**Update** Some people have been having difficulty commenting. Please type your comment in a different application and then copy and paste to the form. If it doesn't show, you can email it to me directly at daisyzombie@gmail.com and I will post it for you. Thank you!**
I recently was asked a question about the stance of the LDS
church on public breastfeeding, and more specifically, whether or not a
breastfeeding cover was a requirement for “modesty”. Like many issues
that we come up against in today’s society, the Church doesn’t have an
official stance that they have come out with. In such situations, I find
it helpful to look into Church doctrine, scripture, and other materials
distributed by the church to find evidence of the Church’s disposition
towards a certain practice. To be clear, I am in no way claiming to be a
spokesperson for the Church or for other members of the Church. All
views contained here are strictly my own.
The first place I came across where breastfeeding was portrayed was in the Church’s artwork, and in fact, it was almost the sole area where there is any information at all. There are multiple instances of women breastfeeding in LDS artwork, and I have put many of them here, along with links.
The illustration below is of an LDS church meeting in 1871 and was printed in the Harper’s Bazaar magazine. The meeting took place in the Mormon Tabernacle. The full image can be seen by clicking on the link, and is displayed in the LDS History Museum. Notice that there are two women breastfeeding in the front row.
http://rixarixa.blogspot.com/2010/08/breastfeeding-history-moment-lds.html
At Temple Square, a place which has been used constantly to tell others about our religion and what we believe in, the Seagull Monument contains an image depicting a woman breastfeeding. Not only is she “uncovered”, but her breast is exposed.
Source: http://shelleybeatty.com/travel/salt-lake-city-temple-square-the-temple-flowers-and-incredible-beauty/
This next picture is displayed in the LDS Cardston, Alberta temple, and there is a woman who is breastfeeding as Christ is teaching and has her breast fully exposed. There are two other babies shown in the nursing position, although some high quality close-ups provided to me by a friend show that it is disputable whether they are actually nursing. All artwork in the temples has to be approved by General Authorities. Click the link for better picture quality.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=32332e4d12fdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
A final picture, currently at the University of Utah, contributed by the LDS Museum of History and Art there is a painting containing an image of a pioneer woman breastfeeding. She can be seen in front of a wagon wheel, her breast is also exposed.
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/Utah_Artists/id/710
I’d like to make some points about these images. Firstly, the breastfeeding is happening in the presence of men, and men who are unrelated to the women. That is one argument that I have heard, to the effect of “It’s ok if you want to breastfeed, but not with MEN around.” Apparently there have been many times in the church’s history where MEN were perfectly comfortable with a mother seeing to her child’s needs and were able to refrain from uncomfortable behavior around her.
Secondly, none of the women are using any type of cover other than what their clothing naturally shields. The General Authorities have specified modesty to us even down to the number of earrings that a woman should wear, but they have made no mention of breastfeeding in any of these discussions of modesty.
Thirdly, no one seems to be uncomfortable in these pictures or seems to think anything of the fact that there are women breastfeeding. This shows that the behavior of these women was a normal culturally accepted behavior.
Lastly, and I think most importantly, these images are displayed in areas that General Authorities visit on a regular, and sometimes daily, basis. However, none of them have had anything to say about the “inappropriate” or “immodest” depictions of the women. These are not images that are hidden in rarely visited corners of the Church, but are prominently displayed and approved by church authorities to be displayed in this way.
These pictures show that there was a time when openly feeding your child at the breast was an accepted and natural occurrence for modest and devout members of the church. However, there’s seems to have been a change in the culture of the church in some areas to the extent that it is no longer seen as a modest and seemly practice by some members. Why did this change occur? What is different now in comparison to the past? Still searching in doctrine, I found this quote from A Parent’s Guide, which is a manual distributed to members of the Church to guide and direct parents in the rearing of their children.
A quote from A Parent’s Guide:
“The scriptures often refer respectfully but plainly to the body and its parts. There is no embarrassment and often there is sacred symbolism. It is the world that makes the divinely created body an object of carnal lust. For example, it makes the female breasts primarily into sexual enticements, while the truth is that they were intended to nourish and comfort children. It promotes male sexual aggression in contrast to Christ’s example of tenderness, long-suffering, kindness, and steadfastness in the home.
Shame about the human body, its parts and purposes, is justified only when a person uses it for carnal purposes. Teach your children that they will find joy in their bodies when they use them virtuously after the manner taught by Christ.”
https://www.lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-5-teaching-adolescents-from-twelve-to-eighteen-years?lang=eng
The perversion of the female breast being seen as a sexual object is not a new phenomenon. What has changed recently is our perspective of the breast when being properly used in the “nurturing and comforting of children.” Instead of appreciating and understanding this blessing from our Heavenly Father, our culture seems to be trending toward pushing embarrassment and shame onto mothers. So, in essence if our culture is moving in this direction then Satan is succeeding in changing the view that we should have of our OWN bodies to something contrary to the divine purpose appointed by God. This is in addition to also changing the definition of masculinity, from something steady and kind, to something predatory and aggressive.
From this change, two trains of thought among LDS women have sprung up. One mindset is that, because men have been taught that they are predatory and sexually driven, women feel that they need to protect themselves from men, and also protect men from their own carnal thoughts, by relying on conservatism in dress and behavior, thereby reducing opportunities for Satan’s temptations.
The other mindset is to resist Satan’s influence in our culture as a whole; to encourage resistance to temptation by seeing the female body from a heavenly and accurate perspective. They believe that by setting the example of treating their bodies as they were divinely designed to be treated is the most effective way of resisting Satan’s misdefinition of modesty and hope they will raise a generation that no longer holds the false ideas of the previous one.
It seems that the choice to cover or not to cover is an intensely personal one. According to my research, either choice is an appropriate one, and the most important thing is that we are respectful of each other’s choices. The authorities of the Church have been approached numerous times with a request to come out with a statement about breastfeeding and they have not. The only other direction that I could find besides that in A Parent’s Guide is a comment from LDS church spokesman Scott Trotter :
"Countless thousands of mothers have been accommodated in church for generations, simply by everyone observing common sense, discretion and respect."
There is a place in the Church for women who want to sit on the front row in Sacrament meeting and breastfeed their active toddler and a place for the mother who prefers the discreteness of a cover or a mother’s lounge. It is not an issue of modesty or sexuality, but one of comfort for both the mother and the child.
An additional thought: I don't wish for any of this to imply anything negative about those mothers for whom breastfeeding their children is not a viable option. How wonderful it is that God has provided us with the knowledge to create an alternative for all of the children who do not have access to breast milk for any reason!
The first place I came across where breastfeeding was portrayed was in the Church’s artwork, and in fact, it was almost the sole area where there is any information at all. There are multiple instances of women breastfeeding in LDS artwork, and I have put many of them here, along with links.
The illustration below is of an LDS church meeting in 1871 and was printed in the Harper’s Bazaar magazine. The meeting took place in the Mormon Tabernacle. The full image can be seen by clicking on the link, and is displayed in the LDS History Museum. Notice that there are two women breastfeeding in the front row.
http://rixarixa.blogspot.com/
At Temple Square, a place which has been used constantly to tell others about our religion and what we believe in, the Seagull Monument contains an image depicting a woman breastfeeding. Not only is she “uncovered”, but her breast is exposed.
Source: http://shelleybeatty.com/
This next picture is displayed in the LDS Cardston, Alberta temple, and there is a woman who is breastfeeding as Christ is teaching and has her breast fully exposed. There are two other babies shown in the nursing position, although some high quality close-ups provided to me by a friend show that it is disputable whether they are actually nursing. All artwork in the temples has to be approved by General Authorities. Click the link for better picture quality.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/
A final picture, currently at the University of Utah, contributed by the LDS Museum of History and Art there is a painting containing an image of a pioneer woman breastfeeding. She can be seen in front of a wagon wheel, her breast is also exposed.
http://content.lib.utah.edu/
I’d like to make some points about these images. Firstly, the breastfeeding is happening in the presence of men, and men who are unrelated to the women. That is one argument that I have heard, to the effect of “It’s ok if you want to breastfeed, but not with MEN around.” Apparently there have been many times in the church’s history where MEN were perfectly comfortable with a mother seeing to her child’s needs and were able to refrain from uncomfortable behavior around her.
Secondly, none of the women are using any type of cover other than what their clothing naturally shields. The General Authorities have specified modesty to us even down to the number of earrings that a woman should wear, but they have made no mention of breastfeeding in any of these discussions of modesty.
Thirdly, no one seems to be uncomfortable in these pictures or seems to think anything of the fact that there are women breastfeeding. This shows that the behavior of these women was a normal culturally accepted behavior.
Lastly, and I think most importantly, these images are displayed in areas that General Authorities visit on a regular, and sometimes daily, basis. However, none of them have had anything to say about the “inappropriate” or “immodest” depictions of the women. These are not images that are hidden in rarely visited corners of the Church, but are prominently displayed and approved by church authorities to be displayed in this way.
These pictures show that there was a time when openly feeding your child at the breast was an accepted and natural occurrence for modest and devout members of the church. However, there’s seems to have been a change in the culture of the church in some areas to the extent that it is no longer seen as a modest and seemly practice by some members. Why did this change occur? What is different now in comparison to the past? Still searching in doctrine, I found this quote from A Parent’s Guide, which is a manual distributed to members of the Church to guide and direct parents in the rearing of their children.
A quote from A Parent’s Guide:
“The scriptures often refer respectfully but plainly to the body and its parts. There is no embarrassment and often there is sacred symbolism. It is the world that makes the divinely created body an object of carnal lust. For example, it makes the female breasts primarily into sexual enticements, while the truth is that they were intended to nourish and comfort children. It promotes male sexual aggression in contrast to Christ’s example of tenderness, long-suffering, kindness, and steadfastness in the home.
Shame about the human body, its parts and purposes, is justified only when a person uses it for carnal purposes. Teach your children that they will find joy in their bodies when they use them virtuously after the manner taught by Christ.”
https://www.lds.org/manual/a-
The perversion of the female breast being seen as a sexual object is not a new phenomenon. What has changed recently is our perspective of the breast when being properly used in the “nurturing and comforting of children.” Instead of appreciating and understanding this blessing from our Heavenly Father, our culture seems to be trending toward pushing embarrassment and shame onto mothers. So, in essence if our culture is moving in this direction then Satan is succeeding in changing the view that we should have of our OWN bodies to something contrary to the divine purpose appointed by God. This is in addition to also changing the definition of masculinity, from something steady and kind, to something predatory and aggressive.
From this change, two trains of thought among LDS women have sprung up. One mindset is that, because men have been taught that they are predatory and sexually driven, women feel that they need to protect themselves from men, and also protect men from their own carnal thoughts, by relying on conservatism in dress and behavior, thereby reducing opportunities for Satan’s temptations.
The other mindset is to resist Satan’s influence in our culture as a whole; to encourage resistance to temptation by seeing the female body from a heavenly and accurate perspective. They believe that by setting the example of treating their bodies as they were divinely designed to be treated is the most effective way of resisting Satan’s misdefinition of modesty and hope they will raise a generation that no longer holds the false ideas of the previous one.
It seems that the choice to cover or not to cover is an intensely personal one. According to my research, either choice is an appropriate one, and the most important thing is that we are respectful of each other’s choices. The authorities of the Church have been approached numerous times with a request to come out with a statement about breastfeeding and they have not. The only other direction that I could find besides that in A Parent’s Guide is a comment from LDS church spokesman Scott Trotter :
"Countless thousands of mothers have been accommodated in church for generations, simply by everyone observing common sense, discretion and respect."
There is a place in the Church for women who want to sit on the front row in Sacrament meeting and breastfeed their active toddler and a place for the mother who prefers the discreteness of a cover or a mother’s lounge. It is not an issue of modesty or sexuality, but one of comfort for both the mother and the child.
An additional thought: I don't wish for any of this to imply anything negative about those mothers for whom breastfeeding their children is not a viable option. How wonderful it is that God has provided us with the knowledge to create an alternative for all of the children who do not have access to breast milk for any reason!
I love this! Thanks for your research and thoughts! If were going to have more babies or still breastfeeding, I'd probably not do too much different...but I may not be so scared to breastfeed in public, especially church. But now I'm able to teach my children how ok it is to see a breast while tending to a child. Completely normal and unashamed we should be...still not polite to stare though...that's just common sense.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff and very true. The other day I imagined how I will feel when my 2 year old son is 19 and goes on a mission and sees women "baring it all" while they breastfeed. And the answer came to me that I will feel nothing at all because he will have been raised seeing me breastfeed his siblings and know what the breast is for. It shouldn't cause him any more problems than it did the early Saints those pictures depict.
ReplyDeleteI love your last sentence! Thank you for reading!
Deletethis is perfect. I'm so glad someone's talking about this! Breastfeeding is not now, nor has it ever been sexual, and if someone thinks it is, shame on THEM, NOT shame on the mother! Well done, daisyzombie. I appreciate your strong example and your courage to talk about these things that seem to have taken on a taboo somewhere along the way.
