NIP - Nursing in Public

Status
Not open for further replies.

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
Elizabeth is OK, but not great. The kids are dropping like flies. We're off to see the anesthesiologist this morning for the section tomorrow morning. I will post pics as soon as I have them. (Of the baby, not the operation.)
 

Spinningplates2

Puritan Board Freshman
May I ask what you think Puritan mamas did during long services in the middle of winter?[/QUOTE]

I have seen pictures of what the Puritan women wore to church and do not see how you expect me to believe the breastfed during the service while sitting in the pew. I thought you said earlier this was a modern idea, popularized in the mid 1900's. I also got the idea, based on links you provided, that new designs in fashion allowed for women to feed without exposing their breast to strangers. I have provided a link to what I thought was Puritan fashion.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/images4/puritanfashion227.jpg
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Spinningplates, No, if you read back you will find that I said that what YOU considered a "new habit" is not new. The idea that one SHOULDN'T nurse in church is a NEW idea. Breastfeeding was near non-existent in church by the 1950's.

Yes, I am very familiar with historical clothing. And yes, those ladies DID nurse during service. They did not put off their child for hours while in service. They did not have a "nursery" to go to. They did not sit outside in the cold. They did not walk home just to nurse. They and their babes were required to hear the Word preached...even suckling babes! And yes, they showed more than we do now with our modern nursing designs. They had shawls...but as a nursing mother, I can guarantee you that sometimes even a shawl is difficult to keep in place at all times. However, people were expected to be paying attention to the preacher, not glancing around at the nursing mothers. Just as nowadays, regardless how many safeguards put in place, there are those few seconds, minute or two that latching on can be difficult. You offer the mother her privacy by keeping your eyes elsewhere.



And yes, newer fashions and the way clothing is now made, women can nurse more modestly. However, there are those, that feel ANY nursing or even if hidden, any nursing without a blanket, isn't appropriate.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
First, this is the artist's idea of what the Puritans did...it's not a photograph.

Second, I see that she is banished out of doors in the winter-time and not allowed in the church building even! ha.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Warning:

links are to pictures showing public nursing in the presence of others and WITHOUT shawls or blankets! Most are here in America. One is a European immigrant and one is a Laplander (Christian). All are before 1950 and most have clothing that must be opened up to breastfeed. None of these women ran off to hide or even felt the need to use a blanket, even in public places, even if they were not the center of the photograph. In a couple you even have to SEARCH for the mother that is breastfeeding amoungst the group of people and still she is doing so openly). You will need to scroll down some of them to see ALL the pictures.

Infant Feeding in History: Photographs This one also discusses breastfeeding in history.
The State of Discontent: Images of Breastfeeding Before the Taboo
Jennifer James | breastfeeding in public
LIFE: A Laplander refugee mother breast feedin... - Hosted by Google
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/900/PreviewComp/SuperStock_900-110755.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
It is the same thing as saying that it was the young lady's fault that she was raped because of what she wore. It was not her fault at all.
I agree! As a side note, here in the Netherlands, practically everyone rides a bike (what does a Dutch kid learn at age three? Swimming and biking). Therefore, there is a law here, that if there is an accident between a car and a cyclist, the driver is always wrong. Always. The reason is that the damage for the car usually is virtually zero, whereas the cyclist is lucky if he survives - the cyclist needs some extra protection. Misuse is unlikely, for who gambles with his life?

I will not say that, in sexual crimes, the man is always to blame, but usually, he is the one who could have done most to prevent the crime from happening. Does not the same thing go here?

Also LadyFlynt was making the point a while back that society causes our reactions to nudity and I agree. To prove my point, think of your mom, sister, or even grandma buck naked. Isn't too pleasing is it? Why? because society tells us that it is wrong to be attracted to our family members. So if I can program my brain to not be sexually aroused when seeing certain women, I can program my brain to control my thoughts about other women as well.
I agree with LadyFlynts opininion, if that is hers, but your example is unfortunate and does not hold. The good Lord, in His wisdom, has equipped us with a mechanism to prevent sexual attraction to our near relatives: if you knew someone before you or (s)he was aged six, sexual attraction is extremely unlikely. This is called the Westermarck Effect. Quoting Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups—groups based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable, but that it operates during the critical period from birth to the age of six (Shepher, 1983).
Source: Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, in a normal situation, we are protected from such lusts by the way our brains are wired.

