NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.

Tits never hurt anyone. Besides you can't even tell that is a tit, hell it could be someone's arm and they'd never be able to tell.

This is what you get when a country is founded by a bunch of religious whackos too uptight for the British.

It's natural.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.
Stupid fucking religious induced prudism

An actual NS topic. Came up 3 times in an issue. Voted 3 times in favour of breastfeeding.

Stupid fucking religious induced prudism

Nonsense, it has nothing to do with religion, it's a cultural/ethnic phobia that forbids it.

I almost got kicked out of a restraunt for breastfeeding once, they called the cops and the cops told the manager that I was in the right, but I had to leave anyway, because he has the "right to refuse service to anyone"

oh, well.

it's a cute picture, I don't think it's harmful in anyway.

Meh, if they're going to allow breastfeeding they should allow me to walk around naked or at least allow me to whip it out and take a piss when nature calls.

Nonsense, it has nothing to do with religion, it's a cultural/ethnic phobia that forbids it.
Yeah right … I wonder what single social organization caused it :rolleyes:

It may not be specifically caused by religion now but the society of “Sex is The Ebil!!1” defiantly has its roots in religious teachings in this country

Babies are the future! Breastfeed them now! :eek:

I can't tell what magazine that was, based on the picture, but the subtitle is "Straight Talk for New Moms"

4,000 subscribers surveyed and 1/4 of them were offended???? How any pregnant woman or new mom can expect to not see an image of breastfeeding at some point during their reading is totally ludicrous.

These are some odd people. For crying out loud, that baby could be chewing on a knee for all you can see of that breast.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.
I absolutely cannot stand people who bitch about breast feeding in public.

For one thing, anybody who objects to seeing a bared boobie needs to shut the hell up until they finish middle school. It's a tit, people. 51% of the human population has 'em. Get over it.

But, more important, anybody who bitches about public breast feeding is flat-out saying, "My tender little sensibilities are more important than an infant's wellbeing." If baby is hungry, baby is hungry. If Mom needs to feed baby, she damn well gets to feed baby. Baby's needs come before your hurt feelings.

I say just keep it on the DL and I don't care.

wow the people who criticized that magazine are nutz. thats a beautiful picture for a magazine cover.

im in favor of breastfeeding. unless you are going to lock up a nursing mother at home for a year that means there has to be some public breastfeeding. discreet is better than whipping it out in the middle of a crowded restaurant but better indiscreet than givng it up before the child is ready.

I almost got kicked out of a restraunt for breastfeeding once, they called the cops and the cops told the manager that I was in the right, but I had to leave anyway, because he has the "right to refuse service to anyone"

oh, well.

it's a cute picture, I don't think it's harmful in anyway.

There comes a point where being 'polite' is dependent on which house you are in. Should burping be offensive? No, it should not. However, I'd be a jerk if I went into my neighbor's house and burped away claiming my 'rightness' by insisting that it was good manners in Japan. It would still be ill-mannered of me. If you 'knew' it was offensive to the restaurant atmosphere, you should have covered up or gone to the bathroom, not because it was indecent, but because it was offensive and you were in their place, not your own place. Courteousness is not a ‘rights’ issue, sometimes we have the ‘right’ to be as rude as we want, but that doesn’t make it right to do so.

Is it really a sexual thing?

No it isn't, especially considering how very discreet mothers are.

That magazine cover is hilarious btw!

For one thing, anybody who objects to seeing a bared boobie needs to shut the hell up until they finish middle school. It's a tit, people. 51% of the human population has 'em. Get over it.

I think it's more like 75%. Of course, that extra 24% can't really be used to breastfeed. And yet it is the percentage that you will most probably see shirtless on a summer day.

There comes a point where being 'polite' is dependent on which house you are in. Should burping be offensive? No, it should not. However, I'd be a jerk if I went into my neighbor's house and burped away claiming my 'rightness' by insisting that it was good manners in Japan. It would still be ill-mannered of me. If you 'knew' it was offensive to the restaurant atmosphere, you should have covered up or gone to the bathroom, not because it was indecent, but because it was offensive and you were in their place, not your own place. Courteousness is not a ‘rights’ issue, sometimes we have the ‘right’ to be as rude as we want, but that doesn’t make it right to do so.

They called the cops on her, thus they probably wanted her arrested and wouldn't let her leave.

There comes a point where being 'polite' is dependent on which house you are in. Should burping be offensive? No, it should not. However, I'd be a jerk if I went into my neighbor's house and burped away claiming my 'rightness' by insisting that it was good manners in Japan. It would still be ill-mannered of me. If you 'knew' it was offensive to the restaurant atmosphere, you should have covered up or gone to the bathroom, not because it was indecent, but because it was offensive and you were in their place, not your own place. Courteousness is not a ‘rights’ issue, sometimes we have the ‘right’ to be as rude as we want, but that doesn’t make it right to do so.
I was covered up, you could not see any part of me that isn't usually coverd by clothes nor could you even see the baby, I had her covered with a light blanket, I had breastfed in that restraunt in the same manner many times before, I just got one manager who decided to be an ass about it.

He said "you can't breastfeed here, you need to go to the bathroom and do it" when my husband replied "can she feed her a bottle at the table?" and the manager said "yes, but if she is going to nurse she has to go to the bathroom"
I finished, put everything back where it goes, burped the kid and 10 minutes later the cops showed up.

I never breastfed my baby in the bathroom, how sick is that? sitting on the toilet eating?! gross.

I think it's more like 75%. Of course, that extra 24% can't really be used to breastfeed. And yet it is the percentage that you will most probably see shirtless on a summer day.
I find it hilarious that so many people are ok with seeing a man's nipple, but not a woman's. The male nipple serves no function, and there isn't any particular reason why a man would ever NEED to expose his nipple in public. The female nipple, on the other hand, can serve a practical function, and this function requires that the nipple be exposed (however briefly).

Meh, if they're going to allow breastfeeding they should allow me to walk around naked or at least allow me to whip it out and take a piss when nature calls.
Yes, walking around naked is just as discreet as breatfeeding. :rolleyes:

Public urination? That's not about exposure. That's about nobody wanting your dirty piss on their property.

Yes, walking around naked is just as discreet as breatfeeding. :rolleyes:

Hey, it gets hot some days...

Public urination? That's not about exposure. That's about nobody wanting your dirty piss on their property.

Yeah, but it's so convienent. Especially when you're drunk.

Meh, if they're going to allow breastfeeding they should allow me to walk around naked or at least allow me to whip it out and take a piss when nature calls.
Ok, that sound fair...as soon as you can pee breast milk.

I find it hilarious that so many people are ok with seeing a man's nipple, but not a woman's. The male nipple serves no function, and there isn't any particular reason why a man would ever NEED to expose his nipple in public. The female nipple, on the other hand, can serve a practical function, and this function requires that the nipple be exposed (however briefly).

It amuses me that they seem to think male nipples aren't sexual. They are, absolutely.

I almost got kicked out of a restraunt for breastfeeding once, they called the cops and the cops told the manager that I was in the right, but I had to leave anyway, because he has the "right to refuse service to anyone"

That's ridiculous. I could see them asking you to move to a less conspicuous spot if you are sitting smack-dab in the middle of a restaurant, but I see no reason that your baby can't eat there too.

Just to include a bit of a counter-story (sort of), I did have a friend who worked as a waitress. A woman who was very near the center of the restaurant began to breastfeed, and people at other tables complained. My friend had no problem with it, but wanted to keep customers happy. She didn't ask the woman to leave, but asked if they could move to an empty booth in the corner of the restaurant (IIRC, they had not yet received their food). The woman freaked out and started yelling - ignoring the explanation that the restaurant had no problem with it, that they just wanted to make it more discreet.

it's a cute picture, I don't think it's harmful in anyway.

I think so too. The baby is absolutely adorable.

I can't tell what magazine that was, based on the picture, but the subtitle is "Straight Talk for New Moms"

The magazine is called "Babytalk", I believe - it is a magazine specifically for new moms.

I absolutely cannot stand people who bitch about breast feeding in public.

For one thing, anybody who objects to seeing a bared boobie needs to shut the hell up until they finish middle school. It's a tit, people. 51% of the human population has 'em. Get over it.

But, more important, anybody who bitches about public breast feeding is flat-out saying, "My tender little sensibilities are more important than an infant's wellbeing." If baby is hungry, baby is hungry. If Mom needs to feed baby, she damn well gets to feed baby. Baby's needs come before your hurt feelings.

Sounds about right.

My fiance's response to this?

OH GOD. IT MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE.
HOW WILL I SURVIVE.
I'LL HAVE NIGHTMARES FOR YEARS ABOUT THAT TIME I SAW A TITTY.

...

To which I have to say this: "Personally, get over it."

Ok, that sound fair...as soon as you can pee breast milk.

Now, *that* would be gross. =)

Now, *that* would be gross. =)
Yeah, but it would be something to see. If a guy could figure out how to do that, I say we give him his props and let him do it as street theater!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.
No, the picture on the magazine is not offensive. It's very cute, actually. I don't think it would harm a child to see it, and I'm not offended by women breastfeeding in public.

There was an article about women breastfeeding in public in the local paper last weekend, which stated that "under a California law enacted in 1997, women are allowed to breast-feed anywhere in public where they're entitled to be present." (link (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14281102p-15089331c.html)) I think that's as it should be. Women have breasts, they're used to feed infants, and if the child is hungry, it should be fed.

I was covered up, you could not see any part of me that isn't usually coverd by clothes nor could you even see the baby, I had her covered with a light blanket, I had breastfed in that restraunt in the same manner many times before, I just got one manager who decided to be an ass about it.

He said "you can't breastfeed here, you need to go to the bathroom and do it" when my husband replied "can she feed her a bottle at the table?" and the manager said "yes, but if she is going to nurse she has to go to the bathroom"
I finished, put everything back where it goes, burped the kid and 10 minutes later the cops showed up.

I never breastfed my baby in the bathroom, how sick is that? sitting on the toilet eating?! gross.


Not knowing which restaurant you were talking about, I didn’t know what expectations go with it. As to the bathroom thing, women's restrooms in the restaurants I go to generally have 'waiting, sitting benches,' inside of them and that's not 'gross,' why would you have to sit on a toilet?

However, more importantly, I’m switching sides. Since you'd done it in that restaurant before and had never had a problem before and you were covered up, and it was just the one particular manager and not customer complaints etc., I'd complain about harassment to the owner and see if the manager can be taught when to STHU.

Oh, dear. I suggest that the people who are squeamish about that cover never visit any place in Germany they might be confronted with magazines... :rolleyes:

I am for public breastfeeding. Babies need their food, and it increases the number of bare breasts in public.

Its a fucking boob. Get over it.

Its a fucking boob. Get over it.

No, 'fucking boobs' should not be allowed in public... breastfeeding boobs I'm okay with. :p

The magazine is called "Babytalk", I believe - it is a magazine specifically for new moms.

and yet, they are offended that it handles new mom issues. bizzaro.

i would so love to see someone try to stop a woman in a restaurant from breast feeding, so i could get up and walk out over how offended i was that they wouldn't let her feed her child.

and yet, they are offended that it handles new mom issues. bizzaro.

Oh, it's even more bizarre than that.

Read the title of the cover article.

"Why women don't nurse longer."

Gee. Do you think maybe the collective prudish nipple-freakout might have something to do with why women aren't nursing as much?

