What do you think about breastfeeding? Cover or no cover?

[firestormx]

 

I must confess what has been angering me in this discussion is the counter argument that has the underlying claim of: "Men are scumbags who can't control their lust. And catering to 'your brother's' lust problem is your number one priority in life."

 

While I am sure I will be given protests that this is not what is being said, this truly is the underlying message that comes across to me in what has been posted.

 

Hmm... I'm reading it differently.

 

I'm reading "I love my brother, therefore I will not make it easier for him to stumble". Driven by love, not a dim view on men.

 

I would have to agree though that I hate the image that men are just animals who can't control themselves, because it is offensive to my husband. I just don't think it is the driving attitude in this case.

 

[firestormx]

Example…

Let me give you an example of the culture I live in. A young lady came to a church we participated in for the first time and needed to nurse her baby. So she stepped out of the main auditorium (which had plenty of seats) and went into the overflow room. She started nursing in the back of the room (while covered) her child when two men came in. They got uncomfortable with her nursing and the noises the baby was making. They then told her she needed to leave and go to the nursing room. They didn’t offer to give her directions just stared her down as she gathered her baby, the diaper bag, and her purse (while trying to manage the baby in her arms and not be immodest by letting the cover slip) and left. She found the nursing room (a closet really with a tube TV that the sound doesn’t work) and came into it while my wife was nursing crying. What the men did was not only insensitive, uncaring, and unloving but illegal as in Texas according to the law a woman is allowed to nurse in public or in private. They were more concerned with their comfort than the mother or the baby.

This example is what I've been trying to explain. The mother moving from the main room was proper to show consideration for her weaker brothers and sisters in Christ. When in the other room, she still was in the back. Not making a display or show of it. Did the 2 men who come in, follow scripture in acting in a proper biblical manner to the mother. No, clearly they didn't. 1, they had no business in staring. ( that's actually kind of creepy and sick). 2, they didn't show the love of Christ towards mother or the child. They should have attempted to be loving and respectful, just as the mother was in moving to another room. If they were intent on still making her moving again, then they should have offered to carry her bags and show her the way. Although I think she fulfilled her biblical obligation when she moved the first time and should not have had to move again. My problem with this issue comes in when it's made to be a show, out in the open, almost with the attitude hey, everyone look at me . I know, you said GE, that's not what your talking about. But that's my problem. I don't see anything unbiblical with how the mother acted.  

Edited August 13, 2013 by firestormx

[Sevenseas]

Fire ~  this lady was a first time visitor to GE's church...I don't know if she was a believer or not, but perhaps she was moved by her own modesty?

 

You know, it's really not always the lovely young ladies that are out to 'get' a man or seduce a man...sometimes a woman has to dodge unwanted attention period.

 

I think we have an interesting scenario played out as described by GE...I think it shows that 2 men had the problem and if the young woman had to leave in the manner described,

then hello, they need a boot kicking.     a wake up call...an intervention...whatever.

 

As they saw someone already settled in a private moment, they may have done a courteous 180 and left. 

 

To put a bit of a bigger perspective on it, how about if there had been prayer in that corner.  Would they have interrupted THAT too and told the participants to 'take it to the prayer room?'

 

A 'religious' spirit will pretty much always put righteousness before the actual human being that God loves and that we should have consideration for.

 

Believe it or not, I consider my comments neutral.  Really.

[GoldenEagle]

I think both sides to the discussion have valid points. It's funny but I think we need to futher discuss vertical and horizontal grace. We are so thankful for God's grace (vertical) to us. But we often forget to give grace (horizontal) to others.

 

That is the difference (or at least should be) between us as Christians and the world. We're not to be known by our values, morals, or standards. We're to be known by our love for one another. (John 13:34-5)

With family you don't always like the person. But you do love them even if it's deep down inside. Loving someone doesn't always mean agreeing on everything. It also means we give them grace to learn and grow - even if it is at a different pace than what we're accostumed to. Ultimately we have to trust that God is working in their lives.

 

 

Grace comes to us in two dimensions: vertical and horizontal.

Vertical grace centers on our relationships with God. Freeing us from the demands and the condemnation of the Mosaic law, vertical grace gives us hope to the sinner by not only providing eternal life but also freeing us from any requirements to pay back God. Vertical grace is truly amazing!