So if I can program my brain to not be sexually aroused when seeing certain women, I can program my brain to control my thoughts about other women as well.
If you could, yes, but this is no proof, as I have shown above. Things are not all that simple, unfortunately. Sin is rooted deep in us, and to get it out of us is the Spirits work.

So I can just reprogram all of the areas I struggle with and be perfect... who knew it was so easy?
It is not.

I'm sorry, not to be crude but what if you had a hot sister... I think your body would respond the same way....
Mmmm. . . nope.
No, it would not, providing you were reared together. If you weren't and hadn't known eachother until you were well in your teens, sexual attraction is more likely than when you'd be unrelated, because you are much like one another. People that are genetically similar are sexually attracted to one another; this is called genetic sexual attraction (GSA), and has something to do with feromonal and hormonal structures, and also with the brain. See Genetic sexual attraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All this reminds me of one of Davids Psalms: "My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." (Ps. 139:15) There is a lot we don't know about humans.

Comparisons with those who stumble are useless. Our comparison is Christ; our desire is to emulate Him in all things; and our ability to do so is only found in His strength.
Hear, hear!

The body will always feed the child/embryo FIRST.
I knew this is off topic but I find this very profound. I guess that is common knowledge to those who have had children, but I am going to have remember this one in light of the abortion issue and the sanctity of life.

Very cool!
Yeah, it is, isn't it?

Warning:

links are to pictures showing public nursing in the presence of others and WITHOUT shawls or blankets! Most are here in America. One is a European immigrant and one is a Laplander (Christian). All are before 1950 and most have clothing that must be opened up to breastfeed. None of these women ran off to hide or even felt the need to use a blanket, even in public places, even if they were not the center of the photograph. In a couple you even have to SEARCH for the mother that is breastfeeding amoungst the group of people and still she is doing so openly). You will need to scroll down some of them to see ALL the pictures.http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/900/PreviewComp/SuperStock_900-110755.jpg
Some much needed evidence. Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
I will not say that, in sexual crimes, the man is always to blame,
May I ask when is a man NOT to be blame for rape? (or may I hope that this was just poorly worded?)
Have you ever considered that men can also be raped? 9% of all rape victims are male, mostly male-male, though some 2-3% of the cases is female-male, with the male as the victim. This number increases if you count emotional blackmail as a form of rape. In such cases, I will uphold that the man is not to blame. Men are not to be blamed because they are men - the victim is not to carry the majority of the blame in sexual blames, and usually will carry none of it.

Example:

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [is] old, and [there is] not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same [is] the father of the Moabites unto this day.
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same [is] the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
What do you think, was Lot to be blamed for any of this? He was not, for he was raped. And I think you'll agree he was traumatized, just like a female rape victim.

If you mean male-female rape, then, yes, the man always carries at least the largest part of the blame, and usually all of it.

Also, please remember that rape is not the only form of sexual violence.
 
Last edited:

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
I am very familiar with male-male rape several people I grew up with, this happened to by a deacon of a church and military officer...he got a few years in prison and kept his retirement). I'm also aware of extreme circumstances such as Lot's.

However, given the thread and it's specifics (women/modesty/nursing...male presence) I am asking when is a FEMALE the rape victim and the MALE not to be blamed, as that was the insinuation of your post.
 

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
I am very familiar with male-male rape several people I grew up with, this happened to by a deacon of a church and military officer...he got a few years in prison and kept his retirement). I'm also aware of extreme circumstances such as Lot's.