Personally, I have no problem with breastfeeding due to its health benefits. It doesn't matter whether you're in public or at home. However, some people (apparently these might be isolated incidents) need to learn to SIT DOWN or at least stay in one spot if they're going to breastfeed in public. I've been yelled at and cursed at because I supposedly bumped into a woman's baby when she was breastfeeding it while walking through the mall. This has happened several times. Of course, as soon as anyone raises their voice, mall security shows up, and I get yelled at AGAIN whether I did something or not, probably because I look like a "disrespectful teenager." I'm 21, and I walk around the mall for free, air-conditioned exercise, not to piss people off!

There comes a point where being 'polite' is dependent on which house you are in. Should burping be offensive? No, it should not. However, I'd be a jerk if I went into my neighbor's house and burped away claiming my 'rightness' by insisting that it was good manners in Japan. It would still be ill-mannered of me. If you 'knew' it was offensive to the restaurant atmosphere, you should have covered up or gone to the bathroom, not because it was indecent, but because it was offensive and you were in their place, not your own place. Courteousness is not a ‘rights’ issue, sometimes we have the ‘right’ to be as rude as we want, but that doesn’t make it right to do so.

There's no courtesy in starving a baby.

wait a minute! are you telling me women has breasts! And babies! and babies eat from those same breasts!?!?! :rolleyes:

Not knowing which restaurant you were talking about, I didn’t know what expectations go with it. As to the bathroom thing, women's restrooms in the restaurants I go to generally have 'waiting, sitting benches,' inside of them and that's not 'gross,' why would you have to sit on a toilet?
I have a policy of not making my kids do something I would not do myself. I don't want to be forced to eat in a bathroom, I would never make my children do that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.


As a doctor I know that breastfeeding is beneficial and as a [conservative] Christian I believe that this example of motherhood is natural and not something to be hidden away.

As a doctor I know that breastfeeding is beneficial and as a [conservative] Christian I believe that this example of motherhood is natural and not something to be hidden away.
Holy crap we agree on something :eek:

Holy crap we agree on something :eek:


Holy crap, he's not trolling either?!:eek:

:)

Holy crap we agree on something :eek:

I'm more shocked that someone that blasted ignorant is a doctor.

My wife (a breastfeeding mother of our 3 month old) and I both agree that it is inappropriate to breastfeed in public *UNLESS* the woman covers what she is doing. When we're in public, we feed our son from a bottle of pumped breastmilk or we go to a low-populated area and cover "the action" with one of the baby blankets. We don't need to subject people to that.

I take it one step further. ;) I think if you're going to make it legal for a woman to whip out a tit and feed the baby, I should be able to whip it out and pee should the need arise.

My wife (a breastfeeding mother of our 3 month old) and I both agree that it is inappropriate to breastfeed in public *UNLESS* the woman covers what she is doing. When we're in public, we feed our son from a bottle of pumped breastmilk or we go to a low-populated area and cover "the action" with one of the baby blankets. We don't need to subject people to that.

I take it one step further. ;) I think if you're going to make it legal for a woman to whip out a tit and feed the baby, I should be able to whip it out and pee should the need arise.


There are readily available facilities for one to relieve himself. Also, the act of urinating is not nourishing another human being.

I take it one step further. ;) I think if you're going to make it legal for a woman to whip out a tit and feed the baby, I should be able to whip it out and pee should the need arise.
Yes, because an adult man can not hold it, and is totally incapable of finding a bathroom by himself :rolleyes:

Yes, because an adult man can not hold it, and is totally incapable of finding a bathroom by himself :rolleyes:

You know, that's why I have my man paper-trained and keep him on a leash in public.
;)

There are readily available facilities for one to relieve himself.
Not always. Especially in Honolulu.

Also, the act of urinating is not nourishing another human being.
And? I should have absolute control over my body. Stay out of my bladder! ( :) LOL, come on dude, I was just joking.)

Not always. Especially in Honolulu.


And? I should have absolute control over my body. Stay out of my bladder! ( :) LOL, come on dude, I was just joking.)

Are there trees? :D

Yes, because an adult man can not hold it, and is totally incapable of finding a bathroom by himself :rolleyes:
(sigh) winking smiley = just kidding... never mind...

I take it one step further. ;) I think if you're going to make it legal for a woman to whip out a tit and feed the baby, I should be able to whip it out and pee should the need arise.

That's the second comparison of breastfeeding to urination in this thread.

Do you really think they are truly comparable? Should your wife breastfeed in a urinal, then?

And? I should have absolute control over my body. Stay out of my bladder! ( :) LOL, come on dude, I was just joking.)

Ah. =)

Are there trees? :D
lol :D

Interestingly enough, despite the article having several quotes from people that any sight of a breast is inherently sexual and that men just can't control themselves when they see any breast, no one has picked the "It makes me horny," option.

Interestingly enough, despite the article having several quotes from people that any sight of a breast is inherently sexual and that men just can't control themselves when they see any breast, no one has picked the "It makes me horny," option.

That's because breasts aren't inherently sexual. It's who's doing what with whose breast that matters,lol.

Interestingly enough, despite the article having several quotes from people that any sight of a breast is inherently sexual and that men just can't control themselves when they see any breast, no one has picked the "It makes me horny," option.
LOL, I noticed that too.

Honestly, I don't see it as sexual, neither does my wife, but it's about being discreet and respectful of the people around us.

um... you should know that here in generl while they are allowed, segregate polls are frowneddown upon, and whoever makes them will hae their chocolate chip cookies taken away from them. no, we do not mean any punshment geiven by mods. i mean we just don't like it.

Y'all loved'em as a kid and I, for one, love'em even more as an adult. Tits are great! Whip'em out and feed that baby.

After all, what's even worse: Don't do it and you got one unhappy, screaming, wailing, crying, hungry offspring.

If the mom feeds the baby in public, so what? You could always look away.
If the baby starts making noise in public because it's hungry without the breastfeed - now that's annoying!

Here's a toddler, watch it go: http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/baby2.gif

[BTW, are "bare" smiley-breasts considered PG-13?]

Interestingly enough, despite the article having several quotes from people that any sight of a breast is inherently sexual and that men just can't control themselves when they see any breast, no one has picked the "It makes me horny," option.
Well, that option's preceded by "no". If it turned you on you wouldn't want to forbid it. Would you?

I don't care what women do with their breasts in public. Or any other bit of themselves. I probably won't notice anyway - I haven't yet!

What's the problem with breastfeeding, that is what breasts are for afterall. :rolleyes:
It's not against the law to breastfeed in public so anyone that does think it's gross should just look away, it's as simple as that.

I can't wait till The State of Georgia replys to this...

As for me, I really don't see what the problem is. The religious nuts can shove it for all I care. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! SEX IS NOT A SIN AND EITHER ARE BOOBS!!

I can't wait till The State of Georgia replys to this...

As for me, I really don't see what the problem is. The religious nuts can shove it for all I care. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! SEX IS NOT A SIN AND EITHER ARE BOOBS!!
Sex is necessary and enjoyable, it's sad that such a thing is seen as a sin.

Sex is necessary and enjoyable, it's sad that such a thing is seen as a sin.

Only to Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons. Oh wait, that's a lot of people...

Only to Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons. Oh wait, that's a lot of people...
I take exception to that statement.

being southern baptist and all.

I think it's great! Can I have some too?

I think it's great! Can I have some too?
You lost me. Are you talking about sex or breastmilk? :confused:

um... you should know that here in generl while they are allowed, segregate polls are frowneddown upon, and whoever makes them will hae their chocolate chip cookies taken away from them. no, we do not mean any punshment geiven by mods. i mean we just don't like it.

Really? I see them all the time.

This is a topic on which I thought men and women might have a different take.

I take exception to that statement.

being southern baptist and all.

Hmmmm... I think I've had an arguement with you before about southern white Baptists, I'll keep my mouth shut this time.

It is seriously awesome.

Hmmmm... I think I've had an arguement with you before about southern white Baptists, I'll keep my mouth shut this time.
you know I don't quite remember that.

You lost me. Are you talking about sex or breastmilk? :confused:
Um, yes, please! Both?

(you don't think I actually read a thread before posting in it, do you?)

Um, yes, please! Both?

Is that what you want, who are you asking? :eek:

There comes a point where being 'polite' is dependent on which house you are in. Should burping be offensive? No, it should not. However, I'd be a jerk if I went into my neighbor's house and burped away claiming my 'rightness' by insisting that it was good manners in Japan. It would still be ill-mannered of me. If you 'knew' it was offensive to the restaurant atmosphere, you should have covered up or gone to the bathroom, not because it was indecent, but because it was offensive and you were in their place, not your own place. Courteousness is not a ‘rights’ issue, sometimes we have the ‘right’ to be as rude as we want, but that doesn’t make it right to do so.

So the polite thing to do at your neighbors house is to starve your infant?

Is that what you want, who are you asking? :eek:
Well, I'd perfer sex with someone at least hypothetically capable of supplying breast milk, 'tho not neccessarily in public. But that's a bit OT, eh?

We shouldn't be afraid of boobies.

So the polite thing to do at your neighbors house is to starve your infant?
Emily Post has a chapter on it.

I don't think it's a very polite thing to do, but I don't find anything morally wrong about it.

I don't think it's a very polite thing to do, but I don't find anything morally wrong about it.

What is impolite about it? Is it impolite to eat in public? To feed a baby in public? Or only to breastfeed?

Emily Post has a chapter on it.


Emily Post is, more often than not, full of shit.

What is impolite about it? Is it impolite to eat in public? To feed a baby in public? Or only to breastfeed?
I don't get it either, I guess people just don't like to see a mother breastfeed. Wearing low-cut tops in public is acceptable these days, the only thing we not supposed to reveal is our nipples, although I don't see what the big difference is between a womans and a mans nipples. You don't even get the see them when a baby is breastfeeding anyway. *Shrugs*

Emily Post is, more often than not, full of shit.
She also likes to starve infants.

Whale tails, tramp stamps, low-rise jeans, exposed boxers under pants dragging on the ground, and flabby midriffs dangling in the breeze in the name of "fashion"...and they're getting upset about someone using the female anatomy for its intended purpose. That magazine cover even follows the standards set in my state -- you can't see any nipple.

To those even jokingly comparing nourishment to elimination (men pissing in public), a breast is not the genitals and breast milk is food, not waste.

To those who claim it "just isn't polite", why isn't it? Cell phones in restaurants aren't polite, obnoxious drunken assholes aren't polite...come to think of it, obnoxious sober assholes aren't plite either. It keeps the infant quiet and happy, and so long as you aren't being a jackass and STARING at the meal in progress, it doesn't offend anyone with the sense God gave teh common dog. Seriously folks, there's about 1000 more important issues to devote your righteous fury to. Grow up.

I love my country, but I think we should start seeing other people.

Whale tails,

What's a while tail?

I love my country, but I think we should start seeing other people.

LOL!! Can I use that quote?

What's a whale tail?
IIRC it's when you can see your thong coming out of the top of your jeans.

What's a while tail?

A combination of the back triangular, fluke-shaped panel of thong panties (why does the word "panties" always sound so...naughty to me?) plus the ability to see it plainly thanks to the low-slung waistline of women's pants. It's completely ridiculous, but then again, I'm old and prefer to use my imagination rather than have the slutty story spelled out for me.

LOL!! Can I use that quote?
Absolutely! I can't claim it; I saw it the Northern Lights subversive bumper sticker collection. I WISH I were that clever.

Skipping all the pages, until i can do the same to my girlfriend's breasts in public, than the answer is no.

Skipping all the pages, until i can do the same to my girlfriend's breasts in public, than the answer is no.
Can't you manage to eat solid foods yet? :rolleyes:

Breasts are first and foremost used to feed infants, that is (their) natural function. So why is it anymore offensive to breastfeed than to breathe?

