Breast Feeding A "Two Year Old" On The Commuter?

[J-Bol]

I don't see the problem. Sure, it might be a little "weird" but that's because you don't see too many women breast feeding in general, let alone in public. And if the child was 2, it still doesn't matter. I think the mother knows best when to wean.

[1devil]

For starters, you could always look at my profile. I've been with this counseling agency for just about three years, and probably will be until I head down to Cali for grad school. In addition to psych/child development courses relevant to the psych program here, I've taken some sociology classes. But none of that really applies - what does it that I've used the information taken from my education and applied it in my abilities to research other topics. A critical mind is a great thing.

And if we're playing the family experience game, I probably have more extended family than most people here (traditional Catholic grandparents on both sides - so no birth control.)

An intelligent and worthwhile opinion should be based on facts, not go against them.

Those studies probably say that they need it at least until then. There's more than enough science to back up the benefits of going longer.

By self weaning, do you mean they never got any breast milk or formula AT ALL from that point on out? What about sippy cups? Many parents like to replace forumla with those, and it leads to a lot of tooth decay because they'll use juice.



I never knew eating wasn't allowed in public.



WTF? We aren't talking about excreting feces. We're talking about EATING. She wasn't changing the kid's diaper there or anything.

For that matter, should babies be forced to wait until they get home to take ****s? Or urinate? Good luck with that.

I don't get it. You'd be okay with a parent giving their kid unhealthy **** that will kill them from the inside out both physically and psychologically... she could do that in front of your face and it'd be typical America, But God forbid she give that same child the most healthy and happy start in life within seeing range of another of her species.



With all due respect to your doc, he needs to put down the weed and pick up some text books.

Just use common sense, and look at our history as a species. Babies are meant to have breast milk until they can get their full nutrition from solid foods. A child is not old enough to do that just because they are old enough to know where breasts are. Look at every other species. Their babies know how to get to the nipple on their own - or they die. It's what baby mammals DO. We've evolved for a long time to have our child know where those are and what to do with them - only to get to us to THIS point of trying to keep babies from something meant only for their food needs?

And just think of what happens as children start walking and running around. They get into way more ****, thus the added immunities can be of great benefit. The toddler months are also very emotionally stressful to the child, so that comfort can be a great benefit as well.

I'm starting to get a good laugh out our little daily exchange of posts. Why should I have to research your experience? I clearly explained my educational backround/work/personal experience. You can take 30 seconds to do the same. Anyway, I see nothing which suggests you are anymore educated on this topic than I am. I also have to laugh at your assumption that I'm ok with the notion of feeding kids crap I am not. I am appalled by our nation of fat ass toddlers. Additionally, my kids eat in a very healthy manner.

Furthermore it's absurd for you to make statements like this ("Just use common sense, and look at our history as a species. Babies are meant to have breast milk until they can get their full nutrition from solid foods"), and then get on me for not using reasearch to back up my points. Common sense is not a research technique. Remember, you decided that only research is valid in this discussion...right?

Lastly I find it interesting you see fit to label yourself more knowledgable than a physician on the topic of breast feeding. Oh the irony. You seem to think you have superior educational knowledge on the topic, which then renders my opinions invalid. Could not the same thing then be said about your level of knowledge as compared to that of my pediatrician. But I guess glib comments about putting down the weed changes everything

[jf1]

I don't see the problem. Sure, it might be a little "weird" but that's because you don't see too many women breast feeding in general, let alone in public. And if the child was 2, it still doesn't matter. I think the mother knows best when to wean.

i find myself shocked that we share a similar viewpoint...

[LunicaAshes]

I'm starting to get a good laugh out our little daily exchange of posts. Why should I have to research your experience? I clearly explained my educational backround/work/personal experience. You can take 30 seconds to do the same. Anyway, I see nothing which suggests you are anymore educated on this topic than I am. I also have to laugh at your assumption that I'm ok with the notion of feeding kids crap I am not. I am appalled by our nation of fat ass toddlers. Additionally, my kids eat in a very healthy manner.

Then you should support the healthiest diet possible 100%, not just support going half way with it and weaning them early.

Why do you want me to explain myself to you when you have refused to answer any of MY questions?

Furthermore it's absurd for you to make statements like this ("Just use common sense, and look at our history as a species. Babies are meant to have breast milk until they can get their full nutrition from solid foods"), and then get on me for not using reasearch to back up my points. Common sense is not a research technique. Remember, you decided that only research is valid in this discussion...right?

