Re: Summer 2005 Wise Traditions -- a complaint

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> I have found this same thing from talking to many men about why they feel

> akward or uncomfortable. Many feel like you that they don't want to make

> " us " feel uncomfortable by appearing to " look " or " see " something.

>

> If I am around a man I will usually try to break the ice by mentioning

> something like.... " I hope you don't mind but I need to nurse my child " or

> something usually sarcastic about them always needing to eat. Usually men

> will make a comment about they would be happy to leave or do something to

> look the other way. I try to make them feel more comfortable by talking

> about it. Most women are not embarrassed by nursing in public. They are

> worried about being ridiculed or confronted about it. Personally I don;t

> know many women who would be embarrassed even if someone saw a moments

> worth

> of nipple (IMHO) because most likely you have just given birth. That is

> one

> of the most UN modest experience of your life.

LOL! True.

Well I've had women just begin breast feeding in front of me while

talking about something else. I wouldn't really say that I am in any

way uncomfortable with it, but I do become a little more self-concious

about whether I'm appearing subtly to be offended or otherwise

behaving in a way that is inappropriate to the situation, since it is

an unusual one to be in.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

And sometimes milk just doesn't come. I asked my mother about this. She

grew up in a tiny eastern european village. She said that my grandmother

always had lots of milk (and since she had 7 children she nursed a lot) It

was not uncommon for woman who did not have enough of their own milk to

bring their baby to my grandmother to wet nurse. This was before WWII. I

think insufficient breastmilk is not as rare as sometimes believed.

Irene

At 08:49 AM 9/11/2005, you wrote:

>Hey ,

>

>I nursed for 3 1/2 years, and constantly encourage mothers to work through

>the difficulties for the long-term benefits, so obviously I believe in it;

>but here's a thought: if it's not your nipples blistered, cracked and

>bleeding, or your breast insanely painful, hard as a rock and suppurating,

>or your ducts with that lovely " broken glass " feeling from thrush... and I

>could go on... maybe the harsh judgment isn't your place. Note that

>wet-nursing is an ancient custom, signifying that women with choice have

>often rejected breastfeeding. Note, too, that American women

>breastfeeding today have few of the traditional supports that eased the

>transition; in a culture that does not support cross-nursing, in which

>misinformation is rampant, skilled instruction rare, and attention to the

>needs of the mother utterly inadequate, the learning curve can be - and I

>mean this - torture.

>

>Any opinions that you may have about prenatal diet, breastfeeding,

>drug-free childbirth, etc. may be freely rendered in a humbly supportive

>tone, without resorting to name-calling.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

.... Note that wet-nursing is an ancient custom, signifying that women

with choice have often rejected breastfeeding. Note, too, that

American women breastfeeding today have few of the traditional

supports that eased the transition; in a culture that does not support

cross-nursing, in which misinformation is rampant, skilled instruction

rare, and attention to the needs of the mother utterly inadequate, the

learning curve can be - and I mean this - torture.

Mati,

Kind of an interesting article:

http://www.naturalchild.com/james_kimmel/nurturing_mother.html

highlights:

" Wet nursing, as a replacement for nursing by the natural mother, was

a popular and conventional practice for thousands of years. It was not

a practice that was developed to improve on nature's way of providing

the newborn with sustenance, but a way of eliminating the necessity

for mothers to care for their babies. It was, in many parts of the

world, a major way that infants were fed from ancient times through

the beginning of the twentieth century.

The substitution of a wet-nurse for the natural mother has been

explained as an expression of class distinction. Breastfeeding was

perceived as unseemly, animal-like, and beneath women of the upper

classes. But the practice of using a wet-nurse also spread to the

poorer classes. Many wet-nurses earned a good enough living to be able

to hire a less expensive wet-nurse to breastfeed their own babies. "

and this beauty:

" The practice of farming out infants, in spite of the high infant

death rate associated with the practice, continued until the

eighteenth century in England and America, until the nineteenth

century in France, and into the twentieth century in Germany. The

police chief of Paris, France estimated in 1780 that of the 21,000

children born each year in his city, 17,000 were sent into the country

to be wet-nursed, 2,000 or 3,000 were placed in nursery homes, 700

were wet-nursed at home and only 700 were nursed by their mothers. "

B.

[Guest guest]

> LOL! True.