Breasts are first and foremost used to feed infants, that is (their) natural function. So why is it anymore offensive to breastfeed than to breathe?
That's how people used to think, although fortunately people are starting to realise it's silly to be shocked/disgusted at seeing a mother breastfeed.

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?
I always torn on this issue. On the one hand, I very strongly support breastfeeding, and believe that women shouldn't be prevented from doing this perfectly natural thing.

On the other hand, it can make me distinctly uncomfortable when people actually do it. How can someone flopping out their breasts not make you feel a little awkward? You don't know where to put your eyes.

So, I suppose the answer is yes, it should be allowed, as long as the mother uses common sense and does it discreetly and sensitively.

So, I suppose the answer is yes, it should be allowed, as long as the mother uses common sense and does it discreetly and sensitively.

If she doesnt use common sense she should ne stopped?

Who's definition of common sense? Your definition? What is your definition?

It's a tit, people. 51% of the human population has 'em. Get over it.


actually, if you count man boobs I'd say significantly more. but if a baby's crying I'd prefer breastfeeding to have to listen to a little brat screaming.

I'm mean... I love babies....

I don't like it. Several reasons, really.

1) I don't like kids, in general. So if you're breastfeeding near me, that means a kid (presumably a baby) is near me, and that bothers me.

2) Boobs are sexual to me. Babies are not. Mixing the two seems perverse because it arises contradicting feelings in me.

3) Yeah it's natural. Yeah it's healthy. No, I don't want to see it. This is similar to how taking a shit is natural and healthy, but I'd prefer it if you didn't do it in front of me.

But no, I wouldn't support outlawing it or anything like that.

Outlawing children, on the other hand? Sure!

If she doesnt use common sense she should ne stopped?

Who's definition of common sense? Your definition? What is your definition?
It's not a question of her being forced to stop so much as people having a right to ask her if she wouldn't mind covering up a little.

You may have the right to shove something down everyone's throats, but that doesn't mean it's particually polite of you to do so.

A woman exposing her breasts in public is not appropriate no matter what reason it was for. Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.

I'm mean... I love babies....
Stuffed and roasted, with mashed potatoes?

Edit: Ooh...
Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.
Then bring on uncivilised society!

Interestingly enough, despite the article having several quotes from people that any sight of a breast is inherently sexual and that men just can't control themselves when they see any breast, no one has picked the "It makes me horny," option.

That's because it's not "yes, it makes me horny".

A woman exposing her breasts in public is not appropriate no matter what reason it was for. Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.

Yay uncivilization!

I always torn on this issue. On the one hand, I very strongly support breastfeeding, and believe that women shouldn't be prevented from doing this perfectly natural thing.

On the other hand, it can make me distinctly uncomfortable when people actually do it. How can someone flopping out their breasts not make you feel a little awkward? You don't know where to put your eyes.

So, I suppose the answer is yes, it should be allowed, as long as the mother uses common sense and does it discreetly and sensitively.
Well, isn't your uncomfortability mostly your problem? Why is it that you place the burden of your comfort squarely on the shoulders of anyone but you?

You're telling me that you've not acquired the ability to not stare? The breastfeeding mother is clearly not the problem in your case.

I don't like it. Several reasons, really.

1) I don't like kids, in general. So if you're breastfeeding near me, that means a kid (presumably a baby) is near me, and that bothers me.

2) Boobs are sexual to me. Babies are not. Mixing the two seems perverse because it arises contradicting feelings in me.

3) Yeah it's natural. Yeah it's healthy. No, I don't want to see it. This is similar to how taking a shit is natural and healthy, but I'd prefer it if you didn't do it in front of me.

But no, I wouldn't support outlawing it or anything like that.

Outlawing children, on the other hand? Sure!
Ah, they're cute when they're ignorant, aint they?

It's not a question of her being forced to stop so much as people having a right to ask her if she wouldn't mind covering up a little.

You may have the right to shove something down everyone's throats, but that doesn't mean it's particually polite of you to do so.

I would suggest that those who cannot merely avert their eyes are the ones who are a larger social problem than those mothers who are merely trying to feed their babies in the best and most nourishing way possible. Breasts are not bad or embarrassing. Tits are both bad and an embarrassment to all who are forced to deal with them.

I always torn on this issue. On the one hand, I very strongly support breastfeeding, and believe that women shouldn't be prevented from doing this perfectly natural thing.

On the other hand, it can make me distinctly uncomfortable when people actually do it. How can someone flopping out their breasts not make you feel a little awkward? You don't know where to put your eyes.

Umm...What? Her face maybe? Or, I dunno, somewhere else? The bus you're waiting for? Your food?

It's not a question of her being forced to stop so much as people having a right to ask her if she wouldn't mind covering up a little.

You may have the right to shove something down everyone's throats, but that doesn't mean it's particually polite of you to do so.
If babies can't eat in public, then nobody should. Get over it.

A woman exposing her breasts in public is not appropriate no matter what reason it was for. Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.


Yes, stop all this breastfeeding! It's immoral! Won't someone please think of the children? :rolleyes: Some of us can see a woman feeding her baby and not have "naughty" thoughts.

Well, isn't you uncomfortability mostly your problem? Why is it that you place the burden of your comfort squarely on the shoulders of anyone but you?

You're telling me that you've not acquired the ability to not stare? The breastfeeding mother is clearly not the problem in your case.

Breastfeeding falls under the same anti-nudity laws that stop exposure for other purposes. it has nothing to do with motivation or reaction, the law is don't take them out in public. This falls under that wide scope.

If babies can't eat in public, then nobody should. Get over it.
They can eat in public. They cannot drink from an exposed breast in public. Slight difference.

A woman exposing her breasts in public is not appropriate no matter what reason it was for. Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.
Then again, you're not a particular proponent of thinking in public, either, why should anyone be surprised that you can't handle something as innocuous as breastfeeding?

A woman does not rip off her top and perform a lap dance for the kid before feeding it, okay? Most of them have special blouses designed to keep it as discreet as could be reasonably expected and feed their kids in as private a place as they can reasonbly be expected to find where others might be eating.

Pervs like you who can't stand the thought of exposed flesh of any kind are the problem, not the breastfeeding mother.

I always torn on this issue. On the one hand, I very strongly support breastfeeding, and believe that women shouldn't be prevented from doing this perfectly natural thing.

On the other hand, it can make me distinctly uncomfortable when people actually do it. How can someone flopping out their breasts not make you feel a little awkward? You don't know where to put your eyes.

So, I suppose the answer is yes, it should be allowed, as long as the mother uses common sense and does it discreetly and sensitively.

I've never seen a woman breastfeeding, even in her own home, who didn't do so discreetly. Nursing bras are fairly common, and most women carry baby blankets to cover up as well. You might see a flash of boob and possibly even a nipple at the very beginning, if you're watching the whole time, but after that all you will see will be a baby's head mostly covered by a nursing bra and blanket.

I don't like it. Several reasons, really.

1) I don't like kids, in general. So if you're breastfeeding near me, that means a kid (presumably a baby) is near me, and that bothers me.

Maybe you shouldn't go out in public if you are so worried about being around kids.

2) Boobs are sexual to me. Babies are not. Mixing the two seems perverse because it arises contradicting feelings in me.

Boobs are always sexual? That sounds like a bit of a personal problem. The penis is sexual to me - but not always. When I see it in a more clinical setting, it doesn't get me all horny. Breasts can also be sexual, but they are not sexual in all situations.

3) Yeah it's natural. Yeah it's healthy. No, I don't want to see it. This is similar to how taking a shit is natural and healthy, but I'd prefer it if you didn't do it in front of me.

And once again with the comparison of feeding an infant to excretion of waste.

A woman exposing her breasts in public is not appropriate no matter what reason it was for. Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.

This is trolling, right?


That's because it's not "yes, it makes me horny".

*shrug* The people in the article thought it should be disallowed because of this.

Yay uncivilization!

A very merry uncivilization!

Well, isn't you uncomfortability mostly your problem? Why is it that you place the burden of your comfort squarely on the shoulders of anyone but you?

You're telling me that you've not acquired the ability to not stare? The breastfeeding mother is clearly not the problem in your case.
I'm glad your parents taught you such good manners.

Seriously, in all the propoganda on individual rights and militant freedoms you've read, did no one mention at all that sometimes it's nice to realise that other people feel differently to you, and respect that? I don't see why you feel the need to shove something down people's throats just because you can. It's not as if being discreet is going to do anyone any harm.

Yes, stop all this breastfeeding! It's immoral! Won't someone please think of the children? :rolleyes: Some of us can see a woman feeding her baby and not have "naughty" thoughts.

once again...it has nothing to do with breatfeeding. Anybody can do it in a bathroom, private house, private area, etc. it has nothing to do with the welfare of children. It has to do with the same anti-public nudity laws applying no matter what the reason for the nudity was.:rolleyes:

Ah, they're cute when they're ignorant, aint they?

Pardon me? You're saying I'm ignorant?

Any particular area where I am ignorant, or is it just your standard insult for someone who has a differing opinion?

They can eat in public. They cannot drink from an exposed breast in public. Slight difference.
The BARELY exposed breast is the source of teh food as well as the source of the mother-infant bonding process vital to a child's development.

You no likey, you no looky. Simple enough even for you?

Then again, you're not a particular proponent of thinking in public, either, why should anyone be surprised that you can't handle something as innocuous as breastfeeding?

A woman does not rip off her top and perform a lap dance for the kid before feeding it, okay? Most of them have special blouses designed to keep it as discreet as could be reasonably expected and feed their kids in as private a place as they can reasonbly be expected to find where others might be eating.

Pervs like you who can't stand the thought of exposed flesh of any kind are the problem, not the breastfeeding mother.

The laws against public nudity do not require a lap dance or anything else. Ever hear of babyfood? or regular milk? or private space as opposed to public.

Secondly, I have not insulted you yet you, in the classic liberal mode of this forum, throw the first insult. I will respond by saying that your opening comment was too petty to comment on, and your closing one calls me perverted for enforcing public nudity laws. Welcome to the land of OZ. Enjoy your stay. Follow the yellow brick road to find Marx.

Breastfeeding falls under the same anti-nudity laws that stop exposure for other purposes. it has nothing to do with motivation or reaction, the law is don't take them out in public. This falls under that wide scope.

Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would be illegal to breastfeed in public. It is not.

Meanwhile, a breastfeeding mom isn't showing any more boob than a woman in a bikini, generally.

On top of that, anti-nudity laws generally are in place because of (a) sanitation (this doesn't count in the case of breasts because, otherwise, men wouldn't be allowed to go topless either) or (b) sex (this doesn't count because breastfeeding isn't sexual).

once again...it has nothing to do with breatfeeding. Anybody can do it in a bathroom, private house, private area, etc. it has nothing to do with the welfare of children. It has to do with the same anti-public nudity laws applying no matter what the reason for the nudity was.

A bathroom? You really think a woman should be feeding an infant in a public bathroom?

I'm glad your parents taught you such good manners.

Seriously, in all the propoganda on individual rights and militant freedoms you've read, did no one mention at all that sometimes it's nice to realise that other people feel differently to you, and respect that? I don't see why you feel the need to shove something down people's throats just because you can. It's not as if being discreet is going to do anyone any harm.

It's not as if not being discreet is going to do anyone any harm. What, you can't stop looking at boobies so they have to hide them?

This is trolling, right?

I said that I would like public nudity laws enforced no matter what the reason was for the exposure. Is that so confusing?

The laws against public nudity do not require a lap dance or anything else. Ever hear of babyfood? or regular milk? or private space as opposed to public.