Okay then - "RESEARCH the SCIENCE of our history as a species. Babies are meant to have breast milk until they can get their full nutrition from solid foods."

Lastly I find it interesting you see fit to label yourself more knowledgable than a physician on the topic of breast feeding. Oh the irony. You seem to think you have superior educational knowledge on the topic, which then renders my opinions invalid. Could not the same thing then be said about your level of knowledge as compared to that of my pediatrician. But I guess glib comments about putting down the weed changes everything

It's not that I am a better source. It's that the many doctors with good methods in their research are better than a single doctor who says something which goes against the laws of nature. Why do you think your doctor knows more than those others? Has he taken updated courses on the latest research into the issue?

[LunicaAshes]

Child development studies? Science?

What a load of crap.

A bunch of studies that say something different every time and are funded by a different organization with a different axe to grind every year does not qualify as science.

What goes up must come down is an example of science. Saying that you breath in oxygen and breathe out CO2 is an example of science.

The rest is just something you read in a book that was written by some douchebag liberal college prof trying to get a grant.

These fools don't even know if eggs are good or bad. Study my ass.

Well, you don't need a study to tell you that breast milk = baby food, genius.

[Lager1]

Sheduma laying out some PWNAGE for the boob-frightened pussies.

[1devil]

Then you should support the healthiest diet possible 100%, not just support going half way with it and weaning them early.

Why do you want me to explain myself to you when you have refused to answer any of MY questions?



Okay then - "RESEARCH the SCIENCE of our history as a species. Babies are meant to have breast milk until they can get their full nutrition from solid foods."



It's not that I am a better source. It's that the many doctors with good methods in their research are better than a single doctor who says something which goes against the laws of nature. Why do you think your doctor knows more than those others? Has he taken updated courses on the latest research into the issue?

What questions have I not answered??? I have been open about my backround and my views. You seem to be getting some weird kick out of keeping your backrounded shrouded in mystery, while at the same time trying to use this mystery backround as some kind of intellectual club.

[1devil]

Sheduma laying out some PWNAGE for the boob-frightened pussies.

I like boobs. My wife has very nice pair. I am not opposed to looking at other boobies either, but I usually try to be subtle about it

[SilverSpork]

A lot of boob-fright in here. Is there something else you guys want to admit to?

[1devil]

It's interesting that this thread started as discussion over the appropriatness/ necessity of breast feeding your two plus year old in the middle of a busy train platform. It has since morphed into accusations of boobie fear and an agenda to deprive your little one of proper nutrients.

[KRANE]

So, first off, to the idiot that called breasts "genitals," you are a complete moron. Breasts are made to feed children. They are made to produce milk, which is NOT a sexual act. By claiming that breasts are genitalia, you make the ludicrous and idiotic claim that any person or creature who is nursing their newborn is sexually assaulting their offspring. This, on the face of it, is patently absurd- if we're generous about it.

It is our culture that has sexualized women's breasts, and it is very unnatural that we have done so. You sexualize breasts because you have been indoctrinated to do so by your society. Breasts are made to create food for babies, pure and simple.

Thank God for the clear thinking of the ladies here. How this got twisted into a sex thing I have no clue. Nevertheless, it does reveal where this breastfeeding stigma may have originated from in the first place?

But now, let's get down to the nitty gritty of the topic.

I have a 2 year old, and I'm still nursing her. Well, she'll be two in a few weeks, that is.

Why? There are several reasons. All doctors recommend that children get some form of milk up to age 2. Cow's milk is not made for human babies, it's made for cow babies. The same for goat's milk, etc. Formula is made to be used in emergencies when mothers can't produce their own milk (less than 1% of women can't produce enough milk for their babies-- most simply don't bother in our culture). So, the wise choice should be obvious... for as long as your child NEEDS milk for his or her development... the milk perfectly suited in every way to their needs and development and digestive system is the wisest one to give them. Not a poor replacement.

I don't think he disagrees with that?

As far as when I will nurse her... I will nurse her whenever she needs to nurse. She knows when she wants to nurse versus a drink of water versus a snack. Whether it's for comfort or for nourishment or because she's feeling weak with hunger, it doesn't really matter. She has a need for it that is strong enough that she will specifically ask for THAT, and she will refuse whatever else is offered.

To put it in terms you might understand, you hardly want to be given a salad when you are looking for a source of protien. You'd be pretty mad at the person who told you that they are uncomfortable with you eating meat, so you WILL have a salad, and you WILL LIKE IT.

