Sharon's Muse.... Let's chat over coffee while I ponder some things
|
Sharon's Muse.... Let's chat over coffee while I ponder some things |
About Me
Name::Sharon Cullars
From::
My Meez 
Recent Entries
Archives
Personal
Interesting Sites
RAINE'S BLUES 
Now available at Loose-Id Watch trailer for Raine's Blues
GOLD MOUNTAIN 
Available at Loose-Id
AGAIN
Need Flashplayer to view. Give time to load.
TOOL & BAD BOYS Short, Short Ebooks My Artwork
My Merchandise Freelance Projects
blog posts, articles, web content, resumes, copywriting, proofreading
Read my business guides at Work.com
Read my profile on Air Station Savannah's pivotal Katrina rescues
Read my article on the Fair Trade system
Credits |
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 More breast hooey Earlier I posted about an inane controversy that arose over a magazine cover showing a woman's breast attached to a sweet little baby. Some readers were up in arms about the "indecency" of the pic, as though there was something remotely sexual about the act of breastfeeding. The twisted logic is continued here in this essay by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at Beliefnet.com who writes that women should hide their breastfeeding from their husbands in order not to de-sexualize their mammary glands. After all, what man wants to be reminded that those chest orbs aren't his exclusively. Here is what the good Rabbi purports: "In the end, there are two effects of breast-feeding that we often refuse to acknowledge. One is the de-eroticization of a woman's body, as her husband witnesses one of the most attractive parts of her body serving a utilitarian rather than romantic purpose. This is not to say that breast-feeding isn't sexy. Indeed, the maternal dimension is a central part of womanliness. But public breast-feeding is profoundly de-eroticizing, and I believe that wives should cover up, even when they nurse their babies in their husband's presence." And taking a swipe against breast-feeding isn't enough. He also has a problem with men in the birth room: "I believe this same problem comes up when men witness childbirth up close. There are certain poses in which a husband should not see his wife. By all means, be there for the entire labor, as I have been for the births of each of my eight children. But I strongly agree with the advice of the ancient rabbis that husbands should not be staring at the actual delivery. That is just too erotic a part of a wife's anatomy for it to become a mere birth canal." Yes, we don't want the husbands feeling as though they have lost all exclusive rights to their wives bodies. They don't need to see the actual births because gee whiz that might make them hesitant to use that "canal" again. Gimme a f*cking break. He further says: "The erotic nature of a wife's body is one of the principal elements of attraction in marriage. When a husband ceases to see his wife as a woman, and begins to see her as "the mother of his children," a negative trend has begun in his mind that can only subvert his erotic interest." So all those men who screw their wives who also happen to be mothers of their children obviously has some screws loose because they shouldn't want these ole hags anymore. Salon's Broadsheet posted on the essay, and in the comments, one in particular stood out. It was posted by Tyler Durden who agrees with the good Rabbi. Durden posted that women jump at the chance to push their neglected husbands aside in the name of motherhood. He seems to think that this is really cloaked selfishness on the part of wives who violate the cardinal sin of never putting anyone (including your children) before your husband. Here's his premise: "But your average feminism-raised woman makes breast feeding into an unbelievable project -- lactation consultants, books, debates, special nursing pillows, and on and on. And all this usually pretty much elbows the husband aside. We become handmaidens to the Grand Project, which is a complete fabrication. And the marriage suffers. All too often, breastfeeding is a perfect opportunity for the wife to commit the "cardinal sin" and put someone else in front of her husband, with predictable results. All the emotional jive is an excuse for selfishness, basically. It's not about the infant, who doesn't know or care. It's about the mother's ego." Damn those selfish bitches who don't realize that the male is supreme and all attention to him is due. Mr. Durden doesn't seem to see the selfishness (and mean-spirited jealousy) of his own logic. All I can say is thank God I'm merely a spectator to this circus. And I hope Mr. Durden isn't a father - or if he is, that his wife didn't have to hear this BS while lactating. I'd been hard put not to squirt him in the face. Another commentator, PMace, at Broadsheet sums it up more nicely: "Ditch any guy who expresses misgivings about the fabulous and mysterious powers of the female physique.....he himself is a baby, that's the problem. To help you raise babies, you need a man."
|
| Layout Design by Hajira | Thanks to:Getty Images • Blogspot • Blogskins • |