Horizontal grace centers around our relationship with others. Relieved from our guilt and shame, we walk in grace, we’re free from the tyranny of pleasing people. We’re free from their demands and expectations, and they’re free from ours. When we can demonstrate horizontal grace, we accept others as they are. We have no personal agenda to make anyone be someone he or she is not. Horizontal grace is truly charming!

[firestormx]

Fire ~  this lady was a first time visitor to GE's church...I don't know if she was a believer or not, but perhaps she was moved by her own modesty?

 

You know, it's really not always the lovely young ladies that are out to 'get' a man or seduce a man...sometimes a woman has to dodge unwanted attention period.

 

I think we have an interesting scenario played out as described by GE...I think it shows that 2 men had the problem and if the young woman had to leave in the manner described,

then hello, they need a boot kicking.     a wake up call...an intervention...whatever.

 

As they saw someone already settled in a private moment, they may have done a courteous 180 and left. 

 

To put a bit of a bigger perspective on it, how about if there had been prayer in that corner.  Would they have interrupted THAT too and told the participants to 'take it to the prayer room?'

 

A 'religious' spirit will pretty much always put righteousness before the actual human being that God loves and that we should have consideration for.

 

Believe it or not, I consider my comments neutral.  Really.

Living the Word is a lot harder than talking about it. In another thread you started, I understand something you said, to be "sometimes we have a hard time seeing past ourselves". In my response to what GE posted I stated I thought the 2 men where wrong for the actions and the mother should not of had to move again. It's honestly not that I think " lovely young women are out to get men " but more along the lines of " being unaware of just how uncomfortable and unsettling situations like this can be on others". Her focus is on her child. As it should be. But that shouldn't come at the expense of others. The mother acted in a biblical way, the 2 men didn't. In no way did they show in action the love of God. I believe the true love of God is action, not just cheap words.

Edited August 13, 2013 by firestormx

[Sevenseas]

yes, I got that Fire.  But, did you notice my question regarding the different scenario?  Do you think they would have 'kicked out' (that is essentially what they did) a couple or even one person and

said 'take it to the prayer room' ?

 

I ask, because the more 'acceptable' prayer scenario leaves out the emotional responses engendered by the topic and helps to focus on the actions rather than engaging in the 'hot' topic

 

There are many things that may cause discomfort in another, so I believe it helps to focus on a general principal when the actual topic seems to tip the scales towards a knee jerk reaction.

 

That, is the purpose of my post.  

 

I am thinking of the 'excuse' of drawing from a supposed religious 'excuse' to hide something that really has no comparison to God's holiness but bares a likeness more to the

expression of man's idea of religion

 

And I am not focusing on anyone in this thread..just trying to poke a few brain cells with my questions 

[firestormx]

yes, I got that Fire.  But, did you notice my question regarding the different scenario?  Do you think they would have 'kicked out' (that is essentially what they did) a couple or even one person and

said 'take it to the prayer room' ?

 

I ask, because the more 'acceptable' prayer scenario leaves out the emotional responses engendered by the topic and helps to focus on the actions rather than engaging in the 'hot' topic

 

There are many things that may cause discomfort in another, so I believe it helps to focus on a general principal when the actual topic seems to tip the scales towards a knee jerk reaction.

 

That, is the purpose of my post.  

 

I am thinking of the 'excuse' of drawing from a supposed religious 'excuse' to hide something that really has no comparison to God's holiness but bares a likeness more to the

expression of man's idea of religion

 

And I am not focusing on anyone in this thread..just trying to poke a few brain cells with my questions 

Sorry I missed that question. I don't think they would have " kicked out " someone that was praying. Even if they did, I think they would have responded much differently. 1 thing your post got me to think about is this. How do others perceive what I'm saying? Just something I have a hard time seeing. 

 

God bless you Seven

[nebula]

 

 

I must confess what has been angering me in this discussion is the counter argument that has the underlying claim of: "Men are scumbags who can't control their lust. And catering to 'your brother's' lust problem is your number one priority in life."

 

While I am sure I will be given protests that this is not what is being said, this truly is the underlying message that comes across to me in what has been posted.

 

Hmm... I'm reading it differently.

 

I'm reading "I love my brother, therefore I will not make it easier for him to stumble". Driven by love, not a dim view on men.

 

I would have to agree though that I hate the image that men are just animals who can't control themselves, because it is offensive to my husband. I just don't think it is the driving attitude in this case.

 

 

 

Firestorm - Please answer the questions this time.