So if you are uncomfortable with a woman feeding her child in public, that's your personal problem, and I care no more about it than you care about a vegetarian crying about you eating meat in front of them.

Pardon me, but I have a bit of an issue with that part. I can't help but notice some amount of 21 century selfishness in that statement. In other words, because you can, doesn't always mean you should...or you have to.

Let's see, one is a child who can't understand why she can't eat right now when her little tummy is hurting for food... and one is a grown adult that can get the f*ck over themselves and their childish, culturally imposed puritanical prudism...

I've seen the results of children that get everything they want when they ask for it. And the attitude isn't pleasent. Personally, I feel we've rebounded a bit too much with this "me, damn everybody else" attitude. No one would every suggest you starve your child, but there's nothing wrong (in fact I think it's healthy) with teaching your kid that sometimes they may have to wait. Think of it like good manners: you don't have to say excuse me after you sneeze, but I does show respect (for those around you), when you do.

[OmniPotentTitan]

Think of it like good manners: you don't have to say excuse me after you sneeze, but I does show respect (fior those around you), when you do.

Why would you say excuse me after sneezing? What does this have to do with manners? Do you mean if you sneeze on somebody?

What kind of uptight bull**** society do you live in?

[KRANE]

Why would you say excuse me after sneezing? What does this have to do with manners? Do you mean if you sneeze on somebody?

You don't. But the civilized people do it anyway.

What kind of uptight bull**** society do you live in?

A well mannered and respectful one. What you call "uptight" I call a conservative upbringing. It's a shame you missed it.

[Amris]

I don't think he disagrees with that?

I didn't say anyone disagreed, I was simply laying out some of the reasons for my choice to continue nursing rather than putting a child on cow's milk or changing to formula for the rest of the time that children NEED milk. Children NEED milk much longer than 6 months old.

Pardon me, but I have a bit of an issue with that part. I can't help but notice a bit of 21 century selfishness in that statement. In other words, because you can, doesn't always mean you should.

It doesn't have anything to do with "because I can," it has to do with the fact that children do NOT understand why they are being refused nourishment. You have the cart before the horse. I CAN, because I SHOULD be able to. I CAN because eating is a physiological NEED. Milk for babies is NOT optional unless you don't care whether or not they are healthy.

I should not have to pump breastmilk to carry around because someone who thinks that breasts are genitalia might get offended by a mother nursing a child.

I've seen the results of children that get everything they want when they ask for it. And the attitude isn't pleasent. Personally, I feel we've rebounded a bit too much with this "me, damn everybody else" attitude. No one would every suggest you starve your child, but there's nothing wrong (in fact I think it's healthy) with teaching your kid that sometimes they may have to wait. Think of it like good manners: you don't have to say excuse me after you sneeze, but I does show respect (fior those around you), when you do.

Unfortunately, you chose the wrong thing to make your crusade about. Eating is, again, a NEED, not a desire. It's not like she's asking for a baloon. At the store the other day, she demanded, repeatedly, a "ba-oon!" I told her no. And much to the annoyance and anger of the fellow behind me, I made everyone in the store listen to her screaming and wailing for the coveted "ba-oon."

You are, unfortunately, attempting to make "you can't have everythign you want" be about EATING and HEALTH, rather than the appropriate things, like ba-oons and candy bars and toys and soccer games and various and sundry other non-necessities.

A child's need for nourishment, or even for comfort under duress, is part of establishing for the child a sense of safety. It's one thing to be deprived of a ba-oon, but a whole other thing to be forced to go hungry.

You don't like to be forced to go hungry, and you don't like to be forced to eat only lettuce for days at a time when your body is craving meat. But you would demand that, in order to TEACH HER A LESSON, I force my child to go hungry or to only allow her to eat something that her body is not asking for at the moment?

That teaches her something, alright. It teaches her that she's not allowed to eat, not allowed to eat what her body needs, and that she is being punished for she-knows-not-what WITH THE WITHHOLDING OF FOOD.

Healthy food is not a weapon, a punishment, a reward, or a lesson.

Ba-oons are lessons. Ba-oons are "you can't have everything you want."




According to you, though, I should have been considerate of everyone else in the case of the baloon.

That flies directly in the face of your insistence that one teach one's child that they can't have everything they want just because they want it. Shall I give in to the child's desire for the balloon, or should I cave in to the desire of the people not to listen to crying?