Secondly, I have not insulted you yet you, in the classic liberal mode of this forum, throw the first insult. I will respond by saying that your opening comment was too petty to comment on, and your closing one calls me perverted for enforcing public nudity laws. Welcome to the land of OZ. Enjoy your stay. Follow the yellow brick road to find Marx.
You must be joking.

Pardon me? You're saying I'm ignorant?

Any particular area where I am ignorant, or is it just your standard insult for someone who has a differing opinion?
Ignorant enough to brag about not liking kids and thinking it somehow makes you cool. Ignorant enough to not be able to separate a breast in a sexual context and a breast in a "here's baby's dinner" context.

So, differing opinion or not, yes, those two piles of offal make you ignorant.

once again...it has nothing to do with breatfeeding. Anybody can do it in a bathroom,

Do you take many of your meals in bathrooms?

Ah, they're cute when they're ignorant, aint they?

Awww..... can we keep it? And call it Bambi?

The BARELY exposed breast is the source of teh food as well as the source of the mother-infant bonding process vital to a child's development.

You no likey, you no looky. Simple enough even for you?

No. Barely is still exposed. It is not allowed. They can go bond with teh food in private........

once again...it has nothing to do with breatfeeding. Anybody can do it in a bathroom, private house, private area, etc. it has nothing to do with the welfare of children. It has to do with the same anti-public nudity laws applying no matter what the reason for the nudity was.:rolleyes:


Again, the woman doesn't do a bump & grind striptease. They have specially desinged blouses and bras and these things called nursing blankets, so your poor little sensibilities don't have to be offended.

It's not as if not being discreet is going to do anyone any harm. What, you can't stop looking at boobies so they have to hide them?
Again, I can't help but be astonished by the general lack of respect and manners some of you seem to have. There are many things I would like to do but don't out of respect for others, but it would seem that selfishness is the new order of the day.

You must be joking.
Sadly, no. Barry Goldwater -- whose namesake would bitch-slap him into next week if he ever met him and listened to the vitriol this guy spews in the real Barry Goldwater's name -- is not...ever...joking.

The laws against public nudity do not require a lap dance or anything else.

They also, interestingly enough, do not apply to breastfeeding, any more than they apply to infants. Go figure.

Ever hear of babyfood? or regular milk? or private space as opposed to public.

A very young infant cannot yet eat baby food. And regular milk does not contain all of the nutrients that breastmilk does. It is much healthier for an infant to receive breastmilk than formula or "regular milk."


I said that I would like public nudity laws enforced no matter what the reason was for the exposure. Is that so confusing?

Said laws already have exceptions for breastfeeding. Is that so confusing?

Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would be illegal to breastfeed in public. It is not.

Meanwhile, a breastfeeding mom isn't showing any more boob than a woman in a bikini, generally.

On top of that, anti-nudity laws generally are in place because of (a) sanitation (this doesn't count in the case of breasts because, otherwise, men wouldn't be allowed to go topless either) or (b) sex (this doesn't count because breastfeeding isn't sexual).

ah, but if your description was accurate you would be able to breastfeed through a bikini. You can not. It should be illegal. I don't care why you think the law was made, I want it enforced in spite of the excuses.

No. Barely is still exposed. It is not allowed. They can go bond with teh food in private........
Thankfully, most US statues disagree with your ignorant and uncontrolled-libido-having self. It's 'cause the boobie makes you think about your penis, and your penis makes you a BAD BOY, doesn't it? C'mon, admit it.:rolleyes:

Again, I can't help but be astonished by the general lack of respect and manners some of you seem to have. There are many things I would like to do but don't out of respect for others, but it would seem that selfishness is the new order of the day.

Feh, what have you done for me to respect you? Ignoring the points people make doesn't help.

Maybe you shouldn't go out in public if you are so worried about being around kids.


Well, my need to survive is slightly more important than avoiding anything I find distasteful.

Boobs are always sexual? That sounds like a bit of a personal problem. The penis is sexual to me - but not always. When I see it in a more clinical setting, it doesn't get me all horny. Breasts can also be sexual, but they are not sexual in all situations.

Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. That's not a personal problem. The problem is when the situation is a juxtaposition of contradicting stimuli. Some people like that. Others don't. That's all it is.

And once again with the comparison of feeding an infant to excretion of waste.

Both are generally held to be distasteful.

Though personally, I find poop to be at least funny. :)

Again, I can't help but be astonished by the general lack of respect and manners some of you seem to have. There are many things I would like to do but don't out of respect for others, but it would seem that selfishness is the new order of the day.

Ive never heard a breast feeding woman try to tell you how you should act on a public forum. You however have not shown them this same respect. Hypocrisy is never good manners.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.
I find it sick that people would get offended by breastfeeding.

Again, I can't help but be astonished by the general lack of respect and manners some of you seem to have. There are many things I would like to do but don't out of respect for others, but it would seem that selfishness is the new order of the day.

Breastfeeding isn't a matter of what someone "would like to do." It is the healthiest thing for both mother and child. It isn't as if we are talking about a woman who just wants to walk around topless for kicks and giggles.

And if, "I'm going to do what is best for my child," is selfishness, then yes, selfishness is the new order of the day.


ah, but if your description was accurate you would be able to breastfeed through a bikini. You can not. It should be illegal. I don't care why you think the law was made, I want it enforced in spite of the excuses.

That has got to be the most idiotic comment I have seen today. The fact that a woman who is breastfeeding does not have any more breast exposed than a woman in a bikini in no way implies that you can breastfeed through a bikini. It simply means that, between clothing and the baby's head, there is no more breast (probably less) showing than there is in your average bikini.

ah, but if your description was accurate you would be able to breastfeed through a bikini. You can not. It should be illegal. I don't care why you think the law was made, I want it enforced in spite of the excuses.


Why should women suffer for your immaturity?

Feh, what have you done for me to respect you? Ignoring the points people make doesn't help.
What point have I ignored? I've said it should be allowed, as long as people do so discreetly. You've said 'but boobies do no harm!!!!!!' I've said no, of course not, but you should respect the beliefs of others when doing so costs you nothing.

The fact that you do not see answers doesn't mean they are not there.

Ignorant enough to brag about not liking kids and thinking it somehow makes you cool.

"brag" about it? Huh?

Thinking it makes me "cool?" WTF?

Even if any of that were more than your assumptions, it wouldn't make me "ignorant." Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge, not just an opinion you happen to disagree with.


Ignorant enough to not be able to separate a breast in a sexual context and a breast in a "here's baby's dinner" context.

Intellectually I'm well aware there's a different context. In fact, if you look carefully, I have no problems with breasts in a sexual context.

Maybe it's you that's ignorant.

So, differing opinion or not, yes, those two piles of offal make you ignorant.

Well, I guess if we take your special meaning of ignorant -- "oh I don't like that opinion, therefore whoever has it must be ignernt!" -- then yes my opinion does make me so.

But really, your working definition doesn't hold water and you're just criticizing me for not liking something. Boo fucking hoo.

Breastfeeding isn't a matter of what someone "would like to do." It is the healthiest thing for both mother and child. It isn't as if we are talking about a woman who just wants to walk around topless for kicks and giggles.

And if, "I'm going to do what is best for my child," is selfishness, then yes, selfishness is the new order of the day.
I disappointed, I thought you at the very least would actually read what I wrote. I haven't at any point said that mothers shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed; my first comment was actually saying I thought it was better for the baby. All I've said is to be considerate of others around you, and yet this is someone controversial.

Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. That's not a personal problem. The problem is when the situation is a juxtaposition of contradicting stimuli. Some people like that. Others don't. That's all it is.

For most of us, there is no contradicting stimuli. We don't automatically think of people as sex objects, so we can see things that develop as "secondary sex characteristics" in a non-sexual light. You know what else is a "secondary sex characteristic"? A man's beard. Should a man have to shave so that people don't get contradicting stimuli?

Both are generally held to be distasteful.

Both are held by *you* to be distasteful. Most people don't find the feeding of an infant distasteful.

What point have I ignored? I've said it should be allowed, as long as people do so discreetly. You've said 'but boobies do no harm!!!!!!' I've said no, of course not, but you should respect the beliefs of others when doing so costs you nothing.

The fact that you do not see answers doesn't mean they are not there.

Why should I respect what you believe? Is there something good or beneficial about them? Am I supposed to respect them just because they're beliefs, because thaat's pretty stupid.

I disappointed, I thought you at the very least would actually read what I wrote. I haven't at any point said that mothers shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed; my first comment was actually saying I thought it was better for the baby. All I've said is to be considerate of others around you, and yet this is someone controversial.

I did. I was rather confused by the fact that you said that, but then began to call breastfeeding in public "selfish".

There are those (like our good friend Barry) who seem to think that breastfeeding itself, no matter how discreet, is offensive. Should a woman avoid doing so to be "considerate"?

For most of us, there is no contradicting stimuli.

Ah, so my opinion is wrong because it's not a majority?

We don't automatically think of people as sex objects, so we can see things that develop as "secondary sex characteristics" in a non-sexual light. You know what else is a "secondary sex characteristic"? A man's beard. Should a man have to shave so that people don't get contradicting stimuli?


You're going into the wrong by assuming I've argued about what a breastfeeding woman "should" do. All I'm doing is saying I don't like being around a breastfeeding woman.

Both are held by *you* to be distasteful. Most people don't find the feeding of an infant distasteful.

And most people find poop to be disgusting and dirty. I don't! That's the wonderful thing about people. They have different opinions.

I did. I was rather confused by the fact that you said that, but then began to call breastfeeding in public "selfish".
Sorry, no, I didn't mean to confuse; I was mixing another pet peeve into the equation there. I wasn't calling breastfeeding selfish, I was calling people who feel the need to force their 'freedoms' on others for no other reason than the fact 'that they can' on others selfish.

What point have I ignored? I've said it should be allowed, as long as people do so discreetly. You've said 'but boobies do no harm!!!!!!' I've said no, of course not, but you should respect the beliefs of others when doing so costs you nothing.

The fact that you do not see answers doesn't mean they are not there.
I think this is akin to not talking loudly in a public place on a cellphone. Some people may find not engaging in this act to be good manners. It may very well be. But that's as far as it goes. There should be no law concerning insulting a random individuals sense of manners.

Ah, so my opinion is wrong because it's not a majority?

Are you saying that it is your opinion that there are contradicting stimuli, or that there are contradicting stimuli? Can something like that be an opinion, or are you one of those, "Anything I say is just my opinion, so no one can argue with me!" types.

You're going into the wrong by assuming I've argued about what a breastfeeding woman "should" do. All I'm doing is saying I don't like being around a breastfeeding woman.

Then don't. If a woman is breastfeeding near you, and it bothers you, leave.

Meanwhile, I'd still like an answer. Should a man be required to shave because his beard is a secondary sex characteristic?

I think this akin to not talking loudly in a public place on a cellphone. Some people may find not engaging in this act to be good manners. It may very well be. But that's as far as it goes. There should be no law concerning insulting a random individuals sense of manners.
And again, this contradicts nothing I have said; I did not claim that mothers should be forced into bathrooms or elsewhere. All I've said is to be considerate of those around you; I genuinely don't understand why this is so controversial.

And again, this contradicts nothing I have said; I did not claim that mothers should be forced into bathrooms or elsewhere. All I've said is to be considerate of those around you; I genuinely don't understand why this is so controversial.
I didn't say it did. I was just commenting further. Not everybody is attacking you.

I didn't say it did. I was just commenting further. Not everybody is attacking you.
Sorry. :p

I thought you were Dinaverg replying.

*Makes mental note to pay more attention.*

Sorry. :p

I thought you were Dinaverg replying.