ReplyDeleteIt's not fair that some breastfeeding moms feel OBLIGATED to hide in a room and miss out on church just in order to do a most natural, and not immodest, and not harmful to society, thing of feeding their babies. If a mother prefers a private place, that's fine, too, but we shouldn't be forced (either implicitly or explicitly) to feed our babies in a hideout, and thereby perpetuate this erroneous, dangerous, false propaganda and perception that breasts are for sex and not for feeding.
Great article! Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed this. Reposted to Mormon stories.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteAwesome. Thank you. I've sent it out to my husband's family and a couple of SILs on the Walker side. :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing it. :)
DeleteWell done! I think the few incidents we've heard about in various circles, or even one featured by the news media, where a woman sitting in LDS Church services was asked to move elsewhere or cover up were simply the poor discretion of the individual speaking to her. Not representative of Church in any official manner, and not even of the culture. Yesterday at Stake Conference I saw two women openly nursing their children, and I paid attention to others walking by them. No one flinched. Not a big deal - just feedin' the babe! Hopefully someday, articles like this will not even be needed or make any sense, because everyone understands and accepts breastfeeding as perfectly normal- even EXPECTED - anywhere, anytime.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think that sometimes well-intentioned individuals are poorly informed on the policies of the Church and that can create bad situations.
DeleteI love to hear these stories. It's easy to miss them because breastfeeding is normal and should be unexceptional. I hope the same as you that someday it won't be a big deal to anyone at all.
DeleteMy husband was very conservative and was really embarrassed if I nursed in public. So I honored him while he was around, but I never left RS to nurse, and just covered up in general public. It is funny, but when I see mothers nursing in church meetings he never notices it. One thing that we can learn from the letters of Paul is that culture makes a difference. If breastfeeding is viewed as nourishment then there is no problem being open in that culture, but as the world tries to make any show of the breast as sexual then it could be better to cover-up. In the spirit of love we would also do what is comfortable for those around us. Though it never hurts to share this information. Very interesting article.
DeleteI completely agree! I love what you said about the in the spirit of love we would also do what is comfortable to those around us.
DeleteWhat a very interesting article. As for myself, I find it refreshing and thorough. The matter is complex, in our current society. My husband was super uncomfortable with me bearing myself while breastfeeding and in at least one instance, our first baby, it led to a premature end to breastfeeding that child. I went on to have 6 children. Still, I find myself unable to make a solid conclusion about the matter. Many of our modern-day men suffer from pornography addictions which, in fact, have objectified the woman's body. It is uncomfortable for many of them, even tho it shouldn't be. Where to go with that? I'm not sure. I think for this reason, it is a space that is most appropriately left up to the individuals, as you have said. How I long for simpler times and simpler answers!
ReplyDeleteMany of our modern-day women suffer from pornography addictions, too. Breastfeeding isn't remotely sexual, and I actually doubt that porn-addicted men or women, as a whole, find breastfeeding to be sexy or attractive in a sexual manner. As a recovering pornography addict myself, I have seen some pretty horrifying stuff in the porn world, but I have never seen a breastfeeding woman in a normal setting be included in pornography pictures or videos. Because it's not pornographic. Ever.
DeleteAlso, I admit with some shame that when I was most active in my pornography addiction, I found public breastfeeding to be repulsive. When I was so used to seeing the female breast as a sexual object, seeing it being used as something functional and NOT sexual seemed backward to me, repulsive even, and annoying. I'm sad with myself for ever thinking that, but my point is that as a raging pornography addict, breastfeeding was never sexually attractive for me, but the opposite. I imagine that other addicts would have a similar response. While I was totally wrong about breastfeeding being repulsive, the reasons I found it repulsive indicate to me that the reason people struggle with public breastfeeding is because they struggle with rewiring their brains to believe that the female breast/body is NOT, in fact, an object of sex for a man, or for a woman. One good way to begin to reverse this false belief is to breastfeed in public, I think.
I agree with the above reply. A person with a sexual addiction, who is in true recovery, will direct lust thoughts to their higher power, pray for the individual who they are lusting after (that the person they are lusting after will have all the things they need in their life, not that they will change what they are doing), and/or tell their sponsor/others in their program of recovery (to deal with their own issue, not to focus on the person they are lusting after). They should not put the responsibility of their lust or recovery on others, as that is not real recovery. This is in the literature of one of the 12 step programs of recovery for sexual addiction:
Delete"Whenever I'd catch a likely image in the corner of my eye, instead of obeying the impulse to look and drink, I'd keep looking straight ahead while praying for that person. It might be a simple, 'God bless her and give her what she needs.' Or, depending on the intensity of the lust stimulus, it might be more fervent: 'God bless her and make her a blessing; Thy will be done in her life.'"
Since breastfeeding is not a sexual act, but the nourishing of a child, anyone with a problem it's their problem. The person with a problem is fetishizing the breast to the point that the breast is no longer viewed for it's intended evolutionary/God made purpose. If a person with a sexual addiction is new to recovery and/or is have an intense problem with turning the lust thoughts over to their higher power, the person with the problem lusting should leave the area--as they are the one with the problem. They could then use that time to connect with their higher power and/or connect with another person in their program of recovery. The world cannot run on making it "safe" for a person with a sexual addiction to function, as every addiction is exhibited in a different manner.
I can definitely see where you're coming from with your comment. My husband has made comments about being "turned on" while watching me nurse. Not so much because I am nursing but because my breast is exposed. I think knowing that it makes it awkward for me to feel comfortable nursing in public. I wouldn't want some creepo leering at my breasts or the rest of my body in a sexual way.
DeleteAnd that does go back to women feeling like they need to protect their bodies from men, and I wish I didn't feel that way, but I do.
My husband struggles with a pornography addiction and he does find, at least with me, breastfeeding as a sexual turn on. I struggled with being able to breastfeed my children because of this. Only with my fourth child have a been able to breastfeed in public, covered, but out in the open. I didn't realize how his perversion had affected my ability to provide food for my children until I read this article and the comments.
DeleteSome people find ankles, or a particular type of hair to be a turn on. That doesn't mean I'm going to wear a burka. Other people lusting after me is their problem, not mine. I have no consideration for it. I dress modestly for myself and my God.
DeleteA very interesting article, and I was impressed by the artwork (and the research, thank you!). I'm not passionate either way with breastfeeding, but I do think the body-shaming is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting how our society emphasizes the "importance" of thinness in women and the sexualization of the breast--it's like the adversary is distinctly attacking the bearing and nurturing of children. That's a clever way to try and thwart God's plan, if you ask me.
Thank you for the post; definitely sharing this one.
Thank you for the positive feedback!
DeleteI strongly believe that breastfeeding in public should be accepted. But I also believe that breasts have a divine dual purpose. I don't think it's coincidental that we are the only species in the animal kingdom that has full breasts when we don't have milk. The explanation for this must be sexual, i.e. an evolutionary indicator of 'reproductive fitness'. I think society has warped it way beyond the scope of natural, but I DO think breasts were also meant to be sexual and you can't blame people for feeling uncomfortable about them. But no matter what, feeding babies is their primary function, so other people will just have to deal with it. BOOBIES!
DeleteI totally agree, Susie Q. They have 2 purposes, each separate. And I love it.
DeleteIt is a perfectly natural thing to do, breastfeeding is the way that the Lord intended for us to feed our children, there are some of us that cannot do this so they have to improvise which is perfectly acceptable also.
DeleteLove it,you have a great outlook and perspective. As a mom in the 60's and 70's I was often the ONLY breastfeeding woman in the hospital with no professional or family or community support at all. and that's the only WOMAN, much less only LDS woman. I was happy to be unusual in that respect and have two daughters who have been and are strong breastfeeding advocates who at times are able to influence and help others.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I totally support those mothers who are not able to nurse for whatever reason, and I really know what that's like since my daughter who is the most public about breastfeeding and being an advocate would not breastfeed AT ALL right from the beginning! We waited almost a week and she began to become listless and the pediatrician said " Go to the store right now and get the formula that is pre-bottled and ready to feed and give it to her in the car!" We did, she drank the whole thing and thrived heartily her whole babyhood on that formula.
I so much wish we could be public in feeding our little ones now such as it was in your pics!! I feel badly that our little ones miss out on just being fed when and where they need it. I have hope that our LDS society will see it this way. Thanks for publishing this important news!
I'm not LDS or religious so my comment may have no relevance here but I love this conversation. To cover or not to cover? Usually we're talking about whether or not to breastfeed in public at all but I'm happy to say "duh" and move on to the next question.
ReplyDeleteMy daughter isn't quite three months old and before she was born I knew I'd have no problem breastfeeding in public (if anyone else took issue with it is was their problem, not mine) but I wasn't sure how I would feel about using a cover. I assumed I would simply b/c I didn't want to expose myself to random people, men or women, b/c I wasn't sure how my husband would react to me being exposed and b/c I didn't want to make friends uncomfortable.
But now that I have some public breastfeeding sessions under my belt I can say with confidence that covers suck. This summer has been the hottest on record and it feels like a million degrees under that thing when it's hot outside. My baby will sometimes nurse without issue but other times she gets distracted by the cover and other times I can tell it's just so dang hot she gets too uncomfortable concentrate on eating. With that in mind I came to the following conclusion: If I feel like using a cover I will, if I don't, I won't. And everyone around me can just deal with it. My friends will get used to it and my husband agrees it's my territory and he supports whatever I choose to do. I'll be respectful of others of course, but feeding my baby and keeping her healthy and happy are my number one concerns. Period.
Great blog. Very interesting topic.
Jill, your comment is definitely relevant, regardless how you feel about religion. It's about women being seen as whole people with good bodies that are used for good things. Our legs walk, our ears hear, our mouths eat and talk, our arms hold and carry, our breasts nourish and comfort.
DeleteI have no problem with anyone using a cover. I have personally used a cover in many circumstances, sometimes for the comfort of others even though I felt comfortable enough without one. I don't usually use a cover, though, and I don't think it should ever be expected, as different children and mothers have different needs. Some kids refuse to be covered. A lot of moms hate to be covered, too, especially when it's hot like you mentioned. Why can't it just be a matter of live and let live, you know?
Where's the "like" button on this thing? :)
DeleteInteresting point, but I still think it's a little selfish to only think about yourself and not take into account the feelings of others.
DeleteI think that this does have relevancy to women and men with different or no religious beliefs. If the LDS church, which is known for its severe (comparatively) conservatism, is displaying artwork of women breastfeeding in its most conservative areas, a woman without a need to adhere to the doctrine should be able to feel very comfortable breastfeeding in public.
DeleteBridgette -- It is NOT selfish to breastfeed your child in public. The whole point is that there is nothing shameful or irresponsible or problematic about feeding your child in public. Anyone who has "feelings" about that needs to see a therapist to work through those "feelings."
DeleteI am sorry but I agree with Bridgette to a point. Why does it always have to be forced down the publics throat that the public either deal with it and be "politically correct" or it is "our" issue and it can't be the breast feeders problem? I have no problem with mothers feeding their babies in public but I do have a problem with their breasts being fully exposed. There are parents of children who have never seen this behavior...so those parents are forced to explain or try to keep their child from staring. There are still a lot of parents who teach modesty and that no one should show a naked sexual body part, breasts being one of them because you cannot deny that breasts are also a tool in the act of sex. To deny that is preposterous. I would not want any child to feel embarrassment by seeing this. What about 13-15 year old boys with raging hormones who have never seen this and all of a sudden a women is sitting there with her breast out ready to nurse. You can't tell me that this is not making them uncomfortable. These poor boys get a boner when they see a cleavage. I just don't understand why all the rest of the world has to change to accommodate the breast feeder. I have no problem with there being rooms for breastfeeding mothers that are not bathrooms. But to just openly display your breasts and tell me I am the one with the issue and I am the one who needs to see a therapist is just wrong and one sided. All throughout my days no woman breastfed in public and even at family events those mothers went to a bedroom to nurse in private. I also don't understand why women don't pump and bring a bottle with them if they are going to be going somewhere when it will be nursing time. It is still YOUR milk. The public does not have to feel the pangs of your "needing to feel the closeness or the bonding" when we are talking about just those few times out in public. You have a whole lot more time at home when you can do that close bonding. Don't involve me in that. I am a shy woman. I did not nurse my children just because of that reason. And seeing a naked breast embarrasses me in mixed company. I don't think it is a sickness, nor is it a physiological issue. You can't make me unshy and to force me to accommodate your openness is unfair to me and all the other modest women like me. First time responding to something like this but I had to. I have heard way too much of this topic. These paintings, too. Did you ever stop to think that these paintings were not real scenes the painter was looking at but they came from his own imagination therefore putting that in there was done by his own choice, not by what he actually sees. There is no proof otherwise so don't assume until you know for sure.
DeleteYou didn't breastfeed because you're "shy"? I'm sorry but in my experience that is a problem needing therapy. To be that embarrassed and unsure about your body it's a wonder you even got pregnant because that would require having sex and if you're shy about breastfeeding then sex must be really scary.
Deletethe point is not whether or not the paintings are real scenes. The point is this art is in our temples, on Temple Square, in our literature. Public breastfeeding is clearly not a big deal to our Church leaders if they approve this art in our sacred locations.
