Breasts, Bucks and Bondage

I caught a bit of Dennis Prager the other day, and he was talking about breastfeeding mothers alleging Facebook discrimination. Jenna Wortham, at her NY Times Blog reports:

Facebook is standing firm on a policy that has led to the removal of some photos posted by women that show breastfeeding. The deletions have spurred Facebook members to stage protests both online and offline.

Facebook maintains it is simply enforcing an existing no nudity policy. I didn't realize how widespread the Indignant Lactivist Movement was until I Googled the subject.

A nice young blogger posted this on her site, along with some pictures of herself proudly alimenting her young child:

Why do people think that baby pigs/cats/dogs/(mammal of your choice here) nursing are super! cute! and put photos of them in baby books and on sappy greeting cards, but a baby human being nourished is offensive?

AHHHHHHHHHHHH! It makes me rip out my hair. Maybe I should start nursing Willow again. In public. TOPLESS.

I've seen dogs and cats lay on their backs, spread their legs quite unashamedly, and vigorously lick their privates, so I don't think animal behavior is a reliable standard for gauging the limits of human decency. And her desire to scandalize us all by publicly nursing TOPLESS reveals the primal, atavistic urge that drives this attitude-fueled exhibitionism.

Jaelithe tells us (and shows us):

Offending the unwashed masses is one of my favorite pastimes. Take that, nursing-haters. I flash my boob at you! In a grainy filtered out-of-focus photo that shows even less flesh than the one on the cover of BabyTalk, which, incidentally, showed a lot less flesh than one ordinarily might expect to see on the cover of Vogue.

Angry women ranting against the puritans who quail at the sight of their breasts... Super moms proudly railing against the ignorant who equate breastfeeding with pornography...

One problem. These woman warriors are assailing straw men. Not wanting to see your breasts does not make me a puritan; and try as I might, I could not find one account of anyone equating breastfeeding with pornography. Newsflash: Despite the arduous efforts of BET, MTV, and the major networks, large segments of society still cling tenuously to time-honored standards of decency, which include not showing off your hoo-hoos.

Breastfeeding is a beautiful, intimate experience between mother and child, and there is something creepy about the desire to turn it into a notorious display of "look at me" defiance.

Mothers have every right to discreetly breastfeed in public. Anyone who wants to push a mother and her baby into a bathroom so the baby can eat needs to have his head examined. But that's not what this is about. This is an unbalanced group of women with psychological issues actively stirring up outrage against themselves.

This is the kind of self-righteous, in-your-face ranting that does self-inflicted damage to a cause. Why would a woman want to post a picture of herself breastfeeding? What purpose does it serve, besides announcing, "Look at me! I'm Zena the warrior mother! I have a set of mammaries and I know how to use 'em!"

These women are hurting the cause of discreet public breastfeeding just as the creepy, parading "queers" hurt the homosexual agenda. Gay rights supporters insist these weirdos are not representative of the community at large, and most decry the negative publicity these painted and pierced perverts attract. Leather-clad homosexuals leading around their mates in spiked collars on the end of a chain gain no sympathy for gay rights; and angry Astarte wannabes who let it all hang out while defiantly challenging all "puritans" are doing damage to the righteous cause of public breastfeeding.

It is the outrageous exercise of rights that causes so much social friction in societies. Yes, I have a right to flagrantly denounce everybody's religion but mine, loudly damning everyone to hell for not converting to my faith, but why? What purpose would it serve, other than to anger a lot of people? I sure wouldn't gain any converts. This is the behavior that creates social chaos in places like the Indian subcontinent and the Balkans.

Sometimes it's better to just leave it alone
Big game hunting is a big deal in my state, and everyone has to take a hunter's safety class to get a tag. I took the course many years ago, and the instructor asked us to refrain from triumphant post-hunt displays like strapping a bloody buck across the hood of your pickup and parading down mainstreet past the Dairy Queen and the grocery store. Why? Because my state's been invaded by Bambi-loving city slickers who don't realize these animals would starve over the winter if we didn't manage the population. It ain't the wild west no more. Hunting offends the Disneyesque fantasyland these latte liberal transplants live in, and they vote. Push your slain quarry in their faces and these affluent voters could negatively impact big game hunting for a long time to come.

Standing up for what you believe in is important, but we all must realize that the God-given rights our constitution acknowledges are broad and deep, covering a diverse range of activities. Some of them are bound to rub others the wrong way. The easiest way to keep the peace is to enjoy them fully but charitably and mind your own business. This simple formula keeps the peace in small towns all over America.

If we could learn to keep our breasts, bucks, and bondage fetishes to ourselves, we'd all be a lot better off.