*Makes mental note to pay more attention.*

Distracted by boobs again?

Seeing an infant nurse from a titty doesnt "do" anything for me.
Moreover, its pretty damn harmless, and most women that do nurse in public, do so with something covering any nekkidness.

The only people who have issues with that, are so sexually repressed, christian fundies, who view any kind of sexuality, no matter how small, as evil and dirty.

Its time these Fundie Nutjobs remove thier fucking selfish foolishness from the genepool.
Jesus doesnt give a crap wether your baby takes it from the tap in public, or not....so for fuck sake, stop making such an issue of it.

Im soooo tired of every whacko Christians spouting shit, and thinking that thier religion, and values are acceptable for everyone.

What in the hell is so offensive about a titty?
Especially one that has a hungry baby on it?

Render unto Ceasar, what is Ceasar's.
Render unto God, what is God's.

Is that a line about giving what is due to whom it is due, or maybe is this a way of telling us not to impart our religious beliefs on everything we see?

Maybe more Christisans should actually follow the book they claim is divine, and not attempt to intrude on everyone, and everything else.

Are you saying that it is your opinion that there are contradicting stimuli, or that there are contradicting stimuli?

It's my opinion that I don't like breastfeeding in public, and it's my opinion that the fact that it involves contradicting stimuli (to me) is one of the reasons for my dislike.

Can something like that be an opinion, or are you one of those, "Anything I say is just my opinion, so no one can argue with me!" types.


Why are you wanting to argue with me? The O.P asked questions. I answered with my opinion. What's left to argue? You're not going to change what I like and what I don't.

Then don't. If a woman is breastfeeding near you, and it bothers you, leave.

Normally, I do. Of course it's not always possible to do so.


Meanwhile, I'd still like an answer. Should a man be required to shave because his beard is a secondary sex characteristic?

No.

Distracted by boobs again?
Bugs, actually. It's too hot and they all come in the window if you leave it open to try and get air in. :mad:

You know what I want to ban? Belly shirts and biking shorts on people who have no business being in them. I'm not just talking about overweight individuals, there is more than one way to look bad in these articles of clothing. Lets leave the breasts alone and get down to the real public offenses.

*snip*.

I'm a Christian and I have no problem with a woman breastfeeding her infant - in public or otherwise.

This Public Service Announcement brought to you by Dempublicents1


=)


It's my opinion that I don't like breastfeeding in public, and it's my opinion that the fact that it involves contradicting stimuli (to me) is one of the reasons for my dislike.

Right, so you are one of the "Everything I say is my opinion," types. Makes the word rather useless, but ok.

No.

Then the fact that you don't want to see a woman's breast - that it offers contradicting stimuli to you - cannot be simply because it is a secondary sex characteristic. Otherwise, a man's beard would have the same effect (on those attracted to men, at any rate). There must be something particular in your own thinking about breasts that causes this reaction.

Right, so you are one of the "Everything I say is my opinion," types. Makes the word rather useless, but ok.


No, some things I say aren't my opinion. These are. Frankly, I thought the nature of the question - and the answer I gave - made that clear.

Then the fact that you don't want to see a woman's breast - that it offers contradicting stimuli to you - cannot be simply because it is a secondary sex characteristic. Otherwise, a man's beard would have the same effect (on those attracted to men, at any rate). There must be something particular in your own thinking about breasts that causes this reaction.

*sigh*

Why yes, because female secondary sex characteristics are a different stimulus to me than male secondary sex characteristics. I think you've just discovered the fact that not only do I have an opinion but I'm also a heterosexual.

"I shredded it, A breast is a breast -- it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."
[Quote from the article]

What the fuck? She shredded the magazine.. Now for her to have shredded it, I assume she must have a subscription or purchased it from the shop. If you have a subscription to a magazine about pregnant woman/new mothers, how the fuck can you expect NOT to see a breast at some stage? That's insane.

Male and definitely pro breast-feeding--anywhere. Nothing sexual about it.

No, some things I say aren't my opinion. These are. Frankly, I thought the nature of the question - and the answer I gave - made that clear.

My point was that it doesn't make sense to use "opinoin" in that context. "It is my opinion that I don't like...." doesn't make any sense. Either you like something or you don't - opinion has nothing to do with it. If it were a question of opinion, I could just as easily say, "It is my opinion that you do like seeing breastfeeding."

*sigh*

Why yes, because female secondary sex characteristics are a different stimulus to me than male secondary sex characteristics. I think you've just discovered the fact that not only do I have an opinion but I'm also a heterosexual.

Irrelevant to my point. You think that a particular female sex characteristic should be generally covered due to the "stimuli" it gives you. Yet, you do not think that male secondary sex characteristics should be covered up. Thus, it cannot simply be a matter of an innate reaction of a person (hetero- or homosexual) to secondary sex characteristics.

You used, "it is a secondary sex characteristic" as the sole reasoning for not being able to see a breast as a non-sexual object. This does not hold water, however, as you see other secondary sex characteristics as non-sexual objects. Thus, it is breasts in particular that you are somehow unable to see in an non-sexual light. Why is that?

Out of curiosity, if you saw a woman giving birth, do you think you would be unable to separate that event from the fact that her vagina could also be used for sex?

My point was that it doesn't make sense to use "opinoin" in that context. "It is my opinion that I don't like...." doesn't make any sense. Either you like something or you don't - opinion has nothing to do with it.

I could have sworn that liking or disliking something IS an opinion.

Perhaps I should have used the word "preference."


Irrelevant to my point. You think that a particular female sex characteristic should be generally covered

I think you just want to make an argument where none exists, by telling me what I advocate politically or legally when all I am doing is giving my opinion. "I don't like it." That's what my 'argument' was, and all I did was give some offhand reasons why I didn't like it. I guess next time I shouldn't bother giving anything like a reason for my opinion, since you'll assume I'm arguing to introduce burkas and remove woman's right to vote or something.

Yet, you do not think that male secondary sex characteristics should be covered up. Thus, it cannot simply be a matter of an innate reaction of a person (hetero- or homosexual) to secondary sex characteristics.

Yes, it IS a matter of an innate reaction of a person: that person being me.

You're trying to twist what I say into making some generalizations.

You used, "it is a secondary sex characteristic" as the sole reasoning

No, not really. I gave three initial reasons.

for not being able to see a breast as a non-sexual object. This does not hold water, however, as you see other secondary sex characteristics as non-sexual objects.

It holds water, because what I perceive as being sexual has a lot to do with my own sexuality.

Now go argue with someone who wants to argue. They'll offer the "shoulds" you seem to want to tear down.

Out of curiosity, if you saw a woman giving birth, do you think you would be unable to separate that event from the fact that her vagina could also be used for sex?

Intellectually, sure. Intellectually I'm fully aware that having sex and giving birth (or breastfeeding) are different activities.

But again, I find the appearance of women giving birth to be distasteful and also try to avoid that. I suppose this makes me evil and "ignorant" too.

Yes, it's fine. People need to grow up and use what nature has provided. :p

This reminds me of a post to make.

[Quote from the article]

What the fuck? She shredded the magazine.. Now for her to have shredded it, I assume she must have a subscription or purchased it from the shop. If you have a subscription to a magazine about pregnant woman/new mothers, how the fuck can you expect NOT to see a breast at some stage? That's insane.

Male and definitely pro breast-feeding--anywhere. Nothing sexual about it.
Or the new mother in article who was quoted saying she's tired of seeing a baby attached to a boob? :rolleyes:

Seeing an infant nurse from a titty doesnt "do" anything for me.
Moreover, its pretty damn harmless, and most women that do nurse in public, do so with something covering any nekkidness.

The only people who have issues with that, are so sexually repressed, christian fundies, who view any kind of sexuality, no matter how small, as evil and dirty.

Its time these Fundie Nutjobs remove thier fucking selfish foolishness from the genepool.
Jesus doesnt give a crap wether your baby takes it from the tap in public, or not....so for fuck sake, stop making such an issue of it.

Im soooo tired of every whacko Christians spouting shit, and thinking that thier religion, and values are acceptable for everyone.

What in the hell is so offensive about a titty?
Especially one that has a hungry baby on it?

Maybe more Christisans should actually follow the book they claim is divine, and not attempt to intrude on everyone, and everything else.
I know of and have seen more non-Christisan, 20 something year olds and even neo-femenists/femenuts. Who have issues with public breastfeeding then any Christisans.

Intellectually, sure. Intellectually I'm fully aware that having sex and giving birth (or breastfeeding) are different activities.

But again, I find the appearance of women giving birth to be distasteful and also try to avoid that. I suppose this makes me evil and "ignorant" too.
No, it's a very natural process that involves pain, bulging, fluids, and crying on all parts. It's quite disgusting, I'm glad I got to watch my son emerge, but if I had to do it over again I'd pass.

Or the new mother in article who was quoted saying she's tired of seeing a baby attached to a boob? :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's a joke.

No. Barely is still exposed. It is not allowed. They can go bond with teh food in private........

All I ever see is what you see it a shirt with a V neck then a babies head in the way. And it is aloud.

Why should women suffer for your immaturity?
Much more important why should the babies suffer from his immaturity?

Why are you wanting to argue with me? The O.P asked questions. I answered with my opinion. What's left to argue? You're not going to change what I like and what I don't.

Usually NSG is arguementive, they like a good debate. If you don't want people to have opinions on your opinions then don't post them. But don't tell people not to talk about your opinions becasue they're just giving you an opinion of your opinion.

There is some amount of ridiculous comments made in this thread. First off, I've already said, I'm personally in favor of letting women breast feed in public. I'm willing that they should be able to do it is restaurants, parks, airports, public buses etc., I don't care.

However, the argument that we shouldn't be considerate to other people's sensibilities is asinine.

We were told earlier in this thread that being told to feed their baby in a bathroom was unacceptable, it was 'gross.'

You want to know what is gross, a total lack of regard for other peoples feelings. One has choices. Is it a surprise that the baby was hungry while at the restaurant or other public place? No it is not, the baby can be fed before they are taken to the places that the mother does not want to use the restroom or unable to discreetly feed her child directly.

Rather, the mother has choices, she can pump beforehand or bring the pump and feed the baby from a bottle (breast milk is good for five hours at room temperature, and five days in the chill of a refrigerator or on ice) or simply feed it before arriving, or prepare a place in private in advance etc. The mother (as all other guardians of the infant have to do anyway) have 'choices' they can make to be responsible adults with children when they enter the communities that do not condone such behavior. We choose to enter and live in these communities after all, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This is not a question of “do other’s sensibilities override the needs of a starving child?” No, of course not, however this is not that question, this is simply a matter of some adults choosing to be considerate to others by using plain forethought and preparedness in advance or choosing to be jerks and forcing 'their opinions on everyone else’ simply because they want to.

There is some amount of ridiculous comments made in this thread. First off, I've already said, I'm personally in favor of letting women breast feed in public. I'm willing that they should be able to do it is restaurants, parks, airports, public buses etc., I don't care.

However, the argument that we shouldn't be considerate to other people's sensibilities is asinine.

We were told earlier in this thread that being told to feed their baby in a bathroom was unacceptable, it was 'gross.'

You want to know what is gross, a total lack of regard for other peoples feelings. One has choices. Is it a surprise that the baby was hungry while at the restaurant or other public place? No it is not, the baby can be fed before they are taken to the places that the mother does not want to use the restroom or unable to discreetly feed her child directly.

