"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Breast-feeding...In Public! Oh My God!

Today I read an article by Debbie Cafazzo, an MSNBC contributor, about the debate, if it can be called that, over breast-feeding in public: "Food or lewd? Breast-feeding reveals divide."

Personally, I don't understand the problem. But then, as my url says "logic-v-emotion." I try to come down on the logic side whenever I can. Breast-feeding is, of course, logical. Mother's milk is the best food for a baby. It was designed (if you believe in a creator god) or evolved (if you don't) as the only food a baby could eat before the modern era. It's full of all sorts of good things like lauric acid--a saturated fat that boosts the baby's immune system (and which soy product substitutes don't have). Mother's milk is also rich in cholesterol, which is necessary for healthy physical and mental development. Babies get hungry when they get hungry and have to be fed at that time, whether it is in public or at home.

Judaism and Christianity have played a major role in the illogical, emotionally-based reaction to public nudity in general and to public breast-feeding in particular. It started out with the Adam and Eve myth, where they eat of the fruit of knowledge and realize that they are...naked! Then, when Christianity took over as the State Religion in Rome in the 4th century, the idea of nudity as nudity being sinful gradually came to be accepted. Hell, even in the early part of the 20th century exposed male nipples were considered to be indecent.

Underneath our clothes, we are all naked. (Oh my God, don't tell me that. That is just so disgusting.) Nudity is a state of nature and it is not evil, sinful, indecent, or obscene. It's just our natural bodies and skin. Men's bodies and women's bodies have not changed noticeably in couple hundred thousand years, or more. So what is the big deal? When you make a body part sinful, then it become sexual. As a comedian, years ago, pointed out, if we considered women's earlobes to be sexual objects, like we do breasts, then women would be required to cover them up in public.

Come on people. Babies deserve mother's milk, if mom can breast-feed (not all can). And a naked breast is not big deal, especially when feeding a baby. In nudist colonies the sight of all those breasts and genitalia, day-after-day, certainly doesn't cause a sexual frenzy. If you believe that public breast-feeding is sinful, indecent, or otherwise wrong, you are one illogical and emotionally reactive person.

No comments: