I'm also with Kathy D. on the issue of distorted body image and the function
of breasts. To me it's much like the static we took years ago over insisting
that women be called "women," not "girls" or "chicks." At that time it
wasn't uncommon for men to refer to "the girl" in the office, even if she
was 40! We were considered quite cranky and unreasonable in our desire to be
called women. Now it's so common I don't feel I have to fight about it, and
am even comfortable talking about "the girls" at times (although I still
don't appreciate being called a girl by a man).

We're probably going to have to be quite radical and outspoken with the view
that breasts are primarily for feeding babies in order to overcome the bias
towards the sexual function now present. Maybe in 20 years we'll be able to
have fun, wear sexy lingerie, and not feel we're somehow selling ourselves
short, but right now, I think when we buy into the body beautiful thing
(including breasts as primarily sexual), we ARE. ('Course, if we're
successful in this "movement," there won't be any point wearing "sexy"
lingerie, because the thrill will be gone to a large extent. Think we'll
live long enough for breasts to be seen primarily as being for feeding
babies, Kathy?)

And on body image in general: It was such a relief to me to go see the movie
Titanic and see beautiful Kate Winslet. The woman actually has hips and
thighs and breasts. When I mentioned how lovely this was to my 15 year old
son, he said, "Yeah, everyone's talking about how fat she is." Depressing?
You bet!

Leslie Ayre-Jaschke, BEd, IBCLC
Peace River, Alberta, Canada