Rather, the mother has choices, she can pump beforehand or bring the pump and feed the baby from a bottle (breast milk is good for five hours at room temperature, and five days in the chill of a refrigerator or on ice) or simply feed it before arriving, or prepare a place in private in advance etc. The mother (as all other guardians of the infant have to do anyway) have 'choices' they can make to be responsible adults with children when they enter the communities that do not condone such behavior. We choose to enter and live in these communities after all, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This is not a question of “do other’s sensibilities override the needs of a starving child?” No, of course not, however this is not that question, this is simply a matter of some adults choosing to be considerate to others by using plain forethought and preparedness in advance or choosing to be jerks and forcing 'their opinions on everyone else’ simply because they want to.

Anything that happens to someone's 'sensibilities' from breastfeeding is likely self-inflicted.

This is what you get when a country is founded by a bunch of religious whackos too uptight for the British.
You make Ben Franklin and his French whores cry.:(

Anyway, it shouldn’t be an issue. Anyone under the age of three shouldn’t be allowed outside of their caretaker’s residence, a doctor’s office, a daycare or a residence that allows children, except in emergencies.

No, because I don't want to see most women's tits. Nice tits = Good. And I'm sure I can handle seeing them without getting a hard-on. But I don't want to be sitting down at Outback Steakhouse and have some fat chick whip one out and plant her watermelon-size baby on it.

Shivers

You make Ben Franklin and his French whores cry.:(

Not Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was awesome. The puritans though...

No, because I don't want to see most women's tits. Nice tits = Good. And I'm sure I can handle seeing them without getting a hard-on. But I don't want to be sitting down at Outback Steakhouse and have some fat chick whip one out and plant her watermelon-size baby on it.

Shivers

I'm sure she wouldn't be so fat as to totally obscure your field of vision.

Anything that happens to someone's 'sensibilities' from breastfeeding is likely self-inflicted.

It is some people's sensibilities that the food server wears gloves, or a hat, when they prepare and serve the food, it is other people's sensibilities that everyone wear a shirt and shoes while at the restaurant, it is other people sensibilities that you look the other way when you cough or sneeze and wash your hands after going to the bathroom...

If you think it's an insult for me to show you the bottom of my shoe or see my toes, I would be a jerk to take off my shoe and socks and shake out the stone whenever I see you in public, simply because you can't stop me. I have a choice to at least 'try' and not intentionally offend you. If that should become impossible and I have no choice, then so be it, but to say 'screw you' and do whatever I want, that makes me the jerk, not them, regardless of how silly their sensibility might be.

damn I though the horny option said yes...

No, because I don't want to see most women's tits. Nice tits = Good. And I'm sure I can handle seeing them without getting a hard-on. But I don't want to be sitting down at Outback Steakhouse and have some fat chick whip one out and plant her watermelon-size baby on it.

Shivers
Ah. So it's okay for a woman to breastfeed in public as long as she has "nice tits" and isn't fat. :rolleyes:

Ah. So it's okay for a woman to breastfeed in public as long as she has "nice tits" and isn't fat. :rolleyes:
Nope. it's wrong all around, because we can't limit it to good-looking women. Some sights shouldn't be seen. Same reason guys can't go into restaurants with their shirts off. Sure some of us guys are in great shape and look good without a shirt. Others don't. So, everyone wears a shirt, and that way we keep our appetites.



On second thought, perhaps legalizing breastfeeding is the solution to obesity!



Oh yea, and your a friggin troll for trying to make me out to be a chauvinist. If I'm a chav, I'll damn well tell you. Believe me, you not liking me isn't high on my list of worries.

I should point out that this poll is skewed. You see, there is a large percentage of adolescent males on this site who qualify as nerds when they are at school, etc. Therefore, they probably don't get laid often. That means they'd be happy to see a titty in real life even if there WAS a baby attached to it. The poll isn't fair!

Nope. it's wrong all around, because we can't limit it to good-looking women. Some sights shouldn't be seen. Same reason guys can't go into restaurants with their shirts off. Sure some of us guys are in great shape and look good without a shirt. Others don't. So, everyone wears a shirt, and that way we keep our appetites.
It's not the same reason guys can't go into restaurants with their shirts off. Women being able to breastfeed in public has nothing to do with sights that should be seen and not, and everything to do with feeding their infant. Besides, as other people have already pointed out, when a baby is breastfeeding, there is really very little breast exposed to your view, and many women use light blankets to cover up anyway.

On second thought, perhaps legalizing breastfeeding is the solution to obesity!
It's legal to breastfeed in public.

Oh yea, and your a friggin troll for trying to make me out to be a chauvinist. If I'm a chav, I'll damn well tell you. Believe me, you not liking me isn't high on my list of worries.
So when you say that nice tits are good, but you don't want to see the breasts of a fat woman even if she is only trying to feed her child, how would you prefer that I interpret that? (EDIT: That's an honest question, I'd really like to know.) In any case, I never said anything about not liking you. Whether or not I like you is irrelevant to having a debate, and I don't know enough about you to have formed an opinion one way or the other anyway.

So when you say that nice tits are good, but you don't want to see the breasts of a fat woman even if she is only trying to feed her child, how would you prefer that I interpret that? In any case, I never said anything about not liking you. Whether or not I like you is irrelevant to having a debate, and I don't know enough about you to have formed an opinion one way or the other anyway.
But I never said it was because she was fat. I just threw out an example. Taking that example, and using it to make a generalization about what I mean, and how bigoted I am, is being a troll.

Also, you can't breastfeed in private establishments where they don't allow it. That is more what I was referring to in legality. Also, if you couldn't tell, I WAS JOKING. Don't take every word so seriously, you take all the fun out of it.

And I still don't want to see it. Get over it. There are enough people that feel the same as me that it will never become commonplace for women to breastfeed in public. And you can say what you like, but a babies head isn't big enough to block the view. I have seen women breastfeed, so that argument is kind of silly to use, you know, telling me I haven't seen what I've seen.

But the main point is this. About 90% of everything I've said in the preceding posts was humor. Then I had to debate the humor. Really kills the humor.

It is some people's sensibilities that the food server wears gloves, or a hat, when they prepare and serve the food, it is other people's sensibilities that everyone wear a shirt and shoes while at the restaurant, it is other people sensibilities that you look the other way when you cough or sneeze and wash your hands after going to the bathroom...

Yeah but those sensibilities actually have, yanno, a rational basis.

If you think it's an insult for me to show you the bottom of my shoe or see my toes, I would be a jerk to take off my shoe and socks and shake out the stone whenever I see you in public, simply because you can't stop me. I have a choice to at least 'try' and not intentionally offend you. If that should become impossible and I have no choice, then so be it, but to say 'screw you' and do whatever I want, that makes me the jerk, not them, regardless of how silly their sensibility might be.

If that was an insult to me, I would look in the other direction. It's not that hard, and if I have such silly sensibilities, I'd put it on myself to make sure I'm not offended.

Then I had to debate the humor. Really kills the humor.

Screw the humor.

If that was an insult to me, I would look in the other direction. It's not that hard, and if I have such silly sensibilities, I'd put it on myself to make sure I'm not offended.
No you wouldn't. What offends you will offend you no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Don't lie.

And everyone knows what its like trying not to look at something. Its the same as someone telling you "Don't think about pink elephants." Whats the first thing that pops in your head? And where's the first place you'd look if he took his shoe off? And then how many people would you tell about the rude guy at the restaurant who had his shoes off?

t least allow me to whip it out and take a piss when nature calls.

Move to France if you want to do that

Screw the humor.
Screw you. I like the humor better.

;) Move to France if you want to do that
Hey now, lets not make ethnic generalizations just yet. Unless of course we are talking about under-arm hair.... ;)

;)
Hey now, lets not make ethnic generalizations just yet. Unless of course we are talking about under-arm hair.... ;)

Not making any generalisations, just that public urination isn't something that seems to bother people in France.

No you wouldn't. What offends you will offend you no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Don't lie.

Hey, he made it up for me, how I am I supposed to know that? He said showing me the shoes offends me, so if I'm not looking at it I can't be shown it can I? And then, I can still move, or walk away.

And everyone knows what its like trying not to look at something. Its the same as someone telling you "Don't think about pink elephants." Whats the first thing that pops in your head? And where's the first place you'd look if he took his shoe off? And then how many people would you tell about the rude guy at the restaurant who had his shoes off?

Umm, purple elephants, because I like to be contrary, first at shoe, otherwise I wouldn't realize he had his shoe off, then in another direction, because I apparently don't like it, and it would be stupid to keep looking. And then, I dunno, it depends on whether or not the subject comes up.

But I never said it was because she was fat. I just threw out an example. Taking that example, and using it to make a generalization about what I mean, and how bigoted I am, is being a troll.
I wasn't trying to deliberately anger you or anyone else for that matter. To my knowledge this means I wasn't being a troll, but I could be wrong. *shrug* Take it up with the mods if you feel that strongly about it.

Also, you can't breastfeed in private establishments where they don't allow it. That is more what I was referring to in legality.
Okay, perhaps it's different where you live. In California, a woman is entitled to breastfeed in any location, public or private, that she is legally allowed to be in. The only exception that I know of is if the woman is in another person's home.

Also, if you couldn't tell, I WAS JOKING. Don't take every word so seriously, you take all the fun out of it.
Obviously, I couldn't tell, or I wouldn't have tried to argue the point with you. Ah well, this is what happens when people try to communicate in writing only. :p

And I still don't want to see it. Get over it. There are enough people that feel the same as me that it will never become commonplace for women to breastfeed in public. And you can say what you like, but a babies head isn't big enough to block the view. I have seen women breastfeed, so that argument is kind of silly to use, you know, telling me I haven't seen what I've seen.
*sigh* Okay, you don't want to see it. You've seen women breastfeed, and you know you don't like it. Try looking away. I mean, really, it's not like it's hurting you.

...and on that note, it's time for me to head off to bed so I can get up nice and early tomorrow morning. Ugh.

Intellectually, sure. Intellectually I'm fully aware that having sex and giving birth (or breastfeeding) are different activities.

But you would have sexual feelings while watching a birth?

But again, I find the appearance of women giving birth to be distasteful and also try to avoid that. I suppose this makes me evil and "ignorant" too.

At what point did I say or suggest that you are evil or ignorant?

Maybe you should pay attention to who says what.


We were told earlier in this thread that being told to feed their baby in a bathroom was unacceptable, it was 'gross.'

Well, it is. Would you want to eat in a bathroom?

You want to know what is gross, a total lack of regard for other peoples feelings. One has choices. Is it a surprise that the baby was hungry while at the restaurant or other public place? No it is not, the baby can be fed before they are taken to the places that the mother does not want to use the restroom or unable to discreetly feed her child directly.

And if she is out in public all day?

Meanwhile, it is perfectly possible for a woman, in public, to discreetly breastfeed. The problem is those who think the very process should be hidden. A breastfeeding mother will generally be wearing a special bra and will have a blanket or towel to cover up.

Rather, the mother has choices, she can pump beforehand or bring the pump and feed the baby from a bottle

Actually, a baby fed from a bottle often will not go back to the breast. Pumping usually either begins when a mother is looking to wean a child off the breast, or if a child is a "lazy eater" who will not take to the breast in the first place.

Personally, I dont think I would breast feed in public simply because it would be difficult for me to do it discretely with having larger boobs, but I dont really care if other women do.

I think I've only ever seen half a dozen women breast feeding in a very public place, like a shopping centre, I'm sure there are more that do, but I either dont care enough to notice, or they're good at blending in :)

Yes, stop all this breastfeeding! It's immoral! Won't someone please think of the children? :rolleyes: Some of us can see a woman feeding her baby and not have "naughty" thoughts.
Good post.