Shall I feed my child and put my child's health first, or shall I tell my child that she must go hungry, and force other people to listen to her screaming in order to appease those who don't want to 'see me' do such a nasty thing as nurse my child?

Which crowd to appease? Whose whim must I cater to and put over my child's well-being? The "don't make me hear your baby cry" crowd, or the "don't make me look at you nursing your child" crowd?

Should I give in when it comes to balloons to appease people who don't want to listen to her cry, but then when she wants to EAT, choose THAT time to teach her, "you can't have everything you want-- even the things important to your health and well-being. I care more about what other people will think of me than I do about your hurting tummy"?

[1devil]

[QUOTE=KRANE;230524911][QUOTE=OmniPotentTitan;230523111]Why would you say excuse me after sneezing? What does this have to do with manners? Do you mean if you sneeze on somebody?

You don't. But the civilized people do it anyway.

A well mannered and respectful one. What you call "uptight" I call a conservative upbringing. It's a shame you missed it.

I love how people are labeling both of (using insults mind you) as not being tolerant enough. The irony of someone being disrespectful /intolerant over someone not sharing their views is pretty amusing.

[jf1]

the fact is: breast feeding is a natural act and if you have a problem with it, it is up to you to GTFO!

if a woman were to consider everyones precious viewpoint regarding how they felt when she fed her child she would be unable to do so virtually anywhere!

i cant believe we are even arguing about this!
what do you gentlemen find offensive?
the breast? the infant suckling?
what?

[KRANE]

I should not have to pump breastmilk to carry around because someone who thinks that breasts are genitalia might get offended by a mother nursing a child.

You don't! And there end lies the gist of this thread. Like I said, manners aren't mandatory. If anyone wants to sit at the table (or on the floor) and eat like a pig--they can.

Unfortunately, you chose the wrong thing to make your crusade about. Eating is, again, a NEED, not a desire. It's not like she's asking for a baloon. At the store the other day, she demanded, repeatedly, a "ba-oon!" I told her no. And much to the annoyance and anger of the fellow behind me, I made everyone in the store listen to her screaming and wailing for the coveted "ba-oon."

It wasn't a crusade; I thought you understood that. The impetus hehind this thread was to create a forum on the discussion on what is appropriate vs what is allowed--or required. I believed a lady breast feeding would make a good example.

You are, unfortunately, attempting to make "you can't have everythign you want" be about EATING and HEALTH, rather than the appropriate things, like ba-oons and candy bars and toys and soccer games and various and sundry other non-necessities.

In the example, the child was a two years old (closer to three) not a new born.

A child's need for nourishment, or even for comfort under duress, is part of establishing for the child a sense of safety. It's one thing to be deprived of a ba-oon, but a whole other thing to be forced to go hungry.

You don't like to be forced to go hungry, and you don't like to be forced to eat only lettuce for days at a time when your body is craving meat. But you would demand that, in order to TEACH HER A LESSON, I force my child to go hungry or to only allow her to eat something that her body is not asking for at the moment?

That teaches her something, alright. It teaches her that she's not allowed to eat, not allowed to eat what her body needs, and that she is being punished for she-knows-not-what WITH THE WITHHOLDING OF FOOD.

Healthy food is not a weapon, a punishment, a reward, or a lesson.

Ba-oons are lessons. Ba-oons are "you can't have everything you want."




According to you, though, I should have been considerate of everyone else in the case of the baloon.

That flies directly in the face of your insistence that one teach one's child that they can't have everything they want just because they want it. Shall I give in to the child's desire for the balloon, or should I cave in to the desire of the people not to listen to crying?

Shall I feed my child and put my child's health first, or shall I tell my child that she must go hungry, and force other people to listen to her screaming in order to appease those who don't want to 'see me' do such a nasty thing as nurse my child?

Which crowd to appease? Whose whim must I cater to and put over my child's well-being? The "don't make me hear your baby cry" crowd, or the "don't make me look at you nursing your child" crowd?

Should I give in when it comes to balloons to appease people who don't want to listen to her cry, but then when she wants to EAT, choose THAT time to teach her, "you can't have everything you want-- even the things important to your health and well-being. I care more about what other people will think of me than I do about your hurting tummy"?

We all have a right to raise our children the way we want (which would also allow you to teach them to hate) but sooner or later they will have to interact with society. It's the consequences of these interactions that concerns me. Think about it, every criminal in prison began as somebody's little boy or girl.

[jf1]

It's the consequences of these interactions that concerns me. Think about it, every criminal in prison began as somebody's little boy or girl.

LOL!
i was sure that was going to read: Think about it, every criminal in prison began as somebody's little boy or girl ...drinking breast milk!

[KRANE]

i cant believe we are even arguing about this!
what do you gentlemen find offensive?
the breast? the infant suckling?
what?

UGH! You still think this thread is about sex.

[OmniPotentTitan]

You don't. But the civilized people do it anyway.

A well mannered and respectful one. What you call "uptight" I call a conservative upbringing. It's a shame you missed it.

Oh here we go, now you are trying to call me uncivilized. Let me guess, you also say excuse me when you cough? Do you also not wear white after labour day? Do you hold the door open for every random person? Talk about preconditioned.

Do you also feel offended when people don't wear suits to business meetings or when your close friends don't at least call you on your birthday?

[KRANE]

Oh here we go, now you are trying to call me uncivilized. Let me guess, you also say excuse me when you cough? Do you also not wear white after labour day? Do you hold the door open for every random person? Talk about preconditioned.

Do you also feel offended when people don't wear suits to business meeting or when your close friends don't at least call you on your birthday?

For the answer to these and other topics of irrevelance...start another thread brah!

[Amris]

You don't! And there end lies the gist of this thread. Like I said, manners aren't mandatory. If anyone wants to sit at the table (or on the floor) and eat like a pig--they can.

So, not pumping breastmilk is now eating like a pig on the floor?

Careful, your bias is showing.

It wasn't a crusade; I thought you understood that. The impetus hehind this thread was to create a forum on the discussion on what is appropriate vs what is allowed--or required. I believed a lady breast feeding would make a good example.

In the example, the child was a two years old (closer to three) not a new born.

My daughter will be two in a few weeks. She still NEEDS milk, according to medical professionals, and even according to cultures that prefer alternative treatments and alternative therapies. A strange accord, but there it is. So when everyone can agree that children need milk for proper development until a minimum of age 2, and most cultures recommend 4, actually... why should we stigmatize mothers who make the choice to give their child milk until ages 2-4? Only because it's BREAST milk? The kind that is made expressly for HUMAN CONSUMPTION, which NO other kind of milk is?

We all have a right to raise our children the way we want (which would also allow you to teach them to hate) but sooner or later they will have to interact with society. It's the consequences of these interactions that concerns me. Think about it, every criminal in prison began as somebody's little boy or girl.

You didn't answer my question, which only leaves me to assume that you didn't actually bother yourself to read it.

Apparently, you want me to only pump breastmilk because YOU might get upset by a natural human function of me breastfeeding my child, you want me to (I don't know, I have to guess, since you didn't answer the question) tape my child's mouth shut if she cries when I tell her she can't have something, and you want me to starve her so that you don't have to see me feed her.

Yeah, I think... no.

You're definitely showing your bias. Now breastfed children who aren't given PUMPED breastmilk are going to end up in prison. Or is it children breastfed over the age of... uh, what, 6 months? What's your magic number?

Or is it children that are actually allowed to eat when they are hungry that will go to prison?

Did you even hear yourself make spiteful comments about someone's kid going to prison because YOU don't agree with their parenting choices? If I made such a comment to you, you would call me a racist and a hate-mongerer, or worse. Maybe you need to go outside and go for a walk before you start telling peole that their kids will be in prison because they made the choice to FEED THEIR CHILD WHEN THE CHILD WAS HUNGRY.

If you have kids, I hope you rethink your idea of using food to teach them a lesson when they're not even 3 years old yet. Food should never be a weapon or a lesson.

Thanks for not bothering to read my post, bud. I'm sure you won't bother to read this one, either.

[Lager1]

It's interesting that this thread started as discussion over the appropriatness/ necessity of breast feeding your two plus year old in the middle of a busy train platform. It has since morphed into accusations of boobie fear and an agenda to deprive your little one of proper nutrients.

That's what it's about.

[jf1]

the fact is: breast feeding is a natural act and if you have a problem with it, it is up to you to GTFO!

if a woman were to consider everyones precious viewpoint regarding how they felt when she fed her child she would be unable to do so virtually anywhere!

i cant believe we are even arguing about this!
what do you gentlemen find offensive?
the breast? the infant suckling?
what?

UGH! You still think this thread is about sex.

where the HELL do you get 'sex' out of the above post?
there is nothing mentioned even remotely connected to sex!
is it the word 'breast' that has this effect on you?
if so, you have a serious problem!

