WARNING: The following post is for mature audiences only.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (of Shalom in the Home fame) has lost his mind.
I want to say right off the bat that this is a sensible thesis. It's a legitimate question that I have no problem being raised, but the good Rabbi's take is, I believe, bass-ackwards.
Now, I am ordinarily loathe to throw this word around, but we have here is a plainly sexist argument. Here's why:
Let's ask where the problem is here. Is the problem with the baby who is simply hungry? Obviously not. Is there a problem with the woman, who has an inner drive (not to mention a vocation) to feed her child and to give of her own body for this purpose? Nyet. Is there a problem with a man who watches this miracle of nature and sees "utiliitarianism" and "de-eroticization." Hmmm.
A married father who is turned off by his wife breastfeeding their child has an obviously defective idea of his wife's body. He has objectivised her breasts as existing for his own entertainment and he is the one who treats her in a utilitarian fashion, contra Boteach.
Now, let's take a step back here. Are there situations where breastfeeding could interfere with a marriage even if the husband has a healthy view of his wife's body? Absolutely. Rabbi Boteach's point about not letting the child get between the wife and the husband is a good one. The problem is that when breastfeeding becomes a source of tension, he sees the mother-child relationship as being responsible and fails to consider that the husband may be to blame.
Hmm...could the good rabbi also be witnessing, and suffering from, yet another result of our society's de-linking of sex and procreation? (I would suggest a both/and here; it's a sexist argument as well.)
A married father who is turned off by his wife breastfeeding their child has an obviously defective idea of his wife's body.
Bingo.
Thanks for the comments. Nick, you're right, this kind of sexism is merely one of the many unfortunate consequences of ignorance of sex's actual purpose and meaning.
as her husband witnesses one of the most attractive parts of her body serving a utilitarian rather than a romantic purpose
Ironically, his own vision of the purpose of breasts can be seen as utilitarian - the utility is merely the exclusive gratification of the husband. But then, as seen in your Aug 18 post, he seems to see no moral error in men objectifying their wives or any portion of their bodies.
This is not to say that breastfeeding isn't sexy
What??!!? Isn't that what he just said? I find it interesting that he wants to call breastfeeding "de-eroticizing" and at the same time call it "sexy." Which is it? Regardless, why even defend the "sexiness" of breastfeeding? This seems to be a caveat in order for the reader to observe that yes, indeed, he does see breasts as sexual. And if breast=sex then it must be that breastfeeding=erotic, which refutes his whole argument. However, breasts can be sexually enticing to a husband in one circumstance and for the husband an image of the awe of maternity in another. Everything has it's proper ordering, and the breast does not need to be either always seen as sexual or always seen merely as a means of infant nurishment. Temperance, good Rabbi, temperance.
This all being said, I second the notions of Brandon and Nick.
Hi Shawn,
Thanks for stopping by!
I tried to get at the fact that the Rabbi was pushing a much more utilitarian view than he was deriding, but thanks for stating it more boldly.
As for the whole breastfeeding can be sexy thing, I should probably qualify something a little bit. I don't think every man will (or should) always (or even ever) find his wife's breastfeeding "sexy." But there is something essentially beautiful about breastfeeding, and a man who cannot see that beauty due to a faulty view of what his wife's body actually is and is for, has a disordered mindset.
His wife's ability to actually give of her own flesh to feed their children is a wonderful, mysterious thing. Along with the bearing and delivery of children, it is just about as much of a Christ-like sacrifice as a human being can make short of laying down his physical life. It ought to lead to a greater appreciation of his wife and should lead him to fall more and more in love with her, to love her more fully.
The man who objectifies his wife's breasts as having only a sexual function buys into a withered and truly pathetic vision of femininity. It's not just a matter of what the breasts are for, it's who his wife is. The mystery of her body that brings forth life and sustains it is an icon of God's fecundity, and to reject those "functions" (to use a crude word) is contraceptive, misogynystic and also a kind of rejection of God.
When the man's desire for his wife is pleasure-centered ("her body is for sexual amusement") as opposed to person-centered ("who am I that I have the privilege of being with this woman?"), it is practically logical for him to see breastfeeding as "de-eroticizing" and "utilitarian." That's why Rabbi Boteach's counsel to "cover up" even in the husband's presence does nothing to address what is actually wrong with the marriage.
By the way, re-reading the excerpt I quoted, I also find it profoundly sad that in this sex-soaked culture - with billboards, TV advertisements, magazine covers, et cetera ad nauseam presenting femals flesh in a truly utilitarian and objectivising context - that Rabbi Boteach calls out "public breastfeeding" as "profoundly de-eroticizing."
But there is something essentially beautiful about breastfeeding, and a man who cannot see that beauty due to a faulty view of what his wife's body actually is and is for, has a disordered mindset...
The man who objectifies his wife's breasts as having only a sexual function buys into a withered and truly pathetic vision of femininity. It's not just a matter of what the breasts are for, it's who his wife is.
I couldn't agree more. I apologize if my statement seemed to not reflect this - I was trying to focus on the fact that it appeared to me that the Rabbi thinks the only two possible ways for a husband to view his wife's breasts are to always see the breasts either exclusively in regards to sex or exclusively in regards to breastfeeding. However, as you point out, this would be to, in a sense, separate the breasts from the person, as if they were a thing separate from her to be appropriately "used" in one way and not in another. And this is depersonalizing of the woman, because her breasts are not separate from her person - to objectify a portion of her is to objectify all of her.
That being said, it is a biological fact that a wife's body is going to be visually pleasing to her husband. But it seems that if the sexual urge toward the wife is not reflective of "her body is for my sexual amusement," as you argue against, but is instead an "ah, you are beautiful, my beloved, ah, you are beautiful" (Song of Songs 4:1)then the wife's body can be appropriately sexually pleasing to the husband without objectifying her, because her body is seen not as a thing but as her, the beloved, with whom the husband longs to embrace.
I suspected you held the same view but wasn't quite certain what you meant by the "man's desire for his wife is pleasure centered...as opposed to person centered" comment.
Salud!
Hi Shawn,
One of the wonderful things about blogging is that you can be saying the same thing as somebody and not know it. The reason I wanted to clarify is that your earlier point about temperance made me want to make it clear that I was not saying that breastfeeding is always the wildly sexy thing.
I do understand and agree with what you're saying abut the wife's body's natural appeal to the husband. The point I was going for is that when the man's sexual desire leads him to resent the actual design and function of the woman's body (i.e. breastfeeding, though it goes for childbirth, too), then there is something wrong with that desire.