily cover more of the breast while doing so without having to use a cover blanket.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Zsuzsanna, your hypocracy knows no bounds. You are saying that a woman should be modest and cover up out of 1 side of your mouth, and then proceed to try and justify whipping out a breast whenever and wherever, and even post pics of woman bare breasted on your blog! Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it should be done in public. I managed to breast feed in the Phoenix heat without any problems whatsoever. You are trying to say that a woman's breasts should not be looked upon in a sexual or sensual manner by a man as long as they only see them when you are breastfeeding?! Really? Have you read the Song of Solomon? Obviously men ARE attracted to womens breasts. That is perfectly natural. As natural as breastfeeding. It doesn't make a man a pervert, it makes him a man. No righteous man would act upon that with any woman other than his wife, but he'll look just the same. If you can't find a discreet out of the way place to feed your baby, why don't you just stay home. I don't want you flashing your breasts in front of MY husband any more than you want me flashing mine in front your husband.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa. I think you need to get your issues under control! I'm sure no one's the least bit interested in flashing their breasts to YOUR husband. FYI I have read Solomon. I don't think I'm getting the same message out of it you are though. It's not really an ode to breasts around the world or anything...

      If someone fed a baby in front of my husband I wouldn't give it a second thought. And honestly, I don't think he'd give it much thought either. He's faced with far more gratuitous nudity on probably an hourly basis since he works at an airline and thousands pass through the gates every hour.
      Are you the type to pitch a fit whenever you perceive your husband glancing over at some poor woman?

      Maybe you need to stay home.

      Also it's "hypocrisy".

      Delete
    2. If someone "flashed their breasts" at my husband I couldn't care less. Stranger things can and do happen.

      Delete
  43. OH MY GOSH! These pictures are beautiful. I got here through your youtibe video about pronouncing Zsuzsanna. My middle name is Sue after my mom's aunt, whom they called Aunt Sue. But the family was from Hungary and her original name was Zsuzsanna. I always wished I got that instead! But, they were very into assimilating back then...so, that's what I got!

    ReplyDelete
  44. "By the same token, if women go topless, have plunging necklines..."

    I wish you'd gone a step further to chastise the MEN who go around shirtless as being immodest. You have an entire paragraph against "hooker boots" because they're meant to draw attention to the legs to entice the men who happen to like the look of legs over say the breasts. Well, as a woman, my particular area of interest in a man is the top of the back and pectoral area. Strong arms are hot. Now, when fit guys go walking around shirtless, I like looking at them! They're hot! Can't I blame them for not wearing a shirt (or wearing a tight fitting shirt that accentuates their physique) for my lusting after them?!?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Obviously the Bible wont say yeah its okay to have your breasts hanging out (since your breastfeeding you can get away with it) personally i think it's shameful to publicly sit there and breast feed. that is something you do away from prying, hateful, or loving eyes. I travel allot and have noticed that allot of European women do that well i could see why because in Europe beaches are topless and people may say yeah that is not nakedness. So what is than? I can see why its totally a norm to have their breasts hanging out and them saying yeah but were breastfeeding like that's suppose to be some excuse with getting away.. 2. allot of moms especially who have allot of kids have no shame and i can she why it is not problem letting themselves go mentally and physically. they are way to comfortable with giving birth so many times and everyone having seen their stuff so for them breastfeeding publicly is a no big deal.(comfortable with nakedness perhaps) but the truth is it makes both men and women feel uncomfortable to see these things traumatizing for bystanders. no one unless your weird would lust over sagging breasts or over a breast feeding women. the Bible does not mention allot of things however common sense is always needed as well as shame. breastfeeding is great since allot of young moms don't know how to or don't have any milk all my friends are pretty modest it's suppose to be a special moment between mom and baby because the baby studies the mom and smells and touches. so that's like an intimate moment you don't want to have other people watching or you making them feel uncomfortable. I know i wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I say i don't agree. it should be shameful and uncomfortable to share these moments with the whole world. It makes both men and women feel uncomfortable. its moments that are only for you and baby at home or at least away from prying eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So many good posts. It seems to me that we all need to relax a little. There is a huge difference between nurturing a child and flaunting oneself. It isn't any bigger problem than we choose to make it. God wants us to multiply and be fruitful. We should rejoice in the child and support the mother. If someone is uncomfortable seeing it they should be tolerant. I'm not comfortable changing nasty diapers, but I've changed many. You shouldn't be ashamed to breastfeed. Sometimes we need to take a deep breath and just do it. You will be surprised how quickly your fears disappear. If others are uncomfortable. Show them you are comfortable and they will be also. When people look away they really just don't want to offend you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You might want to consider Ezekiel 16:7.

    ReplyDelete

Your KINDLY WORDED, constructive comments are welcome, whether or not they express a differing opinion. All others will be deleted without second thought.