[OmniPotentTitan]

where the HELL do you get 'sex' out of the above post?
there is nothing mentioned even remotely connected to sex!
is it the word 'breast' that has this effect on you?
if so, you have a serious problem!

No, it is us that have the problem because we don't get offended at actions that have no consequence on our lives.

For the answer to these and other topics of irrevelance...start another thread brah!

It is relevant. The only reason you are "offended" is because of the preconditioned bull**** you were told to believe. Until the kid takes a piss on you, you have no right to tell the mother what to do with it. So sit down and shutup, and if you can't stop looking then go somewhere else.

[Lager1]

where the HELL do you get 'sex' out of the above post?
there is nothing mentioned even remotely connected to sex!
is it the word 'breast' that has this effect on you?
if so, you have a serious problem!

It's obvious Krane really has some emotional problems. I seriously don't get his aversion towards breastfeeding.


If he wants to make his children eat less healthy food, so be it. But there's no reason women shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed their children whenever necessary.


There's no reason they should be forced to forgo feeding their children simply because sensitive pansies like Krane see a boob and feel disgusted.

[Lager1]

No, it is us that have the problem because we don't get offended at actions that have no consequence on our lives.

It is relevant. The only reason you are "offended" is because of the preconditioned bull**** you were told to believe. Until the kid takes a piss on you, you have no right to tell the mother what to do with it. So sit down and shutup, and if you can't stop looking then go somewhere else.

LMAO

[OmniPotentTitan]

So, not pumping breastmilk is now eating like a pig on the floor?

Careful, your bias is showing.



My daughter will be two in a few weeks. She still NEEDS milk, according to medical professionals, and even according to cultures that prefer alternative treatments and alternative therapies. A strange accord, but there it is. So when everyone can agree that children need milk for proper development until a minimum of age 2, and most cultures recommend 4, actually... why should we stigmatize mothers who make the choice to give their child milk until ages 2-4? Only because it's BREAST milk? The kind that is made expressly for HUMAN CONSUMPTION, which NO other kind of milk is?



You didn't answer my question, which only leaves me to assume that you didn't actually bother yourself to read it.

Apparently, you want me to only pump breastmilk because YOU might get upset by a natural human function of me breastfeeding my child, you want me to (I don't know, I have to guess, since you didn't answer the question) tape my child's mouth shut if she cries when I tell her she can't have something, and you want me to starve her so that you don't have to see me feed her.

Yeah, I think... no.

You're definitely showing your bias. Now breastfed children who aren't given PUMPED breastmilk are going to end up in prison. Or is it children breastfed over the age of... uh, what, 6 months? What's your magic number?

Or is it children that are actually allowed to eat when they are hungry that will go to prison?

Did you even hear yourself make spiteful comments about someone's kid going to prison because YOU don't agree with their parenting choices? If I made such a comment to you, you would call me a racist and a hate-mongerer, or worse. Maybe you need to go outside and go for a walk before you start telling peole that their kids will be in prison because they made the choice to FEED THEIR CHILD WHEN THE CHILD WAS HUNGRY.

If you have kids, I hope you rethink your idea of using food to teach them a lesson when they're not even 3 years old yet. Food should never be a weapon or a lesson.

Thanks for not bothering to read my post, bud. I'm sure you won't bother to read this one, either.

I agree that parents who punish their children by not giving them dinner are idiots at best.

[Amris]

I agree that parents who punish their children by not giving them dinner are idiots at best.

Yeah, this is made all the worse by the fact that, not only does he want me to use it to teach her a lesson, but he wants me to do it even though she isn't doing a THING wrong by simply being hungry... except for being hungry where HE might see her eating in a way HE doesn't approve of.

But the more he talks, the more I think what got him all hot and bothered was that she was ON THE FLOOR feeding her child. I guess she was supposef to find a diningroom table and set her breast on that to nurse. *shrug*

[Lager1]

Yeah, this is made all the worse by the fact that, not only does he want me to use it to teach her a lesson, but he wants me to do it even though she isn't doing a THING wrong by simply being hungry... except for being hungry where HE might see her eating in a way HE doesn't approve of.

But the more he talks, the more I think what got him all hot and bothered was that she was ON THE FLOOR feeding her child. I guess she was supposef to find a diningroom table and set her breast on that to nurse. *shrug*

Honestly, sometimes I wonder why we humor these topics. They are so absurd it is just...bad.