>

> Well I've had women just begin breast feeding in front of me while

> talking about something else. I wouldn't really say that I am in any

> way uncomfortable with it, but I do become a little more self-

concious

> about whether I'm appearing subtly to be offended or otherwise

> behaving in a way that is inappropriate to the situation, since it is

> an unusual one to be in.

>

> Chris

The fact that it is an " unusual one to be in. " is the root of the

problem. Were all mothers to nurse their babies in public, were

babies to BE in public, then it would be usual and the comfort level

would go up for the people who a)have never nursed and don't

remember being nursed.

That said, nursing is a very intimate activity, rather exclusive of

others even if the mom can keep having that conversation, she is multi-

tasking in a way that removes her focus from the other person in the

conversation and makes it plain that she is more tied to the infant

than she is to the conversation. This is what frequently offends the

other adult - it goes right to their own inner child and says that

they are not as important as the new little person - you just trip all

over the other adult's issues. Of course it is uncomfortable!

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

,

>

>Not sure what you're saying. You think Cowan's articles in WT are cool, or no?

>

I haven't read a whole lot from Dr. Cowan honestly. With respect to

this specific article, I find it rather ironic that he speaks of dogma

in the scientific community (DNA is one example he gives), but then goes

on with *his* " theory " of four bodies (which seems somewhat a borrowing

from yogic dogma, but I haven't read his book). Our understanding of

the particulars of the universe may change over the course of time as

more information and technology becomes available, but that doesn't mean

that it was dogma in the first place. And by dogma I am speaking in

terms of this definition from a Webster's dictionary: a point of view or

tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

I won't get into DNA, as I am not well-versed in biology. However,

things like the molecular bonding models or even general quantum

mechanics wave-particle duality, which and I discussed recently,

are theories in the true sense of the word. We have evidence for the

individual theories; we can write equations and see results in the lab.

Or by observation, like we did with Einstein's general theory of

relativity on the macroscopy we found that 1) Mercury's orbit precesses

(wobbles as earth's tilt does) and 2) the deflection of light of stars

near the sun during an eclipse does show curvature. The equations

Einstein came up with predicted this. It was subsequently confirmed.

That is the nature of " theory. "

What I see in Dr. Cowan's article is a misuse of terms like " science "

and " theory " in particular. I'd like to see the math and evidence from

his " theory " of the fluid body and the emotional body in particular. I

think he is borrowing from yogic philosophy quite frankly; if so, it is

not *his*. That said, he does have some good information as well. The

idea that fever is a natural response that should be allowed to progress

within reason is a good one. Some of the mainstream thought as an MD he

is bucking is spot on. The floof can be discarded altogether. If we

don't know, we don't know. Conjuring up myths and demons is going

backwards, imo, in terms of presenting science-based information.

Spirituality is great, but it is kind of different than nutrition (and

certainly Price's work bears this out). However, WT does say 'food,

farming and the healing arts,' so I guess it is fair game in that respect.

Aside: Superstring theory is at least a real bona fide theory that may

well be tested indirectly by taking it down to space-time, which is

indeed curved, but not warped.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

,

>I think the idea of breast as a sexual object one of the main reasons people

>are so uncomfortable with nursing in public.

>

Has anyone read _Milk, Money, and Madness_, By Naomi Baumslag, MD, MPH?

It's an older book that got thumbs up on WAPF. This author also wrote

an article on infant nutrition that is on WAPF website as well. She

talks about the sexualization of women's breasts that coincided with

civilization and general cultural aspects of nursing, among other

things. You can read a bit on amazon. I was thinking about getting it

for my research, and I would appreciate any feedback on it

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/baumslag.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/tricks.html

http://tinyurl.com/dsefw (the book at amazon)

Cheers!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I have it on my amazon wish list! I asked all my mommy friends to see if

anyone had a copy. I just can't justify buying it yet since I have 10 books

I am actively reading and a bookshelf full or more. LOL.

I didn't see the review on WAP. I can't wait to read it.

Re: Re: Summer 2005 Wise Traditions -- a complaint

Has anyone read _Milk, Money, and Madness_, By Naomi Baumslag, MD, MPH?

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner

>

> Has anyone read _Milk, Money, and Madness_, By Naomi

> Baumslag, MD, MPH?

> It's an older book that got thumbs up on WAPF. This author

> also wrote an article on infant nutrition that is on WAPF

> website as well. She talks about the sexualization of

> women's breasts that coincided with civilization and general

> cultural aspects of nursing, among other things.