 

Is it loving to a mother to expect her to sit on a toilet to feed her baby? Would you eat your dinner on a public bathroom toilet? Would you feed your baby a bottle while sitting ona public toilet?

 

If a mother is in a restaurant with a baby and a toddler and no one else, is it loving to expect she walk out to the car or the bathroom to feed her baby? What does she do with the toddler?  What does she do with her things? What if she walks out with baby, toddler, and stuff, and then a bus boy clears her table thinking she left, when she wasn't done eating - or what if there is no wait staff to flag down to ask them to preserve the table for her?

 

 

 

The point is, I'm all for a woman nursing in private - if it's convenient and availiable. But anyone who suggests she sit on a toilet is very callous.

I'm all for a woman covering if she can. But as was mentioned before, it doesn't always work out. What do you do when a mother is nursing covered, and the baby grabs the blanket and lifts it up? Or what if it's a baby that simply refuses to nurse with a cover over its head? Are you going to advocate the mother not leave the house then because she can't nurse in a way that doesn't provoke lust?

 

The women I've seen breastfeeding without a blanket or cover still tried to be discreet about it - not trying to draw attention to themselves and doing what they could with their shirt to not expose more than was needed.

 

 

For that matter, when I mentioned to my husband about guys here claiming men are tempted with lust at seeing a woman breastfeeding without a cover, he gave a look of disgust and said something to the affect of, "Those guys [the ones lusting] have a problem."

[nebula]

It's honestly not that I think " lovely young women are out to get men " but more along the lines of " being unaware of just how uncomfortable and unsettling situations like this can be on others". Her focus is on her child. As it should be. But that shouldn't come at the expense of others.

 

I've heard someone say the "but" means "behold the underlying truth". That "but" there speaks loud and clear.

 

It still comes across as saying mothers should be more concerned about catering to a man's inability to crucify his lust problem than she should be concerned about her baby.

 

It also comes across as condeming these mothers as "flashers". No normal woman wants men staring at her breasts, yet your responses give the impression that these women don't care. That is just plain false.

[firestormx]

 

 

 

I must confess what has been angering me in this discussion is the counter argument that has the underlying claim of: "Men are scumbags who can't control their lust. And catering to 'your brother's' lust problem is your number one priority in life."

 

While I am sure I will be given protests that this is not what is being said, this truly is the underlying message that comes across to me in what has been posted.

 

Hmm... I'm reading it differently.

 

I'm reading "I love my brother, therefore I will not make it easier for him to stumble". Driven by love, not a dim view on men.

 

I would have to agree though that I hate the image that men are just animals who can't control themselves, because it is offensive to my husband. I just don't think it is the driving attitude in this case.

 

 

 

Firestorm - Please answer the questions this time.

 

Is it loving to a mother to expect her to sit on a toilet to feed her baby? Would you eat your dinner on a public bathroom toilet? Would you feed your baby a bottle while sitting ona public toilet?

 

If a mother is in a restaurant with a baby and a toddler and no one else, is it loving to expect she walk out to the car or the bathroom to feed her baby? What does she do with the toddler?  What does she do with her things? What if she walks out with baby, toddler, and stuff, and then a bus boy clears her table thinking she left, when she wasn't done eating - or what if there is no wait staff to flag down to ask them to preserve the table for her?

 

 

 

The point is, I'm all for a woman nursing in private - if it's convenient and availiable. But anyone who suggests she sit on a toilet is very callous.

I'm all for a woman covering if she can. But as was mentioned before, it doesn't always work out. What do you do when a mother is nursing covered, and the baby grabs the blanket and lifts it up? Or what if it's a baby that simply refuses to nurse with a cover over its head? Are you going to advocate the mother not leave the house then because she can't nurse in a way that doesn't provoke lust?

 

The women I've seen breastfeeding without a blanket or cover still tried to be discreet about it - not trying to draw attention to themselves and doing what they could with their shirt to not expose more than was needed.

 

 

For that matter, when I mentioned to my husband about guys here claiming men are tempted with lust at seeing a woman breastfeeding without a cover, he gave a look of disgust and said something to the affect of, "Those guys [the ones lusting] have a problem."

 

If it keeps a brother or sister from stumbling and falling into sin, then Yes. I'm not getting into an argument with you, which is all I think your trying to do. I answered most of what you are asking in post 212. Go read it. Quit acting like I said women should be slaves to men. Because I have never said no such thing. I receive everything you say as women can do whatever they want and if a weaker brother or sister stumbles then to bad, it's there problem.