DeleteNot that anonymous will see this, but some babies won't drink pumped breast milk because some women produce too much lactase in their milk and so the milk tastes like soap if it had been pumped. My sister deals with this, which is hard for her since she is also a working mom who sometimes has to leave my niece with a babysitter. If she does pump the milk she has to scald it beforehand, but not let it boil. So to pump before church isn't really going to work for her.
DeleteShe has more nursing shirts than I do where her breast isn't even exposed, and yet her last bishop asked her to not nurse in the chapel. I forgot to mention that she has a husband who struggles with his testimony and attending church, so to send her off to the mother's room only further isolates her from active members, especially since she doesn't live in the Mormon Corridor.
I had a baby who would not drink from a bottle after 4 months of age. Period. Every child is different, every circumstance is different. I was never comfortable nursing in public until my current baby. I really didn't have a choice, even in church. I have three children 5 and under, and my husband is deployed. So I either pick up my entire family and waltz out during sacrament meeting, or I stay there and discreetly feed my baby. As an independent woman, with a limited support system, it is hard to have life come to a complete stand still every time I feed my baby. Yes, I nursed and walked to school to pick up my son today. I covered most of it up with a burp cloth, because that's what I'm comfortable with.
DeleteLike.
ReplyDeleteI love this so much. I have a two month old and this is my first baby and first experience breastfeeding. I agree with this article entirely. It's a natural healthy thing, and best for your baby. My dad told me that he read a story about two general authorities that were in a foreign country and had their wives with them. They went to sacrament meeting and some of the women were breastfeeding without covers in sacrament and the wives of the authorities didn't know how to react and were stunned, but the general authorities said, it's perfectly natural and not to look at them weird or make them feel uncomfortable. All you are doing is feeding a baby; plain and simple. Thanks again great article.
ReplyDelete"the wives of the authorities didn't know how to react and were stunned" I think it makes women more uncomfortable than it makes men.
DeleteI would love to get a reference on that quote; anyone can make things up on the internet, but I would truly like to believe this quote is true.
DeleteI wish this article was around when I was confronted about nursing 3 years ago at a mid-singles fireside. I was accused of showing skin and arousing the single men there. There was ONE man sitting next to me across the isle. If he caught a glimpse of anything it was while I was adjusting. It was a big deal. I finally went to the area authority who told me be discrete and aware of others feelings but by all means feed your baby! You wrote a beautiful article with gorgeous artwork. I hope many more leaders read this blog. Knowledge is power! Power that I want my children armed with. Thank you for sharing this!
ReplyDeleteLove this. thank you for sharing your talent of writing and your thoughts. perfect :)
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for including that last paragraph. All of these recent articles about breastfeeding often make me feel like a second-rate mother for not being able to with my three littles. Thank you for being kind to mothers who choose not to breastfeed for one reason or another!
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate your research... it's very interesting. However I don't think that these art samples are proof that the church leans toward non-covering. My husband's an artist as well as much of my family and his... One of his aunts even paints the murals for many of the temples. I love art, I collect it and have studied it a great deal. I think the breast feeding aspects of these pieces were more to communicate the emotional fullness of the situations depicted. The breast feeding as well as the other vignettes have to be obvious to communicate what's happening. (A covered breast feeding woman would just look like a full figured gal :))
ReplyDeleteArt you know isn't always literal, nor should we try to glean life style choices from the beautiful forms presented. "The David" is beautiful and a replica was exhibited at the Museum of Art on the BYU Provo Campus... but it wouldn't do for men to pose that way too publicly :)
I think breast feeding is beautiful. It touches my heart to see the joy in that mother-child relationship and my own nurturing of my children occupies my dearest memories. But, I do think it's inappropriate to bare all in public. It is immodest. You are showing what every handbook of the church and any general conference talk on the subject proclaims is meant to be covered. We don't wear sleeveless shirts or mid-driffs and baring your whole breast is not excused because a baby is attached.
The world didn't make breasts sexual. They just are. Just as a well-scuplted manly chest is sexy and a pair of tight buns. These were sexual from the time Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and they were commanded to be clothed. Even I feel uncomfortable seeing a woman bare-all in breastfeeding... I'm a happily married heterosexual woman (so obviously I'm not turned on by it) but modesty has been drilled into me all my life and seeing a woman's breasts sends up those warning flags to leave, to turn away, to seek a more wholesome setting (as we're taught with R rated movies, in friend conversations, in everything)... I can't turn off that discomfort just because there's a baby present.
A woman breastfeeding uncovered at church is a distraction from the meeting and would take away from the spiritual focus of those around. Despite what the mother feels is her God-given right and God-ordained purpose it still doesn't change how it's viewed and perceived by all else in the room. It's preachy and unkind for a mom to force her more liberal perspective on those around her, perhaps trying to teach a lesson. You can still have you're beautiful moment with your child, just keep it sacred. Cover-up when in public
PDA is a great example of something wonderful that can be taken to a distracting extreme. Or how you let your two year old run naked at home, but not in the chapel. Or how you wear a swimsuit to the beach but not at church. These things are great and have their place.
Motherhood is the most exhalted of callings, but not all aspects of it are meant to be publicly shared.
I truly enjoyed reading your thoughts and perspective, they helped me understand better why some of my dearest friends have your same point of view. This is an important issue that touches woman deeply one way or another.
I don't think that breastfeeding without a cover makes you 'liberal' just like I don't think breastfeeding with a cover makes you 'conservative'....I honestly couldn't care less who sees me breastfeed because I think seeing it normalizes it, yet I always use a cover simply because my baby gets distracted by all the movement & things to see, disrupting mealtime, without one.
DeleteAlso, my personal opinion is that fabric, historically, has been a hot commodity & people probably didn't have easy access to it for making non-essential nursing aprons, therefore I'd be surprised if nursing mothers crossing the plains or living on islands or anywhere else actually covered the action of breastfeeding. I think that the USA is a lot more weird about seeing people breastfeed than almost every other nation on earth, LDS or otherwise. I'm not sure why this is. And I agree with the above comments that seeing breasts perform the function for which they were created (providing nourishment to infants & young children) is not sexy. Any man (or woman) who is uncomfortable getting accidentally flashed by someone breastfeeding must be uncomfortable at the mall, seeing billboards on the highway, or walking past magazines at the grocery store checkout.
I believe that daisyzombie is saying that breastfeeding may make people uncomfortable because they feel it is immodest, however, it is not immodest, but the way people are taught some people still perceive that, when it isn't true. My husband's mother was so concerned with "modesty" in the way she was taught that she used to go out to her car to nurse, she even felt uncomfortable nursing in the Mother's Lounge. Is it any surprise that she nursed her children for only a short time period, only until she felt they could handle milk? When I had a second son I had to make the decision whether or not to nurse in front of my older son and I did a lot of research and talked to other moms I trusted. I saw that the moms who breastfed in front of their sons made it a normal behavior. To this day my son believes that breasts are for feeding babies. And someday society will tell him something else but what better foundation to give my son than to not make him uncomfortable seeing a baby being fed, hopefully someday his own wife, to whom he will be a great support. For the same reasons I have sent my son with my husband to Young Men's because I think it is a perfect opportunity for the young men, many of whom do not have father figures in our ward, to see a wonderful father/son relationship, what a great example to see it instead of just talking about it. I have had several friends nurse their children uncovered at church events and it did not distract from the Spirit of the meeting at all. I was glad that they did not have to miss out on the meetings as mothers. They have just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. It was also a wonderful example at a Relief Society Evening Meeting (with men present) to the women who were newly married and starting families to have friends nursing their children (with and without covers) to bring up the topic of breastfeeding and to show them they would not be rejected from a meeting to care for their baby. What the pictures above depict is exactly what the author of this blog wrote, THIS IS NORMAL. No one is being harmed. Is it any surprise that it took this long to invent "specialized nursing covers." They wore aprons back in the day, I'm sure they could have figured out the simple invention of a nursing cover but it was not needed or wanted. Women were having babies and they needed to feed the babies and the men were used to it. I'm sure there was next to no privacy on the plains or elsewhere. I'm sure the meetinghouses were sweltering in the summer (no air conditioning) and the thought of draping a blanket over a baby could have been deadly. And I'm sure they didn't have huge buildings that would accommodate a separate room for mothers. In the U.S. and some other countries we have that luxury today, but that is still not so for many other countries. I love the comment above about the mother thinking of her son serving a mission. Many other countries have not ostracized nursing women. For many meetings women are still unable to participate if they feel the need to go to a separate room to nurse. They don't broadcast the Relief Society meeting or any other than Sacrament meeting. Many women have callings as well that they are doing their best to perform but feel they must miss part of class or an activity to nurse. And we shouldn't. We have just as much a right to participate as anyone else. And there is NOTHING in the church doctrine stating otherwise. If anything, as the author of the blog suggested, it is encouraged, even celebrated in our history. As it should be.
DeleteWhat about a man who has an overactive bladder that must take several bathroom breaks during a meeting? I don't think he should have to miss any of the meeting either. I think he should be able to pull out his penis and urinate into a bottle. And shame on anyone who might see this as distracting during the meeting. It is their problem. Urinating is a very natural thing and in no way sexual. And don't try to ask him to use a catheter and bag so that people don't have to see his penis while urinating.........it's too cumbersome and uncomfortable. He has a right to enjoy the meeting just like everyone else. Shame on anyone who wouldn't support him doing this in the front row! I bet the pioneers urinated in front of one another, being how little privacy there was.
Delete^ Well said, well said. Though, you probably shouldn't have felt the need to hide behind an anonymous profile.
Delete"Any man (or woman) who is uncomfortable getting accidentally flashed by someone breastfeeding must be uncomfortable at the mall, seeing billboards on the highway, or walking past magazines at the grocery store checkout."
DeleteConsidering most billboards and magazine covers feature immodestly dressed women (which I deem to be Pornographic) I should hope that would make both men and women uncomfortable. They should be uncomfortable when they are being subjected to pornographic images that objectify and belittle women rather than uplift, cherish, and beautify them.
So I assume that if you feel a woman should cover her feeding child, you won't mind eating with a blanket over your head. After all, the mouth can also be sexual, and someone might get distracted by you snacking on Cheerios during the service because you're being too darn sexy. And if this sounds ridiculous, so is the comparison of breastfeeding to public urination. By that logic, all nursing babies should have to eat in a stall. Feeding a child is not unsanitary or immodest.
DeleteSeriously, how much skin do people think the average nursing mother shows? When I feed my baby I have a tank top underneath, a shirt above, and I'd be very surprised if anyone saw anything. If you are "distracted" by a woman breastfeeding, are you next going to demand head covers so you aren't distracted by women's hair? Or a face mask so you don't get distracted by a woman's eyes or mouth? Christ didn't say "If a man looketh after a woman to lust after her he should ask her to cover up more". Your mind is your own perogative.
Firstly, it is illegal for you to pee in that situation, and it is not illegal to breastfeed, so there is a huge difference between the two acts.
DeleteSecondly, my argument is that the Parents Guide statement about the sexualization of breasts and its primary purpose to nurture and comfort children, in combination with LDS artwork depicting a normalized acceptance of breastfeeding, is what gives us the opinion that breastfeeding was normalized and has been shifted through shame in American culture. If you could provide artwork depicting men urinating in bottles during sacrament meeting, as well as comments from the church authorities that the penis is being improperly sexualized by our culture, then the analogical argument may have some ground. If not, your argument is invalid.
Beth,
DeleteIf a woman baring her breasts in public were more common, then it wouldn't be as taboo or distracting. In cultures where there isn't a stigma attached to breastfeeding people aren't as concerned about it.
However, we do not live in one of those cultures. It is very uncommon to see a woman breastfeeding without some sort of cover therefore, it is a distraction. (particularly to people who are not used to seeing that.. ever)
Oh and, if a woman came wearing a face mask to an LDS sacrament meeting that would be distracting as well. Modesty is important.
Neither breastfeeding nor mask-wearing have anything to do with modesty. ???
DeleteMr. Lezette, if I may be so bold, do breastfeeding mothers turn you on? Are you unfairly aroused by the sight of an uncovered breastfeeding mother?
I suppose it's possible, but if you are, I would argue that the fault does not belong to the mother, AT ALL. There is a time and a place for breasts to be bared, and in those times and places, it is not immodest.
Would a man be aroused by seeing a woman give birth? I highly doubt it, but I supposed it's possible, and again, the fault would belong to the man. (I'm saying "man," though I'm aware women could also be so aroused, if indeed a man could be, because it's easier to keep track of my comment by separating the genders). Now, it's almost never appropriate for a woman to wander around in nothing covering her below the belly, except maybe an open gown or something else that would leave her vagina easily accessible. However, if she is about to give birth, and then WHILE she gives birth, it is appropriate for her to bare that part of her body, in order to allow nature to take its course. No one tells her she needs to cover up. She is not being immodest. Sure, women generally give birth in hospitals or birthing centers, but many give birth at home, and most people honor her choice of where to be mostly naked in order to bring the baby into the world.
Childbirth is not sexual, EVEN THOUGH the body parts used for childbirth are some of the same ones used for sex.