What evidence does she present to support her claim that breasts were not

seen as feminine sexual characteristics in prehistoric times?

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>Has anyone read _Milk, Money, and Madness_, By Naomi Baumslag, MD, MPH?

>It's an older book that got thumbs up on WAPF. This author also wrote

>an article on infant nutrition that is on WAPF website as well. She

>talks about the sexualization of women's breasts that coincided with

>civilization and general cultural aspects of nursing, among other

>things. You can read a bit on amazon. I was thinking about getting it

>for my research, and I would appreciate any feedback on it

I've got to say, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that breasts weren't

sexually attractive (or " sexualized " ) before civilization. It makes no

sense that I can think of. One theory, for example (which has been bandied

about here, in fact) holds that full-time breasts evolved to mimic buttocks

when we began walking erect. If so, the primary impetus for their

appearance was their visual appeal! More generally, female breasts are a

secondary sexual characteristic. What species develops secondary sexual

characteristics which aren't functional, attractive to the opposite sex or

both? What species develops ANYTHING which isn't functional, attractive to

the opposite sex or the consequence of one or both of the former?

-

[Guest guest]

Tom-

>Wow, you're worried about the GI of tomatoes? I guess they are fairly

>sweet but there's no way around that other than eating them with a meal.

Also, tomatoes just aren't quite as carby as you'd think. One cup of raw,

ripe red cherry tomatoes harvested between June and October has all of 6.9g

of carbs, of which 1.6g is fiber, according to the USDA

database. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s02a3.html One large

whole raw red ripe tomato from the same season has all of 8g, of which 2g

is fiber. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s02a3.html Yes,

there's precious little protein (1.3g and 1.5g respectively) and virtually

no fat, but tomatoes are usually eaten with other foods anyway. A treat I

look forward to every week on farmers market day is a big salad of sungold

or other cherry-sized tomatoes, mozzarella, garlic, basil, and olive

oil. Hugely delicious!

-

[Guest guest]

" I've got to say, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that breasts weren't

sexually attractive (or " sexualized " ) before civilization. It makes no

sense that I can think of. One theory, for example (which has been bandied

about here, in fact) holds that full-time breasts evolved to mimic buttocks

when we began walking erect. If so, the primary impetus for their

appearance was their visual appeal! "

How could one ever scientifically verify that breasts evolved to 'mimic'

buttocks? Is such conjecture meaningful in any way except for its

entertainment value?

[Guest guest]

On 9/12/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> What species develops secondary sexual

> characteristics which aren't functional, attractive to the opposite sex or

> both? What species develops ANYTHING which isn't functional, attractive to

> the opposite sex or the consequence of one or both of the former?

Right... it wasn't too long ago that everyone (except you) was saying

in the breastfeeding thread that larger breasts have no effect on the

ability to produce quantity or quality of milk.

Female human breasts must have evolved considerable size either for

functional breast feeding, sexual attraction, or both. You can't

argue that they serve NEITHER function!

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>How could one ever scientifically verify that breasts evolved to 'mimic'

>buttocks? Is such conjecture meaningful in any way except for its

>entertainment value?

I doubt it could ever be verified as an absolute fact, but you could

probably come reasonably close -- enough to establish it as a dominant

theory, anyway. If full-time breasts did in fact arise in conjunction with

or directly after we began walking erect, it's a strong hypothesis

already. If our genome can be analyzed to determine whether there was a

functional reason at the time, or whether possible functional attributes

evolved later, that would further support (or disprove) the theory. We can

also look at other species to find supporting (or contradictory) data in

their evolution.

-

[Guest guest]

, , and anyone else on the Boob Squad <g>,

>I've got to say, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that breasts weren't

>sexually attractive (or " sexualized " ) before civilization. It makes no

>sense that I can think of. One theory, for example (which has been bandied

>about here, in fact) holds that full-time breasts evolved to mimic buttocks

>when we began walking erect. If so, the primary impetus for their

>appearance was their visual appeal! More generally, female breasts are a

>secondary sexual characteristic. What species develops secondary sexual

>characteristics which aren't functional, attractive to the opposite sex or

>both? What species develops ANYTHING which isn't functional, attractive to

>the opposite sex or the consequence of one or both of the former?

>

That is not what I meant. I apologize for my quick remark about Dr.