Better might have been:

BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC? My GOD, the SHAME! Won't SOMEone PLEASE think of the CHI--

...oh.

Breastfeeding falls under the same anti-nudity laws that stop exposure for other purposes. it has nothing to do with motivation or reaction, the law is don't take them out in public. This falls under that wide scope.
Actually, you uninformed prude, in my home state, you can whip 'em out all you like so long as the areola/nipple area is covered. That provision not only covers erotic dancers, but practitioners of body art and folks in theater where the drama calls for nudity. Women even have special blouses that both allow easier frontal access and (wait for it...) cover the whole scene! Imagine that.

BG, you're a real Reverend Wildman, y'know that? He was a man so chronically reactionary that instead of changing the station or turning the radio off, he complained to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT about something he heard on the radio that he didn't like and began the crusade that ended up with the FCC (an unelected body answerable only to the Executive branch) getting to subvert the First Amendment over the broadcast airwaves. A Conservative pleading to the government for help!

You're a complete Puritan in the very worst sense of that word. You are SO terrified that somewhere, somehow, SOMEone is having fun, that you'd rather nobody did so that you can have the illusion of security. Your idea of what life should be like is a sad, depressing image indeed. If you really, honestly can't tolerate a woman breastfeeding her child -- one of the very first acts a mother does with her newborn, and cementer of possibly the strongest bond in all of humanity -- then, sir, something is very wrong with [b]you[b].

(See how annoying it is when someone else tell YOU what YOU are or are not? Learn from that, wouldja?)

But then again, those of us who've had to chew back the chyme gorging in our throats when you ascend your moral high horse and dictate to those who dare oppose you what we should be thinking, saying and doing and what is or is not American or whatever else you trip over yourself espousing...well, we knew that already.

I'm glad your parents taught you such good manners.

Seriously, in all the propoganda on individual rights and militant freedoms you've read, did no one mention at all that sometimes it's nice to realise that other people feel differently to you, and respect that? I don't see why you feel the need to shove something down people's throats just because you can. It's not as if being discreet is going to do anyone any harm.
How much more discreet can a mother be when she's got the infant in the feeding position, blanket over its head, suckling from a breast that's in a nursing bra accessed from a flap on her blouse specifically designed to conceal everything and be operable solely by touch? Just how closely are you scrutinizing this poor woman in order to see something prurient?

You want to take the basic issue out of its small realm of relevance and expand it to be an "I don't like individual freedoms forcing me to accede to them" rant. That's bad debate because we're not talking about a mother who "militantly" walks up to someone at a restaurant, slides them over and sits in their booth, rips off her tear-away stripper top and flollops her breasts everywhere and dangles them seductively in front of the infant and coos "which one does baby waa-aant?"

In fact, on the overall principle of the rights of the individual versus the rights of those passing by that individual, I share some of your concerns. I think it's fairly disgusting when a young woman who's never had a flat stomach in her life decides to bear her flaccid, undulating midriff in public in the name of "fashion". I think the prurient and meretricious display of overgenerous decolletage and ass-crack (nice juxtaposition of delicate euphemism and crassness, eh? I like to mix things up...) is tasteless and crass. I don't look at it any longer than it takes to think "y'know that reminds me, I need to go to the market for some fish, lard and fatback later..." and get on with my day. I don't feel the need to organize some kind of anti-flab/crack/lowrider resistance and tell people what to wear (but heaven help her if she asks me what I think...not that anyone ever would). I get by it and get over it. As should you.

Breastfeeding is not even CLOSE to that offensive, and usually lasts a shorter time than the souffle-waisted bint's fullriff (not midriff...) wobbling like a blancmange in my periphery while I try to read my copy of Funny Times on the bus when I'm on my way home from work.

By the way, Trostia? I'm no huge fan of the cult objects that children have become in the last decade or so, but I'd never say I dislike them, even when they annoy me -- and boy, can they ever. I'm adult enough (just) to understand that an infant/young child has not developed a sense of self control yet, and I, as an adult, have. Therefore it is incumbent upon me to BE NICE to the kid as the one of the two of us experienced enough to know that everything, I mean EVERYthing, is brand-bleeding-NEW to a child. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Please do not trip over my soapbox on the way out of this post. I found it fair and square.

Secondly, I have not insulted you yet you, in the classic liberal mode of this forum, throw the first insult. I will respond by saying that your opening comment was too petty to comment on, and your closing one calls me perverted for enforcing public nudity laws. Welcome to the land of OZ. Enjoy your stay. Follow the yellow brick road to find Marx.
NO sir, no. You do NOT get to play the "innocent victim" here. You've waded in with insults, assumptions and all kinds of impolite dreck in other threads LONG before you got here, chum. You don't get to play that card.

And your continual dredging up of Marx is beginning to place you into One Trick Pony status. That's fine if that's what you want to be, but I think mixing it up a bit (perhaps Lenin? Trotsky? OH, I know, CASTRO!) might help us see you as more than a one-dimensional hack-machine.

NO sir, no. You do NOT get to play the "innocent victim" here. You've waded in with insults, assumptions and all kinds of impolite dreck in other threads LONG before you got here, chum. You don't get to play that card.

And your continual dredging up of Marx is beginning to place you into One Trick Pony status. That's fine if that's what you want to be, but I think mixing it up a bit (perhaps Lenin? Trotsky? OH, I know, CASTRO!) might help us see you as more than a one-dimensional hack-machine.

I already figured he's a program.

Again, I can't help but be astonished by the general lack of respect and manners some of you seem to have. There are many things I would like to do but don't out of respect for others, but it would seem that selfishness is the new order of the day.
Sorry, pal, but selfish is better defined by someone who can't stand the merest possibility of seeing a minute fraction of an exposed breast while it does it's job. A mother shouldn't have to go to a bathroom, shouldn't have to make her own situation any more stressful than it already is.

I do notice that the objecting posters are all, without exception, male. I also notice that they share something in common with shariya-slinging Muslim fanatics -- the belief that it's somehow a woman's fault if a man can't control his hormones. What next, breastfeeding burkhas? No. You've been given all the discretion you're entitled to with the clothing and apparati already available for women to micro-minimize their exposure. If you can't be a decent person and meet her halfway by controlling yourself or reading a paper, then it is you who are selfish.

I know of and have seen more non-Christisan, 20 something year olds and even neo-femenists/femenuts. Who have issues with public breastfeeding then any Christisans.


Then why are they the vocal minority?

If so many normal christians out there have no particular problem with it, then why do they remain silent, and allow nutbags like Fallwell, or Robertson to speak for them?

Why do christians like those get to speak for the same ones?

Why dont more christians have a bigger problem with that?

I disappointed, I thought you at the very least would actually read what I wrote. I haven't at any point said that mothers shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed; my first comment was actually saying I thought it was better for the baby. All I've said is to be considerate of others around you, and yet this is someone controversial.
Okay, I'll try something different.

When you've tried to say "discreet", what you've been using as examples isn't discretion, it's exclusion by seclusion. "Discreet" doesn't mean "shunted away into a dark corner or lavatory."

Does that help?

EDIT: And really, once the breastfeeding mother has all the available discretion gear in place, shouldn't it be her decision where she goes, or even if?

You know what I want to ban? Belly shirts and biking shorts on people who have no business being in them. I'm not just talking about overweight individuals, there is more than one way to look bad in these articles of clothing. Lets leave the breasts alone and get down to the real public offenses.
Amen, brother.

Okay, I'll try something different.

When you've tried to say "discreet", what you've been using as examples isn't discretion, it's exclusion by seclusion. "Discreet" doesn't mean "shunted away into a dark corner or lavatory."

Does that help?

EDIT: And really, once the breastfeeding mother has all the available discretion gear in place, shouldn't it be her decision where she goes, or even if?


I can make it sweet and easy on both of you:

all behaviour is acceptable, provided you do your utmost to ensure that, basically, members of the public have not the slightest reason to note your existence in the first place.

*snip*
However, the argument that we shouldn't be considerate to other people's sensibilities is asinine.
*snip*
Nobody here has said that we shouldn't be considerate to other people's sensibilities. What I've said is using that argument with regard to breastfeeding is asinine.

You can't expect a mother to plan for every possible thing. If the kid needs to he, she needs to eat, period, whether the meal was planned for (or the train was on time, etc.) or not.

My "sensibilities" are affronted on a daily basis, not least by obnoxious cell phone users, cars with more amps in the trunk than brains at the wheel who seem hell bent on making sure that I hear what they hear, people flicking lit cigarettes out their car windows, and many more. Were I to demand that my sensibilities be considered in all of these cases, I'd likely get into one hell of a lot more arguments -- and that's worse than having my sensibilities tweaked. That reserve, that ability to comport oneself like a reasonable person in the face of minor inconveniences or inconsiderate acts, is part of being an adult.

No, because I don't want to see most women's tits. Nice tits = Good. And I'm sure I can handle seeing them without getting a hard-on. But I don't want to be sitting down at Outback Steakhouse and have some fat chick whip one out and plant her watermelon-size baby on it.

Shivers
Funny.

Out of proportion and unreasonably so, but funny.

It is some people's sensibilities that the food server wears gloves, or a hat, when they prepare and serve the food, it is other people's sensibilities that everyone wear a shirt and shoes while at the restaurant, it is other people sensibilities that you look the other way when you cough or sneeze and wash your hands after going to the bathroom...

Okay, food service employees are following state or county (usually) law when they wear protective articles of clothing. No dice there.

Shoes and shirt are porbably covered by the local health department as well.

Your third example is good. That's a kind of consideration that's needed because someone can actually suffer from lack of it -- that is, become sick. That same reason is why the laws requiring the first two exist.

If you think it's an insult for me to show you the bottom of my shoe or see my toes, I would be a jerk to take off my shoe and socks and shake out the stone whenever I see you in public, simply because you can't stop me. I have a choice to at least 'try' and not intentionally offend you. If that should become impossible and I have no choice, then so be it, but to say 'screw you' and do whatever I want, that makes me the jerk, not them, regardless of how silly their sensibility might be.
Here's the rub with your points here: there's no way in the world I'm gonna know anyone thinks the bottom of shoes or toes are offensive without asking first, and I can't imagine that question ever coming up of its own volition. It would take some very fancy verbal footwork for someone to politely request that I not show them the bottom of my shoes, but if they did so, I would oblige, and I would indeed be a class-A jackass if I then shoved my toes in his face. I think that's a rather bad example, but no biggie.

Again, the difference between "screw you" and having no Earthly way of knowing you don't dig soles or toes is big. Really, really big.

But I never said it was because she was fat. I just threw out an example. Taking that example, and using it to make a generalization about what I mean, and how bigoted I am, is being a troll.

Also, you can't breastfeed in private establishments where they don't allow it. That is more what I was referring to in legality. Also, if you couldn't tell, I WAS JOKING. Don't take every word so seriously, you take all the fun out of it.

And I still don't want to see it. Get over it. There are enough people that feel the same as me that it will never become commonplace for women to breastfeed in public. And you can say what you like, but a babies head isn't big enough to block the view. I have seen women breastfeed, so that argument is kind of silly to use, you know, telling me I haven't seen what I've seen.

But the main point is this. About 90% of everything I've said in the preceding posts was humor. Then I had to debate the humor. Really kills the humor.
If you choose only one example, and that example is a bit on the chauvanist side, it's not a generalization to call a spade a spade...especially if it's the only implement you've shown anyone. More or better examples is the gist there.

You can't to anything in an establishment that doesn't allow it. It's not always law, it's the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" bit. Though if they phrase it like that, "the right", it very well could be a law of some sort. Never seen the statute myself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is commonplace for women to breastfeed in public in my hometown (Seattle). If YOU don't want to see it, don't look. Saying "it will never become commonplace" when you haven't been everywhere is just as silly as you claimed the earlier point to be.