However, given the thread and it's specifics (women/modesty/nursing...male presence) I am asking when is a FEMALE the rape victim and the MALE not to be blamed, as that was the insinuation of your post.
OK; the victim never carries the majority of the blame, regardless of sex. Let me just state that the victims of female-male rape (where the male is the victim) are more commonly blamed then when the crime occurs the other way round - in all cases, the victim cannot carry the majority of the responsibility for the crime, I say.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
I am very familiar with male-male rape several people I grew up with, this happened to by a deacon of a church and military officer...he got a few years in prison and kept his retirement). I'm also aware of extreme circumstances such as Lot's.

However, given the thread and it's specifics (women/modesty/nursing...male presence) I am asking when is a FEMALE the rape victim and the MALE not to be blamed, as that was the insinuation of your post.
OK; the victim never carries the majority of the blame, regardless of sex. Let me just state that the victims of female-male rape (where the male is the victim) are more commonly blamed then when the crime occurs the other way round - in all cases, the victim cannot carry the majority of the responsibility for the crime, I say.
Then I'm not certain what your point was in saying that Men can't always be blamed, when the presumption, given the thread was that the male would be the perpetrator :scratch:
 

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
I said: "I will not say that, in sexual crimes, the man is always to blame"

You assumed that sexual crime equals rape; it does not. Sexual crime may, for example, include human trafficking, obscenity and indecent exposure, to name a few Wikipedia mentions. I was not even thinking of rape specifically, as that is not the sexual crime that first comes to my mind when NIP is mentioned. For me, that would be the behavior where a man looks at the nursing mother in a sinful way. In this context, the man is not always the one who carries most of the blame. The example Jon Lake mentioned is sufficient proof, for me.

That said, I should not have gone with the sexual crime = rape connection, and I'll try to stay on topic in the future. I'm sorry if I have unnecessarily offended or confused you.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Okay, I understand now. But I totally disagree with you. I do blame the man. He has wrong thinking. People can have wrong thinking about many things, the objects of their thinking are not to blame for existing. Their twisted reality is, whether it's due to personal issues or due to improper upbringing.
 

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
Okay, I understand now. But I totally disagree with you. I do blame the man. He has wrong thinking. People can have wrong thinking about many things, the objects of their thinking are not to blame for existing. Their twisted reality is, whether it's due to personal issues or due to improper upbringing.
Oh? So, whatever any woman does, and however she is dressed, and no matter in what spirit or setting she displays whatever type of behavior while nursing, when a man stumbles, he is always the one to blame? I find this hard to swallow, LadyFlynt. People can have wrong thinking about a very great number of things, but if the objects of their thinking knowingly go the extra mile to provoke them to those thoughts, then they carry a part of the blame for the existence of those thoughts at that moment. Male reality is as twisted as that of a great many others, Christian or not, and they do not need someone twisting it a little further.

In short, a man should, first, try to prevent any such thoughts from occurring, and secondly, fight them when they do occur. And a woman can give some help in this area as well. I will restate what I said before: the babe should in no way suffer, nor is perfection required, but a little help is welcome. If that is not so, why did God then kill animals to provide Adam and Eve with clothing, when they felt they were naked?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
read up in the thread. Wrong thinking about breastfeeding is prevalent in American culture because of how men have been TAUGHT. How one is raised and taught is very much at play. We should fight against that with PROPER actions and teaching. If someone taught that hands are very sexual and that thought became prevalent, 50 years later, should we still be encouraging the hiding of hands because it is then seen as something it isn't, or go along with prevailent thought and wrong teaching?


Or maybe the rest of Christian history and human history is wrong for having not seen breastfeeding as sexual?
 

Honor

de-cool
i think societies and cultures evolve to a certain extent... they had no qualms about breastfeeding then but then again they didn't have MTV or Cosmo to look at either... the breasts when breastfeeding wasn't sexual.. not breasts in general as they are now. Also back then they had no qualms about marriage at 12 or 13, and slavery was rampant.... we evolve so what was ok then might not be ok now.
 