Baumslag's book - breasts are attractive, fine, but they are also

functional (or should be). Here's what she says in her book - a book I

am viewing a small piece of on amazon, so I am not sure where the

evidence comes from offhand. I may buy it soon, though.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0897894073/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8834038-6332621#rea\

der-page

" The dictionary defines breast as " either of two milk-secreting glands

protruding from the upper, front part of a woman's body. "

Traditionally, breasts have been considered organs of lactation and have

been exposed without inhibition. As cultures have become " civilized, "

breasts have been transformed from functional items to objects of female

decoration and sexual organs whose purpose in life is to titillate and

stimulate. As our preoccupation with the breasts as tools for sexual

stimulation has increased, there has been a corresponding reduction in

usage for their primary lactating function. Our culture, proud of its

high standards of morality and modernization (and abetted by advertising

images of the body beautiful), has transformed the breast into a sexual,

from a sustenance, object. The image of a woman walking around with an

exposed breast (no matter that a sucking infant is attached to it) has

been wrongly equated with a man walking around with his penis hanging

out. It is this attitude that leads to situations such as the one where

a woman was harassed by a security guard for nursing her child in a

Florida shopping mall in 1992 and the incident in St. Louis in 1981,

where a mother who was quietly nursing her infant in her parked car was

warned that she was indecently exposed. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Right... it wasn't too long ago that everyone (except you) was saying

>in the breastfeeding thread that larger breasts have no effect on the

>ability to produce quantity or quality of milk.

>

>Female human breasts must have evolved considerable size either for

>functional breast feeding, sexual attraction, or both. You can't

>argue that they serve NEITHER function!

Well, you could argue from the creationist perspective, though obviously

I'm not very impressed by that position. The irony that strikes me,

though, is that creationism aside, people who maintain that breasts have no

innate attractiveness function are arguing, whether they realize it or not,

that breast size must have non-attractiveness physical functions!

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >How could one ever scientifically verify that breasts evolved to 'mimic'

> >buttocks? Is such conjecture meaningful in any way except for its

> >entertainment value?

>

> I doubt it could ever be verified as an absolute fact, but you could

> probably come reasonably close -- enough to establish it as a dominant

> theory, anyway. If full-time breasts did in fact arise in conjunction with

> or directly after we began walking erect, it's a strong hypothesis

> already. If our genome can be analyzed to determine whether there was a

> functional reason at the time, or whether possible functional attributes

> evolved later, that would further support (or disprove) the theory. We can

> also look at other species to find supporting (or contradictory) data in

> their evolution.

>

>

>

>

> -

Seems to me that even if all of your conditions above were satified, we'd still

be quite a ways off from verifying such an hypothesis. It sounds nice though,

and is great to bring up at parties if you find your conversation flagging.

On the other hand, it's probably better that they would have evolved to mimic

the buttocks, rather than some other arbitrary part of the body, such as feet.

[Guest guest]

<snip> " now that it has become appropriate to show more and more

cleavage, it has become the *nipple* that is the one thing not only

inappropriate, but even *illegal* to show.

This is outrageous, because the only reason women wear so much

cleavage is because it is so sexually attractive! And I think many

guys would find that a largely but not completely revealed breast is

more tantalizing than a fully revealed breast.

<snip> As a matter of fact MEN have nipples! <snip> What men

*don't* have is the rest of the breast! "

<snip>

" > More generally, female breasts are a

> secondary sexual characteristic. What species develops secondary sexual

> characteristics which aren't functional, attractive to the opposite sex or

> both? What species develops ANYTHING which isn't functional, attractive to

> the opposite sex or the consequence of one or both of the former? "

I have my own theories about this...

All babies can easily recognize the difference between an engorged

breast and an empty one: only one gets the infant drooling buckets.

These babies then grow up, to select the best mate to make more

babies. For males the best mate would also be the best milk producer

because what is good genetics without food? So therefore men are

attracted to breasts.

However, it is not the breast that is in the end erotic, it is the

nipple, the method of delivery of the milk to the baby. Ideally, to

his baby. Thus the erotic part: his future baby sucking at his mates

nipple.

Pavlov taught dogs to drool at a bell, who says nature can't teach man

to be aroused at a nipple?

Sincerely,

Lana M. Gibbons

[Guest guest]

> I have my own theories about this...

>

> All babies can easily recognize the difference between an engorged

> breast and an empty one: only one gets the infant drooling buckets.

>

> These babies then grow up, to select the best mate to make more

> babies. For males the best mate would also be the best milk producer

> because what is good genetics without food? So therefore men are

> attracted to breasts.