My point is, even IF breasts are sexual, there is at least one time and place when they're NOT. And that is when breasts are used for their primary function- to feed children. Just as it's MY choice to have my babies wherever I please, provided I don't cause extra harm to the BABY, it is also MY choice to care for that baby wherever I please, so long as I'm not harming the BABY. The only people who should matter when it comes to feeding a child are the person feeding the child, and the child. No one else gets to say. It's mind boggling to me why people think they get to say. Why should anyone else tell me how to use my breasts?
Besides that, as has been discussed, most women are very good at breastfeeding while not showing any skin, even without a cover. Breastfeeding women aren't out there trying to draw attention to their breasts. If you are bothered, look away. If you are turned on, get some help. If you're not turned on, what's the problem?
LOVE your comment Stephanie.
DeleteWhy can women just take this opportunity to enjoy their child and display it just because they can. Let's face it girls boobs and sex are real. I myself would prefer not to see your boobs while I'm trying to enjoy a meeting or walking in the mall. It's your time with your baby not for all to see. Yippee you can breastfeed -- good for you. Now lets have some dignity to go with it!
DeleteI love the first comment that started this, the peeing one, because that was one of my thoughts, and this last comment. NO breastfeeding doesn't turn people on, but why would you want to bear all in front of everyone? Makes no sense to me. And how is it a modesty issue? Because like the comment above said, if we are to not even expose our backs, shoulders, and chest, then what makes it okay to show our breasts? Even if we are feeding our children? This shouldn't be a topic to argue about. Breastfeeding is great. It is natural. BUT IT CAN BE DONE RESPECTFULLY AND WITH MODESTY.
DeleteIt Can be done respectfully and with modesty....if your baby consistently agrees with the cover. Personally, I used a cover for my two children, because I was forced to by the societal expectations of those around me (With my next child, this will not be the case.) However, I refused to hide myself in a bathroom when I did not have access to a mothers' lounge or something similar and my children fought their covers as they gained the use of their arms. I was not about to make my baby wait for hours, or even an hour when she was hungry and cranky, so yep, I bared my breast to nourish my child. Because it CANNOT ALWAYS be done with everyone's expectations of modesty. Get over it.
DeleteAnonymous, your comment is based on the false assumption that breastfeeding without a cover = baring it all. Many shirt and undershirt styles allow for you to be completely covered while feeding the baby without an extra nursing cover. The baby's face will cover the rest and whatever peeks out is just skin nowhere near the nipple.
DeleteUm . . . no one is being comforted, fed, or otherwise nurtured by a man peeing in a bottle. Bad analogy.
DeleteA better analogy would be men exercising their priesthood in public. Oh, wait . . . they do.
Love it, SilverRain! Rain on...
DeleteYes! SilverRain has hit the nail on the head!
Deletei think that breasts were made BOTH for nourishing children and for sexual pleasure. because of this, i think the transitional moments during breastfeeding when a breast is exposed (i.e. without a baby attached) could potentially be distracting. and i don’t think that potential distraction should necessarily be called objectification because i believe the male body was also made to react sexually to a woman’s breast. (i could go on at length about how society has taken this out of context, but i won’t…) some women have special breastfeeding powers and can perform the overwhelming feat of attaching a child to a breast without flying blankets and all sorts of fidgeting and disturbing noises. they are able to keep those transitional moments during breastfeeding discrete. but for people like me who have now ineptly breastfed four babies, there is a mother’s room. i don’t feel banished by going there at all—there are comfortable chairs and an audio system that’s playing what’s happening in the church meeting so i don’t miss anything…
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved your article! I am a huge breast milk advocate (my l.o. received bm for seven months) but I also loved your line about the blessing of formula today. What an uplifting article!
ReplyDeleteThis is all quite bemusing to me. I breastfed two of my children (the eldest never took to it and had to be bottle fed) until they were almost 3 years old. It wasn't until I went to the US that I saw a woman who had thrown a blanket over her shoulder to hide the fact that she was breastfeeding, and I was amazed. What a strange and bizarre thing to do - surely it was uncomfortable for the baby, and suggested that something was going on under there that was terrible and had to be hidden!
ReplyDeleteI fed my children in our busy high street, on trains, just wherever I happened to be when they were fussing. And yes, I am LDS and I fed my children in the front row at Sacrament meeting, and no one batted an eyelid. Where did this strange idea come from that breastfeeding needs to be hidden? Because happily it hasn't made it across the Atlantic yet.
I think that your "research" should have included some literary references.. eye witness accounts, journals etc. The depiction of women openly breastfeeding in art could simply be an aesthetic decision. Even though reason would suggest that bare breast feeding was more common during pioneer times, you can not possibly tell what the men around these women with exposed breasts were thinking based on these paintings. An exposed breast is an exposed breast. It doesn't matter what or whom is attached to it. You wouldn't attend church with a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, so why would you think it wise to expose the same amount of your breast? Yes it is natural but it is also a distraction, and not just for men.
ReplyDeleteHer "research" also included the fact that there is no Church statement demanding or even implying covers for breastfeeding mothers as a requirement for modesty. My husband served a mission in Chile where mothers regularly breastfed in the meetings and NOBODY CARED. So are the Saints in Chile less proper or modest? Do they have it all wrong? Or maybe we can consider that our discomfort with nursing is one of many culturally constructed feelings that gets leached into the Church until we think it's doctrine when it isn't. If a man is staring at me while I nurse, waiting to catch the 1 second potential glimpse of skin, we have issues, and it isn't my breastfeeding.
DeleteIf breastfeeding in public is so offensive, I fail to see how it would ever be included in art for aesthetic reasons, especially in temples, the most sacred places on Earth for the LDS. And I have a pretty good idea as to why it is difficult to find breastfeeding mentioned in written texts from pioneer times. Breastfeeding was as common as drinking a cup of water or eating a meal. It was a part of every day life. People had a lot of kids. Obviously most were breastfed, as there were very few options otherwise. Were pioneer women supposed to hide somewhere to breastfeed while the rest of their family carried on with everything else? Many times, the woman was the head of the family, if her husband was away or dead. Would she duck out from everything for half the day cumulatively to nurse her baby? I seriously doubt this. Their lives didn't allow for such inconvenience.
DeleteAs far as the "an exposed breast is an exposed breast" idea goes, I have to disagree with you. There is nothing sexy about breastfeeding. If someone looks at breastfeeding and is aroused by it, there are problems there, and I don't mean to offend by this statement, but I think it is true. When you say "an exposed breast is an exposed breast", you are detaching that breast from the woman to whom it belongs. It is no longer a part of her, and it is a thing to be acted upon. This is the objectification of the breast. Breasts are a sexual component. I won't argue that. But they are more than just a sexual component. Can they not have multiple functions? Mouths can also be a sexual component, depending on the context. Should we hide them when we're doing the other things we're meant to do with them, too? Men and women are responsible for their own thoughts and actions. If you see a woman nursing, and the potential sight of their breast is going to make things difficult for you, then don't look at her. No one is making you look at her, and you don't need to do it. However, she does have to feed her baby.
Beth I think it's important to take into account different cultures. Chile is different than the US. Not better or worse, but different. Things that may be OK there, may not be here.
DeleteThe point is, however, that if it was doctrinal, then the members in Chile (and everywhere else) would be told to cover up. Church doctrine doesn't just apply to certain regions. You can say that it is a cultural norm, that is something that the article has already stated and that doesn't seem to be debated. This article was discussing whether it was something that the Church has a stance on, which, if it did, would have to be church-wide.
DeleteOur culture is drastically different from pioneer times and from other countries where bare breastfeeding is more common. The Church probably won't make a statement to the effect of "All women must either cover themselves or excuse themselves if they are feeding their child" because as you mentioned, we are a world wide church, and that policy would make zero sense in a place like Ghana.
DeleteHowever, use some common sense. It is generally not acceptable in the US to whip out a private part in church. They are called our "privates" for a reason. They should be shared with only our spouse. If you want to expose yourself in church fine go ahead, but don't get all bent out of shape when some teenage boy starts gawking cause he's never seen a boob before.
I have to disagree, David. The law in 45 states and most of the US territories protects a woman's right to breastfeeding publicly, wherever she and her child otherwise have a right to be. None of those laws stipulate that she must cover. The church doesn't have an official stance on it, because it doesn't actually fall under the category of modesty, however a mother chooses to feed her baby. Satan has been very clever in changing American society's view on public breastfeeding and its acceptability over the last hundred years, and it may take a hundred to change it back to where it should be, but change it back we must, if we want to support breastfeeding at all and all of the public health benefits that go along with it. The only way to change it is to do it: nurse in public. The more people see it, the more normal it will become for everyone.
DeleteAnd though I've nursed four children to toddlerhood, I still can't whip my breasts, out, in, or any direction, and nearly every time I've read that phrase, I have tried.
I doubt anyone is bent out of shape by gawking teenage boys. We are just upset when uninformed local leaders tell us that we are violating our temple covenants or being immodest when the Church has said no such thing. It happened to me.
DeleteI have found, in my life experiences, that Satan is lazy. He likes to use the the simplest tools to the greatest effects. Remember the parable a General authority told years ago about the wedge in the tree. The wedge is a simple and yet effective tool. Often times Satan uses people as wedges. He uses their own sinfulness and weaknesses against them and others. I see this with the topic of mothers breastfeeding. It is normal, natural, modest and wholesome. It is an essential blessing and gift he endowed His beloved daughters with. Satan wants breastfeeding to be embarrassing, shameful, disgusting, immodest and Satan is doing a great job of sexualizing, objectifying and oppressing women, the Daughters of God. He will not stop doing this because Satan understands the sacred role of Motherhood and the divine purpose of women. It threatens everything he is trying to achieve. And because breastfeeding is sacred, wholesome, modest and the way that Heavenly Father INTENDED for babies and small children to be fed Satan will use his simplest tools to fight against breastfeeding and the women who choose to nurture their children that way. Anyone who has a problem with a woman breastfeeding any where is the person who is in the wrong and anyone who approaches a woman to shame or admonish her are acting as Satan's simple tool. It's their shameful, wrong and immoral opinions that they are trying to project on another person limiting the agency that God gave them. * Just to clarify... My comments are in NO way meant to imply any judgement on women who for what ever reason use formula instead of breast milk for their children. These are personal decisions made for personal reasons that only that woman knows. With my oldest, I struggled for 5 months to try to breastfeed her. My child had some medical difficulties and i had no support in breastfeeding. I switched her at 5 months to formula. My second child I nursed until she was 2 1/2 months until the baby, my toddler and I became very sick with the flu and my ex husband was no help with the sick children. I had a fever of over 100 degrees for three days and it was uncomfortable to nurse. After the fever broke, I had dried up and so we needed formula again. My third child is adopted. There are many reasons women use formula, again it is their choice and as mothers we need to be united in supporting each other and realize that what is right for one woman may not be the right thing for another. It is up to the woman's use of her agency... Breastfeeding or Formula, we need to show respect for both.
DeleteI would say there are differences from state to state and probably from ward to ward. My son was born while we were living in New York, and there were ten of us who had babies within three months. The mother's lounge was the place to be, and it was nice because every woman fed their baby in the way they felt comfortable. Some didn't cover, others did, and one woman even fed her daughter in the middle of relief society. As a new mom who had never been exposed to breastfeeding, I thought she was the craziest and also the bravest mom of all of us. I tended to cover up, but there was one particular day I was tired and didn't want to deal with it. I asked the one mom who was in with me if she was ok with me not covering up, and she said "of course" with this look on her face of "do you even need to ask?"
ReplyDeleteWhen we moved to North Carolina, again I tended to cover up, but one day I spaced and wore a non-nursing bra to church. I was in the mother's lounge and when I realized what happened, I mentioned it to the two women in the room with me. One of them said, sympathetically, "Well, I think one of these chairs turns around, I'm sure you could just keep your back turned and it should be fine." Let's just say I really missed my friends in my New York ward at that moment.
Oh, I forgot to say great article! You did a great job of presenting the facts as they were and not letting one way of feeding sound better than another, which I have found very few people are able to do when discussing breastfeeding.
DeleteGreat article! I agree that breastfeeding is the natural way to take care of a baby's needs and shouldn't be something shunned into a hot car or back room. That being said, I feel differently in different situations, and sometimes I sure appreciate a private room being set aside where I can choose to go.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of strong opinions in all these comments, many who are women who agree with you. But my question is this... what do we do about it? Do we just start nursing in public and hope that those around us will get used to it? That doesn't seem like the most effective way to make a huge cultural shift, but what else can be done?
I agree. Trying to force people to be OK with it will never work. I think this article is a good start.
DeleteInteresting article with a lot of good points. I don't feel strongly either way, however I must admit that when someone is breastfeeding in front of my I feel uncomfortable. You mention the importance of the mother and child's comfort, but I think it's just as important to consider the feelings of the people around you. Perhaps there was a time (as illustrated by this artwork) when it wasn't an issue, but there are people today who are uncomfortable because society is always changing. Just as I don't judge a woman who breastfeeds in public, I don't think it fair to judge someone for feeling uncomfortable. So whether it's right or wrong, please remember the feelings of those around you.
