Breastfeeding Ban

If you haven't heard the hullabaloo, there's been a breastfeeding pic ban at the popular Facebook website which I do not participate in.

I'm all for it.

First, it's not necessarily an all-out breastfeeding ban, but the enforcement of the rules already in effect which state that nipples and aureoles are not allowed. Obviously, the rule was put into effect to regulate the obscene pictures but is being enforced across the board. The word "obscene" has a gray zone that is fought about constantly in the courts but the rule Facebook have put in place give regulators a decent measuring stick. Yes, some non-obscene photos get cut and some obscene photos still get through. Overall, it's a rule that can be enforced evenly and clearly understood by all constituents. That's definitely a positive in anybody's book.

But the whole public breastfeeding crowd drives me crazy. In the name of "ala natural", these women go around baring their breasts for all to see. No it isn't obscene and yes, it's been around since, oh, the creation of humans by God himself, but these women keep forgetting to ask themselves one last question:

Is it decent?

No! No matter the reason, it's not decent to undress yourself in public. Public breastfeeding advocates have no historical basis for their views. The only people who still hang their breasts publicly are the tribes who don't have enough knowledge and manpower to produce enough of their own clothes. You can find their pictures in National Geographic magazine by journalist who had to hunt them down in deep, dank forests. When given donation clothing though I'm not surprised to find that most of them wear it!

I feel pity for the person who buys into the argument that breastfeeding is natural and therefore, it should be public. Natural does not translate into public! Consider these other bodily functions: burping, farting, pooping, peeing, and our ladies menstrual cycle. They are all natural, in fact, needed functions of our body, but most of us wouldn't be caught dead doing them in public.

It's not like it's that hard to avoid breastfeeding in public. I managed to do it for all three of my children.

Mislead by the Media

Why shouldn't I be surprised?

It was all over the media last week: Abstinence pledgers were a complete failure. Those that took abstinence pledges had sex at the same rate as those who didn't. In fact, those that did lose their virginity before marriage were more likely to do so without any pregnancy or STD protection.

But a few days have passed and now we see a couple of articles from people who actually took the time to look at the data presented. Please go and read Mr. McGurn's article so that you can be informed the next time the topic comes up for discussion.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Like a Virgin: The Press Take On Teenage Sex
Yes, attitudes do make a difference in behavior
By William McGurn

The chain reaction was something out of central casting. A medical journal starts it off by announcing a study comparing teens who take a pledge of virginity until marriage with those who don't. Lo and behold, when they crunch the numbers, they find not much difference between pledgers and nonpledgers: most do not make it to the marriage bed as virgins.

Like a pack of randy 15-year-old boys, the press dives right in.

"Virginity Pledges Don't Stop Teen Sex," screams CBS News. "Virginity pledges don't mean much," adds CNN. "Study questions virginity pledges," says the Chicago Tribune. "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds," heralds the Washington Post. "Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data," reports Bloomberg. And on it goes.

In other words, teens will be teens, and moms or dads who believe that concepts such as restraint or morality have any application today are living in a dream world. Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: "Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study."

Here's the rub: It just isn't true.