>

> However, it is not the breast that is in the end erotic, it is the

> nipple, the method of delivery of the milk to the baby. Ideally, to

> his baby. Thus the erotic part: his future baby sucking at his mates

> nipple.

>

> Pavlov taught dogs to drool at a bell, who says nature can't teach man

> to be aroused at a nipple?

Lana,

That all sounds very functional but it seems to me you're objectifying

the women folk and leaving out the sex part.

For those unscientific enough to give it any bearing, the nipples are

on meridians that link directly to the clitoris, nipples are potent

erogenous zones; they are sexy to both men and women on their own merit.

B.

[Guest guest]

On 9/12/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> That all sounds very functional but it seems to me you're objectifying

> the women folk and leaving out the sex part.

>

> For those unscientific enough to give it any bearing, the nipples are

> on meridians that link directly to the clitoris, nipples are potent

> erogenous zones; they are sexy to both men and women on their own merit.

> B.

Right but the alignment of the nipples with the clitoris would have to

occur *for some reason*-- probably, like most things. And there may

well be a non-sexual reason for this. It could be, for example, that

nipples are associated with a main pleasure-stimulating network so the

mother has a desire to breastfeed.

On the other hand, I see no reason, evolutionary or otherwise, for why

a man can have an orgasm by stimulation of his prostate, so maybe

there isn't a reason for *everthing* (or I just can't think of it.)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

> On the other hand, I see no reason, evolutionary or otherwise, for

why

> a man can have an orgasm by stimulation of his prostate, so maybe

> there isn't a reason for *everthing* (or I just can't think of it.)

>

> Chris

> --

Well, since the prostrate is the androgenized fetal uterus and since

the uterus is very involved in female orgasm, it would not make sense

for the prostrate NOT to participate.

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

> Well, since the prostrate is the androgenized fetal uterus and since

> the uterus is very involved in female orgasm, it would not make sense

> for the prostrate NOT to participate.

>

Connie,

and prostates are known to be sensible.

B.

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/05, Connie Hampton <connie@...> wrote:

> > On the other hand, I see no reason, evolutionary or otherwise, for

> why

> > a man can have an orgasm by stimulation of his prostate, so maybe

> > there isn't a reason for *everthing* (or I just can't think of it.)

> Well, since the prostrate is the androgenized fetal uterus and since

> the uterus is very involved in female orgasm, it would not make sense

> for the prostrate NOT to participate.

I didn't realize this was the pattern of fetal development. Thanks!

>Connie,

>and prostates are known to be sensible.

> B.

LOL!

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Why do you guys think Bill and Sally are doing a poor PR job?

Their PR materials suck. I mean, seriously, would you give anyone their

soy pamphlet? It's unattractive, poorly laid out from an advertising

perspective, and it doesn't offer a single shred of support for its assertions.

-

[Guest guest]

Mati-

>Any opinions that you may have about prenatal diet, breastfeeding,

>drug-free childbirth, etc. may be freely rendered in a humbly supportive

>tone, without resorting to name-calling.

Huh? When have I resorted to name-calling?

-

[Guest guest]

I am not an any way a PR expert or anything and I don't for the most part

even notice that stuff, but you have to admit their PR is way better than

the Price-Pottenger Foundation. Or course that is not saying much. Having

said that, do you have enough experience in such matters to do some

redesigning for them? I can't speak for WAPF, but I would be willing to bet

they would be open to any help in that department.

I have been handing out their flyers lately. I will ask around and see if

anyone has any comments on them. Personally I kind of like the basic

brochure although it probably could use a few more references.

Irene

At 11:03 AM 9/13/2005, you wrote:

>Suze-

>

> >Why do you guys think Bill and Sally are doing a poor PR job?

>

>Their PR materials suck. I mean, seriously, would you give anyone their

>soy pamphlet? It's unattractive, poorly laid out from an advertising

>perspective, and it doesn't offer a single shred of support for its

>assertions.

>

>

>

>

>-

>

>

>

><HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd>http://www.w3.org/TR/\

xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

>FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

><B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

><UL>

> <LI><B><A

>

HREF= " < />http://health.grou\

ps./group/ / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " <http://onibasu.com/>http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire

> message archive with Onibasu</LI>

></UL></FONT>

><PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

>HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

>OWNER:</A></B> Idol

><B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

></FONT></PRE>

></BODY>

></HTML>

>

>

>

>