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
read up in the thread. Wrong thinking about breastfeeding is prevalent in American culture because of how men have been TAUGHT. How one is raised and taught is very much at play. We should fight against that with PROPER actions and teaching. If someone taught that hands are very sexual and that thought became prevalent, 50 years later, should we still be encouraging the hiding of hands because it is then seen as something it isn't, or go along with prevalent thought and wrong teaching?

Or maybe the rest of Christian history and human history is wrong for having not seen breastfeeding as sexual?
Yes, Western (I'm not an American...) modern thinking on breastfeeding is wrong. Again, my original statement was that "the man is not always to blame." That does not mean never. As you can see for yourself if you read up in this thread and the one on nudity in sculpture, I agree entirely with what you are now saying. No, women should not stop nursing in public, merely because men are twisted. Yes, society should be reeducated. I will even argue that we should do much more to reeducate society. If you will read back to my first post containing the above sentence, you will find me arguing that men are to be blamed in such cases, because they can help themselves more easily from looking than the mother can stop the child from being hungry, with one caveat, which is, that there are situations, when the mother, while not making the child suffer nor inconvenience herself, could have done more to not provoke the strong sex, and therefore may carry part of the blame, and in extreme cases, even the majority. Jon Lake gave a good example. Agreed?

Edit:

Honor, :applause:for bringing slavery up. That is one very good example of where Christianity changed and reeducated society for the better, showing that it should be possible with such an in comparison relatively minor thing as NIP. Age of marriage depends on maturity of spirit, not body. Most young adults I have observed do not mature before 21-27 in Western society. And yeah, that includes me, of course. Maturity used to be reached at a younger age in the past, due to a variety of factors which I'm not going into now.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
i think societies and cultures evolve to a certain extent... QUOTE]


What you like to start a new thread on this subject? Interesting. Is there such a thing as "progress" and in what fashion? Technological only or moral as well? Is the world getting better and better?
 

Honor

de-cool
ummm sure... where would I put it?

-----Added 12/12/2008 at 12:04:43 EST-----

no wait... I'm not saying that slavery was/is wrong... it was just popular and not it's out of vogue. I mean Jesus was pro slavery
 

Honor

de-cool
Mark 10:42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Corn.7:20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.

Eph.6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Colo.3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ


Titus2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative.

Plus the whole book of Philemon was written by Paul to a slave owner when Paul took his slave back to him.

Is that enough?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
i think societies and cultures evolve to a certain extent... they had no qualms about breastfeeding then but then again they didn't have MTV or Cosmo to look at either... the breasts when breastfeeding wasn't sexual.. not breasts in general as they are now. Also back then they had no qualms about marriage at 12 or 13, and slavery was rampant.... we evolve so what was ok then might not be ok now.
Permitting marriage in the teen years is also a debate and slavery depends upon the model (the ancient Jewish model or the more modern American).


Again, re-education, not submitting to the wrong thinking. My children don't watch MTV or read Cosmo and they know we don't either. On the other hand they are being taught that breastfeeding is totally acceptable. This is also how my husband and I were raised.
 

he beholds

Puritan Board Doctor
Okay, I understand now. But I totally disagree with you. I do blame the man. He has wrong thinking. People can have wrong thinking about many things, the objects of their thinking are not to blame for existing. Their twisted reality is, whether it's due to personal issues or due to improper upbringing.
Mark 10:42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Corn.7:20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.

Eph.6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Colo.3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ


Titus2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative.

Plus the whole book of Philemon was written by Paul to a slave owner when Paul took his slave back to him.

Is that enough?
I *think* Jesus was teaching slaves how to be good slaves, and masters how to be good masters, but I don't think that means that he was pro-slavery.
It might mean that slavery, as handled as Jesus describes, is not sinful, but I still don't know if that means he was pro-slavery.
I think slavery, again, if handled the way Jesus describes, could be a relationship that benefits both slave and master.