ReplyDeletePicking up your child, diaper bag, other children and their belongings, squeezing down the aisle, making your way to the mother's lounge with a screaming baby and trying to somehow open the doors along the way and get your other children through the doors, sitting down, feeding your baby, then reversing the whole process, can take the better part of an hour. Then there are the million times that you get there and the baby wasn't hungry, but had a bubble or needed adjusted or whatever, but you don't know that they don't want food until you've relocated your entire brood and attempted to feed the baby. On top of that, if you have a calling such as teaching in the primary, you have to find someone to flag down and take over your class before you can even leave. For a year, minimum, after you have your baby, you are missing out on 45-90% of church meetings, per child, depending on how frequent of a nurser your child is. Also, pre-emptively: Many women have husbands who are inactive, serving on the stand, deployed with military, etc. and don't have the option to leave the other kids with him. In my opinion, this colossal inconvenience trumps the hypothetical discomfort of a person who might notice what you are doing when you feed your child. Especially when almost half of members will be breastfeeding at some point during their church membership.
DeleteAMEN TO BRIDGETTE!!!!! You hit the nail on the head. Be respectful of those around you. I have had 5 children, breastfed them all, fulfilled callings, the whole shebang. Was it easy, no! Was it doable, Absolutely, and I always was discreet if not for others around me, but for my own sense of modesty. Society has changed the way we view breasts, whether we like it or not! Our kids are saturated with titillating Images of the breast, so why the hell would you think a teenage boy or grown man is suddenly going to look at an exposed woman's breast at church and suddenly think otherwise. Cover yourself, be considerate, end of story!!!! We don't live in the year 1800 anymore! Mothers rooms and other accomadations didn't exist on the plains. Hello! so, of course they will be feeding out in the open. things were different then and the paintings reflect those times!!!!!!!'
DeleteIt is wonderful that they have mother's lounges for the women that want it. It is ok to feed your baby in there, that is what it is for. For some women, it is a convenient and easy place to sit comfortably and listen to sacrament meeting while feeding your baby without distraction. When I have a newborn and take a brief break from my calling, I use the mother's lounge to feed the baby and rest. It just isn't always convenient for everyone and shouldn't be a place where women who want to stay and participate, or who need to stay and participate, are forced to go because of accusations of indecency
DeleteI was called as a nursery worker while I had twins in there. I was called for a year, and I was nursing them the whole time during. As they got older, they didn't need to nurse as much, but earlier in that year, I had to nurse them frequently, having two of them to nurse. Should I have left my calling to be gone for at least a quarter of the two hours of nursery or longer? This would have left the nursery with even fewer people, as we were already struggling to have enough people as it was. We have a very large nursery in our ward. So should I have left to nurse my children who were already in there?
DeleteI can still be respectful to those around me without using a cover. I hold my shirt as close to my baby's face as he will allow, and he covers the rest of me. I literally show no skin while nursing. I don't see how this is a problem. It's still discreet without covering my baby's head, which he won't allow anyway. It's very distracting to have a child fighting to get a cover off his head while you try to keep it on him. For what it's worth, the only time I have ever had people look at me funny while nursing was a time I was using a cover, so it was obvious. It wasn't at church, though. I've never gotten any funny looks about it, with or without a cover.
Also, nobody is saying that you MUST go to the mothers lounge. Putting a small blanket over your feeding baby takes about 2 seconds so that you don't have to spend "the better part of an hour" moving from the chapel to a separate room.
DeleteWhich assumes that using a cover doesn't actually draw more attention to you or make the situation even more revealing because some children refuse to be covered.
DeleteThere are millions of things people do every day that make me uncomfortable. Breastfeeding is certainly not one of them, but I do not make it a point to stare at someone who is breastfeeding to the point that it makes us both uncomfortable, just as I do not make it a point to get as close as possible to a child with a smelly diaper and breathe in. I just pay attention to whatever is going on, move around if necessary, and take care of my own business, which at church is usually listening to the speaker. Mothers should not be FORCED to accommodate others if what they are doing is not harming another person. I am much more concerned about my four-year-old's behavior than my nursing baby's behavior. Why should adults' rights be put above a baby's rights? Or another adult's rights, in this case, a mother's, to participate in the meeting. If you have never breastfed a baby through the summer (I have twice, one baby born in May, the other in July), especially an active, opinionated boy, you should never assume it is simple or comfortable to cover a baby. Good luck! I would love to see you come put a blanket over my baby's head and count the seconds until he pulls it off, throws it over his shoulder and laughs cause you can't reach it while he's attached to you.
DeleteI am uncomfortable around people with disabilities, especially mental handicaps. That's because I don't have lots of experience with those types of people and don't really know how to act. However, this is MY problem. They shouldn't have to leave because they might be making me and others around me uncomfortable.
Deletegreat point, Sandi
DeleteI'm pretty sure there was a time and place in this country when... it wasn't okay for a black person to be in certain churches... it made people "uncomfortable" to see them, talk with them, touch the same things they had... was their "discomfort" justifiable, appropriate, NO... just because YOU feel uncomfortable with something doesn't mean that what the other person is doing is wrong, or that they should make and exception to their everyday life for you... it goes both ways... why don't YOU think about how uncomfortable you're making the mother and baby for telling them they can't because its not "okay" with you...
Deletedoes/has it make people in a restaurant uncomfortable when our family prays together before meals... yes... should we not pray because it makes them uncomfortable?
does seeing a person who is disfigured or suffering from an ailment make people uncomfortable... yes... it does... does that mean that they should be banished to their homes, so as not to "disturb" our comfort level...
Just because society marks something as... sexual or non sexual... okay or not okay... doesn't mean that it is or isn't... what matters is your own moral compass and I'll be damned the day I let someone elses discomfort with something that I know to be; normal natural and purposeful, dictate my choices... just like you or anyone can't tell me that its not okay for a mixed couple to be together, etc... just because you think its "wrong" doesn't make it so...
You have way too much time on your hands to scrutinize paintings to that degree. Breast feeding is an issue because mothers make it an issue. Of course the church isn't going to take a stance. Free agency, remember?
ReplyDeleteMothers don't "make it into an issue". It is an issue that arises for mothers. All of the time, every time you breastfeed, there are people who think that they should have a say about YOUR body and YOUR baby and YOUR food. To dismiss a discussion about a body part that 50% of the population has and which is judged constantly on size, elasticity, "perkiness", shape, depth of cleavage, etc. and which is also judged based on what particular amount of skin is showing when you are simply feeding a child is naive. Also, as stated in the article, the Church tells us how to live and behave down to how many earrings to have. Yes, there is agency, but the Church doles out consequences when you use your agency in conflict with the doctrine. That is why this discussion is important
DeleteI wish it was only an issue because mothers made it one. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who make it an issue are the priesthood leaders who approach mothers and attempt to make them uncomfortable.
Deletedaisyzombie, thank you for your post. It was thorough and well written.
Hey, I really liked this. Nursed six of my babies, started out covering and going to another room with number one, and now I nurse my baby wherever the heck I feel like, including the dentist office this morning while my five year old got a cap on. I figured the male dentist had better things to do then worry about me and my one year old. The strong naysayers commenting on here about being considerate of others...they could take a dose of their own medicine and be considerate with regard to the manner in which they naysay. I'd be hard pressed to think of a woman who made such a display out of nursing that it was a major distraction. These people who are so bugged by it...why are you looking? Look away. They remind me of that story of Joseph Smith about to share a revelation, and all the people couldn't look away from the flock of geese flying over head. Pay attention to the Sacrament and the talks, quit stressing about whether or not Sister Jones is nursing he baby in the pew in front of you. Geesh.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I attempted to breastfeed my children and my choice to cover was based solely on my vanity as I did not want other people to see my stretch marks and bread-dough belly.
ReplyDeleteWhoever thinks that breastfeeding in public is selfish and that other people's feelings need to be considered in this choice- this mindset is absurd.
Breastfeeding is hard work and is not a selfish choice for a mother to make. Those who breastfeed subject themselves to pain, discomfort,and inconvenience round the clock, on demand in order to nourish their baby and help them to thrive. Not to mention the sacrifice of an ever changing body and breast tissue after the fact.
If you were eating in a public restaurant and another patron was exhibiting poor manners at the table, would you approach them and tell them of their disgusting deed? Would you ask them to eat in the rest room or eat under a blanket? Or, worse yet, tell the manager to demand they leave?
The appropriate behavior in this situation would be to (1) avert the eyes; or (2) move your seat so that you can't see it.
It is never ok to ask a person to NOT do the thing that is every person's right and necessity in order to survive.
Fantastic article! Man I could read through the comments forever! I agree women should be able to breast feed in any situation without a cover and not have to feel guilty over "immodesty". It is a non issue for most of the world, but I feel this is a very complex issue for Americans and more specifically LDS Americans to deal with. It will not be resolved because unfortunately our culture is what it is and so many will feel uncomfortable or opposed to it because of that, regardless if it is right or wrong. I do find it funny that people are so adamant that it is wrong but fail to realize that if it is truly wrong in the eyes of God then something would have come down the pipeline because the rest of the world does it. If its wrong then the rest of the world is sinners??? idts
ReplyDeleteSadly, for me this is never likely to be a choice I have to face (Infertility sucks!) and any children I am likely to have are going to come to our home via foster care adoption, but it is something that has been making a lot of waves in all sorts of news outlets the last year or so. So I have given it some thought. I think that the "death" of breastfeeding as a natural/normal/no big deal part of life started coming around the same time as the so-called "sexual revolution." Society started seriously degrading aspects of our lives and bodies that had, until then, been fairly common and sacred. All in the "name" of "freedom and power" and society bought into it and it did just the opposite and has shackled us all in chains of self doubt and hatred because we don't look like the fashion models and we aren't perfect like the adverts keep saying we should be. It has injured us all and is going to take much longer to correct then it did to cause...
ReplyDelete(hope I made sense.. dealing with severe sleep deprivation today so just praying I'm coherent :) and thank goodness for spell check!)
I think that's really insightful, bookladydavina. Thank you.
DeleteI'm so tired of this ridiculous debate. First of all...we are NOT living back in the Pioneer Era. Society does NOT look at the female anatomy as they once did; our bodies have become objectified by media. And as a wife, I would be extremely uncomfortable if another woman exposed herself to nurse her baby in front of my husband. So would he. What is the problem with covering up? I had six children, nursed five of them and always covered myself when in public out of respect for my body, my child and my husband. Seriously, ladies...stop with this inane dialogue.
ReplyDelete"Inane," Anonymous? I do not think that means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteLike.
Delete"First of all...we are NOT living back in the Pioneer Era."
ReplyDeleteDid anyone say we were?
"Society does NOT look at the female anatomy as they once did"
Actually, female objectification has been a problem as far back as there are historical records. Prostitution and pornography and related evils were a great problem in 19th century Western societies, especially during Victorian times.
"another woman exposed herself to nurse her baby in front of my husband"
Breastfeeding is a protected activity in most states and it is expressly declared in the eyes of the law not to be exposure.
"So would he."
Seriously? Have you asked him?
"What is the problem with covering up?"
Anonymous, you may have had five docile children who didn't have any problem nursing while covered, but not every child is the same.
"Seriously, ladies...stop with this inane dialogue"
Why? Because you're uncomfortable with it? Why are you uncomfortable with nursing women?
I don't think there is anything perverse about my husband liking my breasts and being turned on by them, and by them being a part of a person's sex life. I think it's weird that you would say this. To say that the "sole" purpose of a woman's breasts is for nursing is, to me, ridiculous. I nursed 5 kids and now I'm done. Guess what, my breasts are still a big part of my sexual life with my husband. What on earth could possibly be perverted about that?? Your comments to that effect are really naive and silly. What about women who never have children or nurse? Don't you think their breasts are still a part of their identity as a female, that they enjoy the womanly shape they give their bodies?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. while I either agreed, or could see where the author was coming from on most points, that one hit a nerve. Do you really think it is a perversion to view a breast in a sexual way? If breast were not intended to be sexual, why would we have ever started covering them up? Starting with Eve. I guess Adam was a pervert.
DeleteNever did the article make the statement that the "sole" purpose of breasts was to nourish and comfort. It simply referred to the quote from the Parent's Guide which states that the "primary" purpose is to nourish and comfort. These two words have very different meanings. "Sole" means only. "Primary" means first. Of course, a woman's breasts can have any function that a she decides to assign to them. Just as our ears are primarily for hearing, but we use them to hang jewels in, to keep our glasses on, and to wiggle to make kids laugh. The problem is that people are seeing the PRIMARY purpose of breasts as sexual, which as the article states, and any person who has a basic knowledge of science can tell you, is simply not true.
DeleteWhile I agree with this comment you just wrote, you did say, "The perversion of the female breast being seen as a sexual object is not a new phenomenon. What has changed recently is our perspective of the breast when being properly used in the “nurturing and comforting of children.”" And those were your words, not from the Parents Guide. So you said is was a perversion to view the breast as sexual, and it is properly used when nurturing and comforting children, which implies that it is not being properly used in any other manner.
DeleteI had meant the word "perversion" with the definition of: deviating from that which is understood to be normal. So, it was thought of as normal for women to use their breasts primarily to nurture their children. Then, we deviated from that and began to think of breasts as sexual and NOT normal to feed our babies with them. I was not referring to a negative or sexual meaning of the word. I apologize if that wasn't made clear.
Deletedaisyzombie, I love the forum you've begun with this thoughtful and peace-promoting article! Thank you for facilitating it and your subsequent comments.
DeleteWe don't actually know that Eve did cover her breasts any more than Adam did. In fact, LDS ritual would strongly suggest otherwise. Don't believe everything you see in a painting, folks. Sheesh.
Delete@SilverRain... What??? LDS ritual would strongly suggest that Eve DID cover her breasts. And her navel. And her thighs down to her knees (at least). And so did Adam. Remember the whole being clothed in coats of skins (also found in the Bible) part of the ritual, and what we bear that represent that singularly sacred clothing? It's pretty obvious, based on LDS ritual, that neither Adam nor Eve went around topless. Thanks.
DeleteWhile I think this is a great article, I don't think these ideas about sex and breastfeeding sprung up from Mormons. (if that's what you were implying) Not so long ago, American women were told breast milk was inferior and that formula was better. Breastfeeding rates in the U.S. plummeted and only relatively recently are we seeing a shift back to breastfeeding. But in the meantime, we saw this cultural shift that said that breastfeeding was inferior, icky and gross. So breasts had no purpose left except to be sexual.
ReplyDeleteI served a mission in Argentina and as I recall I never once saw a "mothers' lounge" in any of the chapels. Women there (including members of the church) nurse their babies wherever it's convenient. I wonder if the "mothers' rooms" in US chapels weren't put there because the church thought that's where nursing mothers should be, but because our American culture told us that breastfeeding was taboo and so even Mormon mothers felt they needed a private, discreet place to do it.
I'm happy to see this shift towards making nursing more normal so women feel comfortable feeding their babies anywhere. Personally, I've nursed in Sacrament Meeting, but I also use the Mothers' Lounge when my church attire makes it all but impossible to nurse without nearly completely undressing myself. :)
I had actually written a portion of the article addressing the role of formula introduction in giving a huge push to the sexualization of breasts, but felt it made the article too lengthy. Thank you for bringing up this important point!
DeleteI hope you got the point of my comment though. This is not an LDS problem. Women all over the U.S. feel shamed into covering up or leaving the room when they breastfeed. This is a problem with our American culture that told women breasts were only for sex and that breastfeeding was gross. There has never been any statement from any church leader that women needed to go to the mothers' lounge. I would bet that they didn't even start putting mothers' lounges in church buildings until women started to feel increasingly uncomfortable nursing in public because of the messages that society was sending them. They probably added the mothers' lounges because mothers wanted them there! They don't even have them in some other countries.
DeleteThat's why the idea that the church needs to put out an official stance on breastfeeding is borderline ridiculous. They don't care where you breastfeed. And half of the women in our church (who just happen to live outside the US) already nurse comfortably in the company of others. I realize that every once in a while a church leader may tell a nursing mother to cover up or go elsewhere. But that church leader's opinion is a reflection of society's views, not the church's. IMO, I say ignore the ignoramus and keep nursing.
I definitely support nursing mothers. I've nursed in Sacrament Meeting, restaurants, playgrounds, the mall, etc. And often without a cover. *gasp* But if you're upset about people asking mothers to hide their nursing babies, put the blame where it belongs. It's not the church. It's our American culture. And sometimes it's hard to separate our Mormon self from our American self and distinguish between the two. I just know I've never read anywhere in church doctrine about shaming breastfeeding mothers. That's been carried over from our culture.
That being said, I do love seeing this pictures. And I think it's more proof that the church values women and motherhood and thinks that breastfeeding your baby is totally normal and should be valued and accepted in our society.
Yes, I agree with you that it is absolutely not just a Mormon problem and it wasn't caused by the Mormon Church. It is society's view that has taken root in some areas of the Church in America. There are women in positions of authority who are confronting breastfeeding mothers and accusing them of violating their endowment by breastfeeding outside of the mother's lounge and/or without a full cover. I know it is hard to believe, but I am friends with women that this has happened to.
DeleteMe too.
DeleteI have breast fed 11 children from 1975 to 2005 I chose eventually to nurse my children until they were over 3 years old. yes I went from the mother in law showing me the bedroom to nurse to nursing wherever I was at the time, I have had men stand on cars to see me nurse in a car ugh but that was their problem I have used the nursing room or chapel, or the foyer, I sure miss some aspects of nursing the cuddling nourishing part, and some things I don't miss but I rarely covered up just wore appropriate outfits. I have never felt bad about that though I have had some really interesting moments mostly from family members being old fashioned. Yeah to healthy children that breast feed :) by the way I am anonymous because I can't remember my pass word LOL
ReplyDeleteThe issue isn't about covering up or not covering up, it's about being DISCREET. I've seen women pull out their breast and leave it completely exposed while trying to wrangle the baby to attach him/her to feed then not even try to be discreet about putting them selves away. I've also been a cashier at a department store where I witnessed a mother breastfeeding her baby while standing in line to which I didn't see a problem with it until the baby completely unattached its self and she went on paying for her items with her breast completely exposed. I would dare say this instance would be distracting and uncomfortable to MOST men, women, teenagers and children. I've nursed 3 babies and I know from experience there is a way to be respectful and discreet without covering up or making your baby eat with a blanket over their head. I think the people that have the strong opinions on covering up (you can correct me if I'm wrong) are begging for at least some discreetness while feeding in public. Great article by the way!!
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Way too many people seem to use breastfeeding as an excuse to be exhibitionists (and all this nonsense about "if they're staring at me, it's their problem, not mine -- yeah, right). If you can't muster the self-respect to maintain your personal dignity and modesty by remaining covered in public, at least try to show some common courtesy for the feelings of others by being discreet.
DeleteI am going to add my thoughts, even though there are plenty. While I appreciate this article I feel like you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact of the matter is, the world is different then was even just 100 years ago. I believe in breastfeeding. I believe women should feel like they can feed their babies anywhere. However, and I know I am in the minority, I feel that when in public women should cover up. I appreciate the above comment because the biggest part of it is being discreet. If you can breastfeed and no one even notices and you stay covered up (meaning you do not expose yourself) then great, no extra cover needed, but I do feel it is inappropriate to completely expose yourself all in the name of "being natural". Also, there are mother's lounges in our church buildings for a reason. You can change your baby's diaper in a bathroom and you can calm a crying child in the hall or other room, but the mother's lounge is specifically for nursing moms...why? So that if you want to not cover, you don't have to and you can be comfortable. I don't feel like I am missing out either because it is such a bonding time with my child. Even though I am pro breastfeeding and pro breastfeeding anywhere I still think people should be modest. I personally have made a promise that I would keep myself covered. That part of our body is sacred and meant to be only seen by our spouse (and nursing child obviously) but to each their own. Just my thoughts and the reason I feel how I do.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that this is your opinion, but for my, breastfeeding was anything but a bonding time. It was VERY hard for me. I know that it was an important aspect of nutrition for my babies and I stuck with it as long as I could. However, because I constantly felt pushed (never openly, but through subtle clues and looks) as a young mom and new in the church to cover up and nurse in more "appropriate" places, I think I gave up earlier than I could have pushed myself. It was a huge hassle for me to try to keep a cover on. My girls hated them, especially in the warmer months. I had weeks when I wouldn't even both going to church since I would spend half of the time in the mother's room away from the lessons anyways. I've prayed about it and I know that I will be doing things differently with our next child.
Delete@Anonymous. You may be in the minority on this thread, but outside of this little echo chamber, across American society as a whole (not to mention the microcosm of the Church in America) you are very much in good company. The reason our chapels have mothers' lounges is so women can have a quiet place to breastfeed where they can feel more comfortable -- not to make everyone else feel more comfortable, but to make the breastfeeding mothers feel more comfortable. Most women are, in fact, uncomfortable breastfeeding in public. Some women are prevented from taking advantage of that accommodation (can't abandon kids in Sacrament meeting, don't want to miss R.S. lesson, lounge is crowded, etc.), but the majority of them choose to wear a cover in public. Women who coverup do so because it is more comfortable to be modest in public than to sit bare and exposed to the world, regardless of what activity they might be performing.
DeleteI completely agree that it would be nice if a woman could breastfeed without limitations, anytime, anywhere. But that unfortunately is not the society that we live in. You can't realistically expect people to be completely fine with being flashed in public. No decent American wants to see that, whether you are intending to breastfeed or not.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, breastfeeding in and of itself in public is perfectly fine! It is not inappropriate to breastfeed in public if you are decently covered! That doesn't necessarily mean you HAVE to have a nursing cover or blanket. If your clothes cover you up enough that the people around you don't feel as if they're being flashed then I say go for it!
We need to understand that back in the 1800s, they didn't provide comfortable nursing rooms and chairs in bathrooms for the women to breastfeed their children. They didn't have cars in the parking lot to go sit in while they nursed, and they probably couldn't get home quick enough. Today is a different day. A different time. I don't think that Satan is convincing us that showing our nursing breasts is a sin. Breasts are simply looked at romantically and carnally in any decade. It is just plain respectful to use a nursing cover. When a woman is breastfeeding, it's obvious even with a nursing cover, what is the big deal? Just cover it up. I had twins. I nursed them for 14 months. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to nurse multiple children all day every day, and especially when you are not home. I think it is just completely thoughtless, and selfish for women to breastfeed in public without a cover on. Find a bathroom, or a private area. It is not that difficult. And stop asking the First Presidency. They will be wrong no matter what they say. Whatever stance they take will make many women angry. There is nothing wrong with just not saying anything, and hoping the women will just be respectful.A cake is a cake, no matter how you present it, and so are breasts. Whether they are full of milk or not, they are still breasts, and they don't need to be shown to the whole world.
ReplyDeleteI loved this article! My sister-in-law sent it to me on facebook, and it reflects so much of what I think - except now with all those great pictures from history! I've nursed four babies, and the first I usually covered up - mostly because I didn't feel confident in my ability to nurse uncovered. But I can honestly say that I think nursing covered made is so much more obvious that I was nursing. My last three I have nursed uncovered everywhere (church included, while teaching a primary class, sitting on the second row facing the bishopric every week for the last year, etc.) I think it's much less distracting than a cover - I'm pretty sure people don't even realize I'm nursing, because when people know you're nursing, they don't make eye contact with you usually, or look away. I've never had anyone approach me about it, not even once. I've nursed in Utah, Ohio, Virginia and England lots of times, besides whatever wards I've visited on vacations, and in all those times, it's worked just fine nursing in Sacrament Meeting. Not that people don't get approached, or inappropriately asked to go elsewhere, but it is encouraging to me that I've had such an easy time of it, because that means that hopefully American culture is coming around, and not feeling awkward about nursing because it is so normal, as it truly is.
ReplyDeleteI think modesty is very, very important. So are my temple covenants. I also think we can conflate many things that are appropriate with immodest, in an attempt to put a hedge around the law. In the pioneer times, their garments extended to the ankles and wrists, and yet, here are this pictures where women are nursing in public, uncovered. They are modest. So am I.
Yes!
DeleteUmmmm... it is common courtesy to cover up. It makes other people uncomfortable to see your breasts in public. It is not a matter of what you feel is right or wrong, it is a matter of being courteous to others. Could you imagine if men started saying, "Well urinating is such a natural thing so why can't I just whip it out in public and pee in a bottle?" That would be pretty silly if we thought that would be okay. Maybe guys don't do that because they learned the Scout law to be courteous to others!
ReplyDelete"It is not a matter of what you feel is right or wrong, it is a matter of being courteous to others."
ReplyDeleteIf people did not rely on their own moral compass to guide them, and they simply float through life being courteous; slavery would still exist, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, mentally handicapped people would be getting lobotomies... It makes my racist neighbor uncomfortable to see a Caucasian woman married to an Asian man, but I still married my husband. It is vitally important to do what you feel is right, regardless of the courteousness of the action.
Also, the "peeing in a bottle" analogy has been adequately disputed in prior comments. It is an illegal action, while breastfeeding is a legally protected action.
I nurse in Sacrament Meeting all the time. This is my 4th baby -- as surprise. I am an older, comfortable mom who refuses to miss the meat part of my Sunday to excuse myself to the mother's lounge.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention the "meat" portion of church: My just asked me the best question! He said: If you are in that other room feeding your baby, do you just ask the bishop to bring you the sacrament?
DeleteI said,"No, they don't bring it out there."
And he yells, "What?! You just have to miss out on it?!"
Yes, we just have to miss out on the most important part of Sunday worship.
If anyone wants to say,"Feed your baby beforehand", then I'm very happy your babies ate on a perfect schedule, but mine had no such plans.
If anyone wants to say, "just let them wait a few minutes", I'm sure everyone would appreciate a screaming baby during the quiet reflection of sacrament....
To those who say "they didn't look at breasts that way back then!" is ridiculous. The breast has been both sexual and comforting for children since the beginning of time! In fact if you research WHY breasts are sexualized, a lot of theories point back to the initial comfort it provides males as infants/toddlers/children. (Yes I know it doesn't make sense that women aren't attracted to them the same way, but maybe it's because, I dunno... we have them.)
