Listen, there are two totally different issues here. There are people who object to accidentally seeing a naked breast pop into a normal social context, because they're not used to that. Then there are people who object to knowing someone is breastfeeding in the same room with them, regardless of what body parts they can or cannot see.

Here is an anecdote for ya. I went swimming with a friend; we had three toddlers between us. When we got to the locker room, a middle-aged woman was standing there completely naked. Stood there several minutes preening, doing her hair, rubbing powder on her crotch, etc. Meanwhile, my friend's toddler decided it was time to nurse, and my friend let him, even though she was in the middle of getting dressed.

Guess what? For some people, casually preening and doing your hair and rubbing powder on your crotch while nude in a women's locker is OK, but BREASTFEEDING WHILE HALF-DRESSED in a women's locker room isn't. There is way more to this societal complex than accidental nipple sightings.

I do have sympathy for those who would rather not see a woman waving her breast around trying to get the nipple and the kids' mouth together. I don't like seeing that either. But I have a standard response to this EXTREMELY RARE behavior: I look the other way until the mother and child get situated.

I have less sympathy for those who are creeped out by nursing going on in their presence, even when the mother is being discreet. I know that is not the way they were raised, and I understand they have issues. But the issues are entirely their own. Time to get used to the new reality.

Personally, I think breasts are sex objects for men because nipple stimulation turns women on. People are generally turned one by the idea of their partner being turned on. It's called being a social animal.

And frankly, the reason they turn women on is probably related to the fact that the let-down reflex that squirts out milk for babies is enabled by the same hormones that enable sexual stimulation. Also why nipple stimulation encourages labor to progress. In fact, nursing - and breast pumps - can stimulate a physical sexual response. Maybe that's what scares people about nursing, I don't know. But it's a stupid thing to be afraid of. Men can get totally random erections from things like their penises rubbing against their underwear while they walk, and nobody has a hissy fit about how they shouldn't walk or wear underwear in public. There is a big difference between an automatic sexual response to something and a mental/emotional sexual response.

Do we learn anything by asking people to do this? Except that they are willing to comply with the stupid restrictions of the study in order to collect their ten bucks and/or feel like they "helped" somehow? It's pretty obvious to most people that you can't tell much about a person's parenting abilities from seeing a real face, let alone from looking at a digitally altered picture.

"I would think that supporting a woman's nursing relationship with her baby would be a conservative value."

You would think, wouldn't you? And I did know many women through La Leche League who were into attachment parenting and extended nursing and were socially conservative Christians. But that's not mainstream. I once had someone tell me I shouldn't nurse at a playground because it was a 'family park'. Translation: I don't want to have an uncomfortable conversation with my child about different families making different choices. Same reason sex ed isn't family friendly. You might have to admit that other rational people make rational decisions - and they come out differently from your own! How can that BE? I don't know, but let's not talk about it. Just leave my family's public park.

"(As an aside, would you use "was" or "were" in the subject line? Grammar is important to me when I'm venting my hatred of carpetbagging, fevered-ego jaggoffs, but I know I don't always get it right.)"

'Were' is correct. It is one of the few modern remnants of a distinctive English subjunctive.

"Could there possibly be some explanation, some value, for such a pervasive and ingrained behavior? Might be worth considering."

Yes, it's certainly worth considering, and has been considered. We get massive amounts of information about people from watching the way they talk, smile, laugh, blink, wink, cry, lie, or bare their teeth. But all those things are being doing by a real, active face in a social situation. In real life, facial expressions, like voices, are part of communication and behavior. There's a big difference between that situation and a still photo that has been digitally altered. You might as well try to discern the effect of a violin on people's moods by synthesizing a series of single notes and asking them how they make a person feel. I guess it might tell you something, but I don't think it would be something particularly useful.

Au, contraire! Getting off (so to speak) for gang rape in exchange for testifying against your accuser? Sounds like a perfect way to recruit sociopaths, IMHO. Regardless of what happened (and none of us will ever know - and maybe the four participants don't even know) - the appearance of letting these guys off could be good PR, actually.

Then you have probably never nursed a baby in public.

But you are right that they are pretty rare - or, at least, it's pretty rare for them to express their discomfort. It's actually fairly common, and if you are a nursing mom, you do feel the stares. And if you are like me, you ignore them. I figure most people will get used to it.