Also notice that Paul says, "But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity." He is mainly concerned in these passages with how we are to submit to authority as well as how we are to act when we are the authority.

Ok, so, people will say this is not cultural, but headcoverings are. I wonder why one would think that in this part of the letter Paul speaks of things for all earthly time, but in the part talking about worship, it was cultural.

I do not cover my head in worship because I am still trying to learn whether I must. It's because I have never studied it (as I should), and I just assumed that my church has it right. It is not because I have personally come to the conclusion that it is cultural.
But I do wonder why some would say that the section speaking to how we worship God is cultural, but the section speaking to how we interact in society and in our culture is not.
I would think that the lessons about society would be more likely to change, right?

P.S. If that makes no sense, please forgive me! I had to stay up verrrrrrrrrrrry late last night waiting on my best friend and her family to get here, as they were using my house as a half-way point between their vacation in FLA and their home in PA.
 
Last edited:

Rocketeer

Puritan Board Freshman
Is that enough?
Your first text shows Jesus condemning the heathen way of ruling people. The second tells slaves to be content if they are slaves, but not to become slaves if they can help it! The third text learns the slaves to make the best of a bad situation, and not rebel, and the masters to behave more according to the Mosaic model of slavery, which is very kind, limited and good (study it - one might advocate reintroducing it), than to the Greco-Roman or pre-Wilberforce models. The fourth verse, again, does the best thing in a bad situation, whereas the book of Philemon deals with the slave that had stolen both money and himself from his master, where the master had each and every right to have him hanged on the spot where he would meet him, under Roman law (the rights of the pater familias) - Paul does Onesimus a huge favor. Only the master can set the slave free, doing anything else is unlawful and would have been harmful to the Christian cause, branding Paul as a conspirator and someone who subverted the law. None of these are good arguments, and therefore, no, this is not enough.

Again, re-education, not submitting to the wrong thinking. My children don't watch MTV or read Cosmo and they know we don't either. On the other hand they are being taught that breastfeeding is totally acceptable. This is also how my husband and I were raised.
:ditto::agree::amen:
 

he beholds

Puritan Board Doctor
i think societies and cultures evolve to a certain extent... they had no qualms about breastfeeding then but then again they didn't have MTV or Cosmo to look at either... the breasts when breastfeeding wasn't sexual.. not breasts in general as they are now. Also back then they had no qualms about marriage at 12 or 13, and slavery was rampant.... we evolve so what was ok then might not be ok now.
Permitting marriage in the teen years is also a debate and slavery depends upon the model (the ancient Jewish model or the more modern American).
We would love it if our daughter, and any future daughters (DV), marry young. Our son(s), we would permit it, if he were able to support a family.

Again, re-education, not submitting to the wrong thinking. My children don't watch MTV or read Cosmo and they know we don't either. On the other hand they are being taught that breastfeeding is totally acceptable. This is also how my husband and I were raised.
I agree with you for sure! I think we should not give the culture a free pass to be wrong. I think the truth is more important than custom. And our children also do not see anyone reading/watching those things and know that breastfeeding is how we feed babies. I would not cover up in front of our two year old son when feeding his sister. I still think, though, that since our culture does have one thing on its mind, we ought to be careful in mixed company. For the our own sake and the sake of our brethren. (And as we've been back-and-forth about, care does not have to equal blankets and back rooms, but for some women, it may.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
We have a friend of the family that does have hang ups about seeing a woman nursing. He was upfront about it, but was also very kind in that (1) he said it was his issue (2) he never asked me to leave a room, instead he insisted I stay and just give him a heads up so that he may turn around and leave a room if I was nursing (3) he was very pro-breastfeeding and encouraging about it. I learned this one time after I had been already nursing and he was clueless for more than a few minutes. But when it dawned on him, he left the room then caught up with hubby and I later to let us know the above. To me, this is appropriate behaviour of someone that TRULY has personal issues. I did my part by letting him know if I was nursing if he walked in a room (this was usually during family get togethers with my in-laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top