ReplyDeleteBut I digress...breasts were sexual then too. That's why women were covered from wrist and neck down to their ankles, ALL of them was enticing and scandalous. Otherwise we'd have seen low-cut dresses from our pioneer ancestors, the way we did in previous eras. They were part of the body that was sacred then, and it's sacred now. And it's sacred for both reasons.
But when it's for feeding a child, it is not sexual in the least, and that is why women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, without putting a blanket over their babies head. Because this blog, and all of the comments in support of it realize that it is time to take BACK the breast and what it stands for. It is absolutely demeaning to the mother and the baby to suggest that she miss the sacrament, any part of church, or to go sit in a car or go home to breastfeed. Women already miss out on a lot during church for their children's sake, why would we make it even more difficult for our sisters to participate? If you are uncomfortable, don't look! It's that easy. Also, when my husband was 9 his sister whipped out her boob to breastfeed her infant. My husband was uncomfortable for about 30 seconds, then got over it. He knows the two functions breasts are for and 1) has even MORE respect for women and 2) can separate the two like an adult.
To those who know that the breast is hypersexualized and think that's a reason to cover up or to have the woman go else where, please watch this reading of an awesome poem by a mother who was sick of being ashamed of feeding her baby in a toilet stall. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiS8q_fifa0
That video brought tears to my eyes. I know that feeling. Thank you for sharing! Thank you so, so much.
ReplyDeleteI've watched these comments for awhile and I want to say how frustrating it is that people would read these stories about unsure mothers struggling to find answers about a thing as basic as feeding their child, and instead of loving and supporting them, you would post comments to try and shame them and embarrass them. For. Feeding. Their. Children. Shame on you for judging and accusing, and good for them for standing up for themselves and for what is right. Take your shaming and judgement somewhere else, Heavenly Father's beautiful daughters ain't got no time for that.
ReplyDeleteSo funny. I have been contemplating this issue for the last 6 months, since I had my 3rd child. I'm completely comfortable popping out and nursing uuncovered everywhere else but church. This will definitely help me relax and not miss so many classes. Thank you for posting and all your research.
ReplyDeleteOf course if you want to breastfeed uncovered in public at church or elsewhere, you are legally able to do so (although why legality is being used in a discussion that is primarily about how the LDS Church and culture feel about breastfeeding is beyond me because there are plenty of legal activities that wouldn't be appropriate in church). But it absolutely IS your choice as to how and when to feed your baby.
ReplyDeleteClearly based even just on the comments here, we can also know that there are those who are uncomfortable with seeing someone else's breast. So now you, the breastfeeding mother, must decide what to do with that information. You can discard it as irrelevant to your choice. You can acknowledge it and then put the responsibility back on that person who is "choosing" to be discomfited. You can make effort to alleviate discomfort by being discreet with clothes or cover. You can remove the issue altogether by taking it elsewhere (but perhaps be putting yourself or your family at a disadvantage). You can choose to forgo nursing altogether and just bottle-feed formula. And there are infinitely more choices mixed in there somewhere.
The truth is, you may never totally understand why someone else feels uncomfortable about seeing your breast. Why does it make them uncomfortable? Do you really know? Is it a struggle with the carnal man/woman inside them? Is it a past trauma or experience? Abuse of some kind? Are they struggling with breast cancer? Are they a spouse of someone who is struggling with pornography and knowing that your breast is visible is distracting because they are fighting a battle they don't know how to combat and visible breasts are already a terrible worry? Is it something about how modesty was correctly or incorrectly drilled into them as a child? And are you willing to say that they are wrong in their discomfort? That they MUST get over it?
So be uncovered if you want. Just don't forget that there will be those who applaud it, those who ignore it, those who don't even notice it, those who are distracted, and those who are uncomfortable.
And if there is no stated doctrine on the appropriate way to breastfeed, then of course it is absolutely left up to the choice of the mother (and hopefully with at least some acknowledgement of the father's thoughts as well because that's just how the eternal partnership thing is supposed to roll). However, please also recognize that if there is no stated doctrine on the matter then how people "ought" to feel regarding breastfeeding and modesty is also left up to those who are viewing it. And they may be every bit as correct as you are. Their opinions on the matter are every bit as much their choice as your opinions are your choice.
I remember begging my roommates in college to just turn down the heat because I couldn't modestly walk around with less clothes but if they were cold they could always add a sweater. As the mother breastfeeding, you are in charge of the thermostat. Feeling as though it is your right to be in any room you choose and breastfeed does effect other peoples' choices as to what room they can be in and see or not see your breast. Does that make sense? You want to stay in Sacrament meeting and are determined to breastfeed uncovered in the way that works for you. They want to stay in Sacrament meeting and not see your breast. So who is right? Can you really, truly say one way or another?
Just choose for yourself, but don't forget the fact that we do not live in a vacuum. Our choices, right or wrong or neither or both, do affect others around us. The best we can do is say, "Please respect my agency to choose this way and I'll do my best to understand your view too."
Seriously? This is the problem. We're not saying simply that we are legally allowed to breastfeed in sacrament meeting. I believe what daisyzombie is saying is that it's not just "allowed" or "okay", it is NORMAL. General Authorities are selecting, approving, and regularly viewing these images without any objection or discomfort. Mormons in sacrament meeting should be able to do that, too. You want to stay in sacrament meeting and not see my breast? Um...don't look at it. People are in charge of their eyes. And it's not like anyone is walking up to the pulpit to feed their baby. Your eyes should be on the pulpit, not on the people around you. Honestly.
DeleteHello?! Breasts are NORMALLY covered by clothing. Why? Because it would be immodest/make people uncomfortable if we were walking around topless all the time. Duh. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why someone might be uncomfortable with you "letting it all hang out" in sacrament. If you choose not to take this into consideration when you breastfeed then you are being INCONSIDERATE! On the other hand if someone is getting offended by your breastfeeding and you are doing your best to be modest, then they are being inconsiderate. I don't understand why breastfeeding has to mean that you let your boobs hang out wherever you please with no consideration for others. Why can't there be a middle ground with you people?
DeleteI understand what you're saying, but I think it's pretty rare for anyone (in the U.S.) to "let it all hang out". It's not like women who don't use covers just whip their tops off and shimmy! ;) The most public cover-less feeders I know don't make a fuss about it, and usually have clothing well-designed for minimal undressing.
DeleteMy sister nursed VERY openly, until one day at a restaurant a guy tried to take a picture of her with his camera phone. Not everyone is as enlightened as the commenters on, or author of this article. As much as you want to nurse anywhere or everywhere, and it's completely your right and privilege, we can't keep others from thinking or remembering what they want. If you are ok with that, then great! Stop haranguing those who use covers as being uptight or repressed. I got way more comments about using a nursing cover with my kids than the other way around. I think Nichole Stull's comment was very even and unpreachy, yet the first comment was a snarky "Seriously?" Why can't we appreciate both viewpoints as valid? No one is making anyone do anything, just voicing a different opinion.
DeleteVery good article, and it's not just for the LDS understanding, this should be for eveyone.
ReplyDeleteI love this article. Wonderful insight into the woman's body and both God's and society's views on it. Women should never be shamed by others for nursing their children, however they want to do it. And I love all the artwork you found.
ReplyDelete(A small note though about the artwork--the baby in the Book of Mormon Stories Book of Enos isn't actually breastfeeding. He's got his fist on his mouth. Believe me, I own this book and when I first saw it as a new mom I did a double-take on that picture. But no, I can see knuckles and that isn't a breast. It could've been, and still be in good taste, but it isn't in this case.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow! This is obviously a big subject in many individual's viewpoints. I live in Utah and haven't heard a public push in declaring what should be acceptable or not. Kind of like the "wearing pants to church thing". If this is such an issue to you my thoughts are you either are uncomfortable one way or another and need some validation or working your own women's rights one way or the other. Some commenters I realize were just voicing their own personal thoughts on the matter, but the one's that go under fire seem to be quite determined that other's should feel the same. Now that I am older and having baby #6 due in just 3 weeks I found this article (or more so all the crazy comments) absolutely funny. Personally I have my own opinions, but does it matter? I would be fine discussing my thoughts with friends and family or as the author suggests when someone inquired personally to me. But for now, I think responding in threads where we have no idea who the person is really a losing battle. BTW-I really did think it was an interesting approach to bring in artwork in researching this subject.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you for your post and for finding these beautiful pictures. I celebrate when I see a women not being shy about breastfeeding her baby! I breast feed and bottle feed both of my children. I went in the mothers room to feed them at church purely because it was quiet and they wouldn't get distracted. I would have feed them on the front vow if I thought they would actually eat there. Distraction is one of the main reasons my supply went away and ended up having to bottle feed my babies. At first, I found it very interesting that even mothers who bottle fed their babies still came into the mothers room to feed them. They were not feeding them in there because they would make others uncomfortable to feed them a bottle in the middle of sacrament. They fed them in there because that was the environment they wanted at that moment. Feed your baby how you will, where you will, and love on them while your doing it!
ReplyDeleteBreastfeeding in public is different all around the world. From may different comments I have read people have talked about how different cultures have different customs. I can't say how true that is, in my two years in Mexico I saw countless women breast feed in public. Even members of the church breastfeed in church related activities, and no one bats an eye. In fact, I rarely saw a woman breastfeed covered. That is the culture in mexico, that is how it has been for hundreds of years and the people are used to it.
ReplyDeleteThe US has a completely different culture. We've made our mindsets Elitists, we feel that we are better than everyone else (on a large scale) because of our education systems, and governmental systems. With this mindset we've set Social Norms. Things that aren't rules, or laws, but just common courtesies. For example, it is not normal or acceptable for a person to walk in to a room full of mourning people and shout, "Did someone Die?". We learn throughout our childhood education that some subjects aren't necessarily "taboo", but are just a common courtesy that we learn from childhood.
I feel like many people think that public uncovered breastfeeding is solely rejected in parts of the Mormon community, but it goes way beyond that. It is just against the social norms that we grew up being taught. Does that make it wrong to do? Absolutely not. Does that mean that the brethren of the church should say it's ok or not? I don't think they need to say a thing. Some people just either need to start broadening their social norm mindset, or others need to respect the social norms that are in place.
I loved the article, and agree with every word. One thing that frustrates me in the comments though, is the anger towards the men (and women) who have bravely shared their honest feelings about being uncomfortable with exposed nursing. They are not being mean, and there is nothing wrong with them. They have simply 'learned' a behavior that is automatic to them. It is cultural conditioning, pure and simple. If we want that cultural conditioning to change (as I do, and IT CAN) we have to do it by first understanding the feelings of those that are offended, and not by criticizing them or making them feel something is wrong with them because of a reaction that is automatic and normal to them. If those same people had lived in Europe or South America that reaction would not occur. Many of those same people that are at first embarrassed by exposed nursing (as I was) begin to change over time because of people offering smiles, simple explanations, and just getting used to it. But pointing a finger at them or saying that something is wrong with them because they were offended reflects a mis-understanding of the issue. If people find it as sexual, or gross, it is an automatic reaction they didn't plan, and often can't help. We can agree to disagree sometimes too - since the law and church policy are on our side. Be kind and loving to them as a first reaction always - and things do change and get better. Be willing to discuss it when needed in the most kind way that you can muster. Provoking anger will not help them to see exposed nursing in a better light. And for those that will never be able to open their minds and change, there is always hope for the next generation!
ReplyDeleteGood point!
DeleteThank you...I have breastfeed all 8 of children. I am very grateful for the fact that I could do it. I loved the feeling of closeness that has grown from doing it. Basically here in our home it just isn't a big deal - that is just how babies are fed. My older children went through a period (the boys anyway) that they were yep we know but don't want to hear about it. Our other kids when their friends see, know, or learn about it are grossed out at the thought of it - they are like what is the beg deal that is what the function of the breast is for. My husband has been wonderfully supportive and helpful. We have lived in 5 different wards during the growth of our family and nobody in any of our Wards have had an issue with it. Currently in my Ward there are 6 nursing moms - I guess that the bottle is the oddity here. Our oldest 2 children are now married and hope to be able to continue the "tradition". THANKS for starting the conversation! - Mother of 8 from NY
ReplyDeletethank you so much!!!! this is beautiful, true, and respectful of all different choices for different people. I am LDS, still breastfeeding my 2 year old and 7 months pregnant. Though we don't BF as often these days, we have always felt more comfortable staying in sacrament meeting and nursing so that I can listen to the meeting. And I have not used a cover since my son was weeks old...he would get so frustrated and cry and unlatch when his head was covered, leading to my frustration and feelings of failure.
ReplyDeleteI think that many women believe in this but it is just recently becoming a more openly discussed topic and sight.
Thank you again!!
I breastfeed in public all the time but I cover because I don't think it's hard to do and it does make some people uncomfortable because it is still a boob. Our culture is completely different than all of these pictures so I guess I just don't see how it relates at all? Kind of like when older people always say "we never used car seats for our kids", well it probably wasn't a hazard then, it is now. Unless you plan on changing our culture, it is what it is. Do what you want but don't be upset that it bothers some people. I think mostly in church, it's just a distraction so even though it isn't as convenient for ME, I go to the mothers lounge. Nobody, of course, has the right to be rude to anyone that is breastfeeding, covered or not.
