Many people who have commented on this issue say that breast-feeding is not pornographic. Yet they also say that women should cover themselves with a shawl to "maintain modesty".
Babies, though, benefit not only from the physical nourishment of breast milk but also from the scent, the sight and the feel of the mother's breast.
There is no reason why a baby should be deprived of this emotional comfort by being smothered under a shawl, or restricted by other unnecessary clothing.
So why do people simultaneously believe that breast-feeding is not pornographic and that mothers must cover their breasts for the sake of "decency"? What is apparent is that most people commenting here do not want to deal with the fact that breast-feeding mothers can be sexually attractive.
They operate in a world of religious and ideological dogma, where breast-feeding is "pure" and "noble", pornography is "evil" and "sinful" and sexuality is "dirty" and threatening.
Thus, breast-feeding's purity, which distinguishes it from pornography, can only be preserved by an explicit effort to eliminate any undercurrents of sexuality that might defile it.
But the reality of human nature is that sexuality and the nurture of children are intimately connected, as can easily be understood by contemplating the artworks of our ancestors, with their frequently outlandish representations of male penises and female breasts.
Today however, many people, blinded by political and social fashion, see sexuality as a contaminant whose faintest aroma corrupts the most noble of human activities. They thus reach the paradoxical conclusion that breast-feeding is so pure and self-sacrificing that it should only take place away from society in special isolated rooms.
But in fact, providing special nursing rooms in shopping malls and other public areas is just another step in the wrong direction. No doubt many mothers, like other mall visitors, would appreciate the chance to retreat to a quiet room, where one could sit down in a comfortable chair without having to pay for a drink or snack.
But it is far better to cultivate the understanding that breast-feeding is possible in any part of the mall at any time, than to imply that breastfeeding must be confined to a hidden corner for the sake of decency.
The impression given is, at best, that loving nurture is out of step with the consumerist lifestyle promoted in modern shopping malls, or, at worst, that breast-feeding is similar to defecation and (in Indonesia) smoking, and has to be kept away from respectable society for the sake of health and public order.
In practical terms, it is impossible to provide special nurseries in all environments where mothers have to interact with other members of the public, and even if it were possible, the provision of millions of dedicated breast-feeding rooms attached to all public and commercial buildings and facilities would only be a symptom of a sick society, that had relegated the most essential functions of society to the periphery, while putting the most frivolous functions at the center.
Thus, although many commentators have expressed vociferous support for breast-feeding, their underlying attitudes are really quite similar to those who see breast-feeding as potentially pornographic.
Hence, the solutions they propose will not prevent the social stigmatization of breast-feeding and will not reverse the continuing decline in the incidence of breast-feeding among Indonesian mothers.
John Hargreaves
Jakarta