ReplyDeleteI see no issue here, nor do I see any relevance to LDS culture. These pictures are wonderful but they depict different eras when social practices were different, within and outside of the Church. Latter-day saints in some countries will breastfeed while completely exposed from the pulpit as they give their testimony in sacrament meeting. So what? The Church has no policy because their is no issue. If an LDS woman is sheepish about nursing in public at church, she is likely equally so in public elsewhere. HER issue. Not anyone else's. If she wants to nurse at church, DO it.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I appreciate the perspective.
ReplyDeleteOn lds.org, the Church encourages breastfeeding (when viable) but gives no advice on the how and where. I actually feel like a cover is less discreet...it's like saying, "Uh-oh! I've got a naked nipple over here!" :) Would anyone ask a woman feeding her baby a bottle to cover the bottle? I mean, the bottle is designed to look/act like a human nipple! BUT to each her own. I throw a burp cloth over the top of my breast, which slides down over my areola/nipple if my baby pops off. That way, I'm not "exposing" my breast. But you'd have to stare hard and long to see "too much" breast on a breastfeeding mom anyway. At church, I use the mother's lounge because I like the comfy rocking chair. (I do take issue with the men's restroom not having a changing table in it in any of the church buildings I've ever been in, but I suppose that's a separate topic.) I think for breastfeeding to be normalized in U.S. culture again, a few people will have to be uncomfortable along the way. Everyone will survive.
ReplyDeleteI apologize if it has been mentioned, but in the manual "The Latter-Day Saint Woman," parts A and B,there are sections on the importance of breastfeeding. There is nothing there that says "do so modestly."
ReplyDeleteI loved reading this article, it was very well done!
ReplyDeleteFrom my own breastfeeding-at-church experiences, I would like to make a couple of points and see what you think:
1. I think it makes many lds women more uncomfortable than it makes lds men to have a woman nursing in a meeting. I don't know why, but in my experience it was the women, my husband agrees. Someone else mentioned in a comment that when some General Authorities had their wives with them in another country and the women were breastfeeding in the meeting, the wives of the apostles were shocked. Anyone else think this might be a true assumption?
2. When a woman does not use a blanket or nursing cover, that does not mean her breast is exposed or even any of her skin, necessarily.
When I had my first baby, after I was repeatedly informed by RS sisters the location of the nursing mother's room, then later taken aside and instructed that I needed to nurse my baby there, that it was inappropriate to breastfeed in class/ Sacrament Meeting, I cried and cried. Then I contemplated not attending church for the months that my baby would need to nurse frequently. The nursing mother's lounge in our building at that time did not have a speaker to pipe in Sacrament meeting, did not have any art on the walls, and was depressing! I ended up spending about half of my time at church in there for months of Sundays.
I felt like I was being punished for having a newborn, but that might have been post pardom depression,(or maybe it aggravated my post pardon depression!) It still makes me sad to think that people were talking about me and I was shamed for taking care of my baby's needs while attending my meetings.
This instance right here is why this needs to be addressed in our culture. It saddens me greatly that a mother would be asked not to partake in the spiritual feast of the Sacrament, Sunday School, and Relief Society because she is doing exactly what she should be doing as a mother- taking care of her child's needs. It causes grief and shame in the mother, and it could cause unkind feelings between both the mother and the leader(s) who mistakenly assumed that the mother's lounge is the only approved place for nursing a baby. These contentions are not what we would ever want in our wards. Breastfeeding is the fulfillment of a child's most basic needs. Should a mother be cut off from all meetings, so she can fill her child's belly? The Sacrament isn't taken to the mother's room. So she should miss the most important part of Sunday worship because her child happened to be hungry during the Sacrament? I have a hard time understanding or accepting this to be true.
DeleteMelanie, how sad! I am so sad for you that you were hurt in that way. Something similar happened to me but since it was my 3rd baby I had a little thicker skin--I know I would have been devastated if it had happened with my firs. So I totally understand how much it hurts to think that your "sisters" are talking about you and judging you.
DeleteWhat a great, well thought out and researched article! Thank you! I am currently nursing my 4th child. It's funny, but I've never had a problem nursing my kids anywhere... parks, restaurants, even in a stadium during a marching band competition! But when I go to church, I never felt I could breastfeed unless I was actually IN the mother's lounge. Not even sitting in the back row of Relief Society. I don't know why, but it always felt wrong. Now that I'm older and on my last child, I question why it feels so wrong. We have this mindset in the Church and that doesn't always make things right.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of your article: "One mindset is that, because men have been taught that they are predatory and sexually driven, women feel that they need to protect themselves from men, and also protect men from their own carnal thoughts, by relying on conservatism in dress and behavior, thereby reducing opportunities for Satan’s temptations." I like this so much because there should be more to modesty than that we are trying to protect men from their own thoughts. But this is a whole different issue from breastfeeding... :)
Amen well thought out and articulated! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThis is a lovely, respectful, and thoughtful article. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThis is just my feeling on the subject. Breastfeed in public. However, there is no need to bring attention to an exposed breast. Thankfully, I know almost no women, especially no LDS women, who would do this. How to do this will vary from woman to woman. Some will prefer to use clothes that keep most of themselves covered and be prompt in getting herself re-clothed when baby is done. Some like me find nursing covers simple and discreet, allowing me to not worry about where I am or what I am wearing that day. Some will simply find an position that works for them and a location that is somewhat secluded (like against a wall or on a chair or something) and go with it. Some mothers with easily-distracted children will prefer to just go to the nursing lounge. No matter what you do at some point someone is going to see something whether the child pulls the cover off, decides to randomly lean away to see what's going on over there, or your toddler decides it's a good idea to hold the mother's room lounge door open. It's pretty much as inevitable as getting spit-up on your shirt or having a mid-meeting toddler melt-down. I'm pretty sure most people will see it as a "baby-being-a-baby" moment. Let's just all agree to realize that when we are in public it's not all about us nursing and try to be as discreet as reasonable with our own particular situations and quirky children.
ReplyDeleteI am a mother of five children, 4 of whom breastfed over a year (the other stopped at 10.5 months.) I love this article. My kids were rarely covered, but I preferred to nurse in private when possible for my own comfort and peace of mind. (I also had some very distractable babies that would only eat in private.) I preferred a schedule to on-demand feeding, so I was generally able to time feedings with Sacrament Meeting when I could listen to it in the mother's lounge. I could listen better there than in the chapel with toddlers and preschoolers climbing all over me. I also loved chatting with the other mothers in there. I made lots of good friends in the mothers lounge. It increased our sisterhood.
ReplyDeleteI could be discreet while feeding. I didn't like feeding in public around strangers, but at parties with friends and family, I felt no shame or pressure to leave to feed. At one party with lots of friends, many of whom were also breastfeeding babies off and on through the evening, my baby finished halfway through one of my comments. All eyes were on me since I was speaking. As she came up, one of the guys said, "Wow, I didn't even know she was nursing." At some point, the host commented that he used to have fantasies of his house full of women with exposed breasts, but this wasn't exactly what he had in mind. We all had a good laugh at that!
Breastfeeding is beautiful and natural. As you said, it is truly a personal choice about how comfortable the mother is. However, As human beings, we should be respectful of how our behavior makes other people feel. As an observer, I am far more comfortable around nursing women I know well as opposed to strangers. I feel that discretion is important, but wearing a full cover is unnecessary. But if a baby is hungry, you feed the child regardless!
I am completely in favor of meeting the needs of a baby over the sensitivities of an adult. I will try to be careful and modest...but do remember an important part of modesty is dressing for the occasion. What pray tell is the dress for nursing? I nurse in relief society, and in other church meetings. It does depend on the baby and me..some babies at times need privacy to focus. Some babies are extra super wiggly or need more attention then I can give in a meeting. With twins it was a matter of me wanting to tandem nurse and needing a rocking chair and more skin availability.
ReplyDeleteI am mindful of those around me. I am respectful. I am a mother.
If nothing else, consider it mission prep for your sons and daughters. Consider it a feeding the hungry. consider it a baby being cared for and move along.
When I was 12-years-old (30 years ago), my Sunday School teacher's baby became fussy as she was teaching our class, and so she matter-of-factly breastfed the baby without a cover, which allowed her to continue teaching the lesson to a class full of both boys and girls. Because she was so matter-of-fact about it, we kids just accepted it as something normal and healthy.
ReplyDeleteBecause of how wicked our world has become, I would not advise exposing your breast when feeding a baby, but I would probably not say anything either, since it's none of my business. Also, the comment that the female breast is "only" for feeding babies is a bit of a stretch. Just as the female genitalia is not "only" for birthing babies. Both body parts are a natural part of both sexual relations between husband and wife and birthing and feeding babies. Unfortunately, our lustful society can't separate these two uses of our beautiful bodies (procreation and sexual fulfillment) and see them only in a lustful way.
ReplyDeleteI'm in no way religious but I love this post. I am nursing my 3 year old and it makes me happy to know that he will likely grow up with much respect for the female body, not only as something sexual, despite our culture.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your lovely article. I breast fed all three of my children, but in the mother's lounge! It wasn't "encouraged" in regular society at the time, so I was used to covering up. My own daughter is a vocal and proud breast feeding mama (now of twins!)and I love this article for her! I will pass it on.
ReplyDeleteNo one has pointed out that as an artist depicts things, they are stereotyping and giving you visual clues as to what is going on. If a woman were simply holding a baby to them, or covered in a blanket, it would be harder to tell what was going on. I am sure that some women covered up (as that always helped my babies to focus on eating) and some didn't. I also cover up out of respect for people who might get offended, not out of personal shame. I covered up also because sometimes it is cold in public. I go to the mothers lounge to nurse because the chairs are nicer and I can usually chat with a friend about our common frustrations and issues. Would Christ be offended by breastfeeding, bare or covered? No. Is everyone Christlike? No. Is there one right answer to this issue? No. Will we be kept from the celestial Kingdom if we don't cover up...that actually depends on the intent of our heart!! If we are purely nourishing our children, then we will be blessed. If we are using public, uncovered breastfeeding as a vehicle for a feminist agenda and going out of our way to make others uncomfortable then we are going against scripture. I will nurse wherever needed. Outside of my home, or with other men around, I will cover up, because it is such a little thing...and it could offend someone. Just like baring your ankles was offensive 150 years ago, and not today. I respect other people, not out of fear that the act is ugly, but that in my striving to be more Christlike, I take other's feelings into my actions. Again, it is the purity of your heart that dictates this matter, and not the action itself.
ReplyDeleteWow ~
ReplyDeleteSearching for a quote-un-quote "Official Stance of the Church" for everything is pathetic... we are trusted to act with discretion, self-respect, and dignity in all times and in all places. That said - open breasted feeding is in nowise appropriate anywhere but in the confines of your own home. Dr Phil is not a member of the Church nor should his time be wasted fixing the children who are raised in homes where breasts are flaunted for feeding. It is not tough to simply keep it covered. I am not opposed to breast feeding, in fact I support it wholeheartedly, but I am deeply opposed to anyone having the audacity to ever think it is at all appropriate to bare breast feed a child in or at Church outside of the Mother's Lounge.
Am I the only person who loves public breastfeeding but feels like it's intrusive to tell other people how they should feel about breasts? I breastfed all of my children for at least a year each, including in public Church meetings, but I wasn't making a big political statement. I was just feeding my babies.
ReplyDeleteIf I breastfeed in public because I don't approve of other people's sexual feelings and I'm trying to change those feelings, there's a good chance that some people will feel like I'm judging them. It would be pretty natural for them to feel defensive and angry.
I feel completely justified in nourishing my child, but I don't believe I have the right try to change how total strangers feel about sexuality.
I can't remember where I saw it, but recently I saw a picture of a large church meeting, I think in Africa, and I could see women dotting the audience who were breastfeeding their babies while listening to the speaker (I think it was a general authority, or even the prophet). I remember marveling at that and thinking how wonderful that was, wishing that our society could be a little more like that so I wouldn't have to make the "hard" decision of whether I ought to cover up or not.
ReplyDeleteMotherhood is the most important thing a woman will ever do, in fact, it is the highest calling on earth. But don't you dare do it where we can see you!
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting! I never noticed that before in the artwork! Very cool.
ReplyDeleteI totally think women should make their own choice about how they are comfortable, but personally I don't like the covers... I want to SEE my baby. The only time I think a Mom might be better off was demonstrated by a friend of mine many years ago. When her baby was about 9mo old, the little one became fascinated by the world around her, to the point of stopping in the middle of nursing, letting going of the breast and looking around, leaving her mom's breast & nipple completely exposed. THAT might be a hair distracting.
ReplyDeleteLove it thank you
ReplyDeleteLove it thank you
ReplyDeleteThank you for this! I was just asked by my bishop last night to go sit in the mother's lounge to nurse, as nursing is something that is "not to be done in public" and I am being "immodest." I am glad to see I am not the only one who thinks that I am not in the wrong!
ReplyDeleteAs a 14 year old boy I remember my bishop of 40 or 50 just calling them eating utensils.. Was common to see women feeding children.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a source for the quote from Scott trotter??? Thank you!
ReplyDelete