You don't have to debate humor if you make it clear you're joking. Sarcasm doesn't come off well in print/online. The debate is already boiling and you weighed in with what looked a lot like opinions that weren't jokes ("macho men" complaining about "fat chicks" is fairly common...and no, I'm not calling you "macho", even if you'd take it as a compliment...see how easy clarity can be?).

I can make it sweet and easy on both of you:

all behaviour is acceptable, provided you do your utmost to ensure that, basically, members of the public have not the slightest reason to note your existence in the first place.
I don't think that CIA-level camouflage is available to the general public yet.

"Not the slightest reason to note your appearance...". So is that "at all" or do you mean "note your appearance as being different than anyone else around you?

...
Meanwhile, it is perfectly possible for a woman, in public, to discreetly breastfeed. The problem is those who think the very process should be hidden. A breastfeeding mother will generally be wearing a special bra and will have a blanket or towel to cover up.

Actually, the problem is equally then the people that think they don't have to do it discreetly and damn anybody that might be offended, they'll walk into the middle of the crowd and 'announce' that they are going to do it, doing it, and then done as they parade in circles making a public display of it all...

In case you didn't notice, your 'imaginary' extremes example can be used both ways, and it's equally useless in both directions for finding an acceptable 'middle ground' of civil behavior as it wastes all it's time pointing fingers at who the problem is.

...
Actually, a baby fed from a bottle often will not go back to the breast. Pumping usually either begins when a mother is looking to wean a child off the breast, or if a child is a "lazy eater" who will not take to the breast in the first place.

Again your example goes too far. Most women whom breast feed go back to work long before the weaning is started and due to that pumping is far more common than non-pumping breast-feeding mothers (in America anyway).

In fact, new mothers who attend breastfeeding classes are told to begin pumping as soon as possible to build up their reserve production of milk if they can. To store milk the baby doesn't use right away for later use when they are 'out-in-public' or while the mother is at work and the baby is at day-care etc.

For women who have problems feeding their child, lactation specialists can be referred when mother's have problems and referrals can be made through pediatricians and maternity clinics or a simple phone calls. But this is a side track issue to the public breastfeeding issue, you simply brought it up to pretend like some women having problems and special needs justified everyone else's behavior...

...
Here's the rub with your points here: there's no way in the world I'm gonna know anyone thinks the bottom of shoes or toes are offensive without asking first, and I can't imagine that question ever coming up of its own volition. It would take some very fancy verbal footwork for someone to politely request that I not show them the bottom of my shoes, but if they did so, I would oblige, and I would indeed be a class-A jackass if I then shoved my toes in his face. I think that's a rather bad example, but no biggie.

Again, the difference between "screw you" and having no Earthly way of knowing you don't dig soles or toes is big. Really, really big.

Your objection fails because a mother with a breast feeding hungry child can know in advance if she is likely to be in a place that will be offended or not. If she doesn't know, she can ask. If all else fails, she can ask for a corner table, or a secluded area, cover up and do it. It takes about twenty minutes.

Should a mother bring her crying baby to a movie theater, or a Broadway show? Should she leave her seat if the baby begins to cry? Should other people have to tolerate interruptions after they've already spent their money on tickets? Or should the family call ahead, find out when the 'family showings' are and attend one of the screenings or showings that are expecting children and interruptions? We both know the answer, a family with a very young child needs to plan ahead and be considerate of other people as well as looking after their family. It’s simple courtesy, something other than the, “it’s all about me,” mentality.

Your objection fails because a mother with a breast feeding hungry child can know in advance if she is likely to be in a place that will be offended or not. If she doesn't know, she can ask. If all else fails, she can ask for a corner table, or a secluded area, cover up and do it. It takes about twenty minutes.

Should a mother bring her crying baby to a movie theater, or a Broadway show? Should she leave her seat if the baby begins to cry? Should other people have to tolerate interruptions after they've already spent their money on tickets? Or should the family call ahead, find out when the 'family showings' are and attend one of the screenings or showings that are expecting children and interruptions? We both know the answer, a family with a very young child needs to plan ahead and be considerate of other people as well as looking after their family. It’s simple courtesy, something other than the, “it’s all about me,” mentality.

Yes, quietly feeding a baby, and allowing one to cry during a show are exactly the same. The "it's all about me" mentality is the one that says "since I don't want women to breastfeed in public, children should be hidden away while doing it." Why should she have to call ahead and ask for permission to perform a safe, healthy, clean bodily function that everyone of us did or should have done? Some idiots try to compare it to peeing or sneezing but those things present a health hazard. There are very real public issues with defecating in public. There is no rational reason to prevent a woman from breastfeeding in public other than the unreasonable complaints of a few people who can't separate sexual activity and childrearing.

Yes, quietly feeding a baby, and allowing one to cry during a show are exactly the same. The "it's all about me" mentality is the one that says "since I don't want women to breastfeed in public, children should be hidden away while doing it." Why should she have to call ahead and ask for permission to perform a safe, healthy, clean bodily function that everyone of us did or should have done? Some idiots try to compare it to peeing or sneezing but those things present a health hazard. There are very real public issues with defecating in public. There is no rational reason to prevent a woman from breastfeeding in public other than the unreasonable complaints of a few people who can't separate sexual activity and childrearing.

Right… Just like standing up in the middle of some suit and tie wearing five star restaurant and announcing that you are going to breast feed your baby and anyone that doesn't like it can just go sod off, it extremely reasonable. I think not.



BTW: I already said that I'm all in favor of accepting, without reserve, breastfeeding in public places. My point is that people like you who say things like, "this is the way I think and anyone that disagrees with me is just an unreasonable S.O.B.,” or, “they are bigoted Neanderthal,” etc., and, “I don't care what they think," in the end is your argument and it is the one that is the jerks argument, not the one with reasonable and simple requests for the sake of civil sensibilities. The rules are not the same for all locations, we have different expectations to our behavior for different places that we go, to believe otherwise is entirely an, "it's all about me" mentality.

A woman exposing her breasts in public is not appropriate no matter what reason it was for. Public nudity is frowned upon by civilized society.
It's perfectly legal for women to be topless in Ontario, so the woman isn't showing anything she isn't legally entitled to anyways. Besides, I would rather see a woman breastfeed than a fat guy in a speedo.

Right… Just like standing up in the middle of some suit and tie wearing five star restaurant and announcing that you are going to breast feed your baby and anyone that doesn't like it can just go sod off, it extremely reasonable. I think not.

Are we talking about that? No. No, we're not talking about announcing anything. We're talking about doing it. And the restaurant has the right to remove you for any reason whatsoever, including wearing a tie that is too loud or even for being black (though they'd likely end up on the losing end of a lawsuit). We are talking about legality and politeness and there is nothing impolite about breastfeeding a child. You have to add some other impolite activity to your strawman to make your argument. Why does your argument require the rude announcement in order for the activity to be rude? My guess is because you realize the activity itself is not.

If my wife decides to breastfeed our child at the table (I have neither a wife nor a child, but it's a scenario) then there is no reason for anyone else to care unless they choose to decide that my wife should not be allowed to do so. It is no different than them complaining because my wife is too fat and they don't want to see it while they're eating or any other rude requirement they would make on other people. The fact that they are disturbed by the quiet, personal and healthy activity of people at another table is their problem, not the problem of those that are simply behaving in a civilized and polite manner that places the physical well-being of the child of the sensitivities of people who care to stick their nose in the business of others.


BTW: I already said that I'm all in favor of accepting, without reserve, breastfeeding in public places. My point is that people like you who say things like, "this is the way I think and anyone that disagrees with me is just an unreasonable S.O.B.,” or, “they are bigoted Neanderthal,” etc., and, “I don't care what they think," in the end is your argument and it is the one that is the jerks argument, not the one with reasonable and simple requests for the sake of civil sensibilities. The rules are not the same for all locations, we have different expectations to our behavior for different places that we go, to believe otherwise is entirely an, "it's all about me" mentality.

Again, the "it's all about me" mentality is the one that would punish the child because it's hungry in order to defend your sensibilities. The child is hungry. It needs to feed. It deserves to feed. Here's a note, in case you didn't know, babies are "all about me". I don't fault them for it, because they don't know better. I do fault people who would have those babies feed in unsanitary places or be required to hide because of their need for nourishment. But, hey, I'm silly that way.

Are we talking about that? No. No, we're not talking about announcing anything. We're talking about doing it. And the restaurant has the right to remove you for any reason whatsoever, including wearing a tie that is too loud or even for being black (though they'd likely end up on the losing end of a lawsuit). We are talking about legality and politeness and there is nothing impolite about breastfeeding a child. You have to add some other impolite activity to your strawman to make your argument. Why does your argument require the rude announcement in order for the activity to be rude? My guess is because you realize the activity itself is not.

I already said I don't think it is offensive, but I know that other people find it rude or vulgar. If I go to a Jewish Deli I don't eat a ham sandwich I kept in my pocket. If I go to a vegetarian bistro, I don't start showing pictures of my veal processing plant... It's simply rude, I don't have to go there. If I choose to go there I should choose to behave in a socially acceptable manner for the place that I am in.

There was no strawman and your claiming there was one is because you don't have a real argument. You simply 'pretend' that all breastfeeding women cover themselves and feed their child quietly, I simply pretended another scenario.


If my wife decides to breastfeed our child at the table (I have neither a wife nor a child, but it's a scenario) then there is no reason for anyone else to care unless they choose to decide that my wife should not be allowed to do so. It is no different than them complaining because my wife is too fat and they don't want to see it while they're eating or any other rude requirement they would make on other people. The fact that they are disturbed by the quiet, personal and healthy activity of people at another table is their problem, not the problem of those that are simply behaving in a civilized and polite manner that places the physical well-being of the child of the sensitivities of people who care to stick their nose in the business of others.

Again, the "it's all about me" mentality is the one that would punish the child because it's hungry in order to defend your sensibilities. The child is hungry. It needs to feed. It deserves to feed. Here's a note, in case you didn't know, babies are "all about me". I don't fault them for it, because they don't know better. I do fault people who would have those babies feed in unsanitary places or be required to hide because of their need for nourishment. But, hey, I'm silly that way.

Looks like I have to repeat things already said only three pages ago...


Rather, the mother has choices, she can pump beforehand or bring the pump and feed the baby from a bottle (breast milk is good for five hours at room temperature, and five days in the chill of a refrigerator or on ice) or simply feed it before arriving, or prepare a place in private in advance etc. The mother (as all other guardians of the infant have to do anyway) have 'choices' they can make to be responsible adults with children when they enter the communities that do not condone such behavior. We choose to enter and live in these communities after all, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This is not a question of “do other’s sensibilities override the needs of a starving child?” No, of course not, however this is not that question, this is simply a matter of some adults choosing to be considerate to others by using plain forethought and preparedness in advance or choosing to be jerks and forcing 'their opinions on everyone else’ simply because they want to.

I already said I don't think it is offensive, but I know that other people find it rude or vulgar. If I go to a Jewish Deli I don't eat a ham sandwich I kept in my pocket. If I go to a vegetarian bistro, I don't start showing pictures of my veal processing plant... It's simply rude, I don't have to go there. If I choose to go there I should choose to behave in a socially acceptable manner for the place that I am in.

Again, these are fallacious examples. You are choosing examples of activities that are intentionally counter to the purpose of the store I go to. We're not talking about a woman breastfeeding in some non-existant Anti-Breastfeeding Academy. We're talking about a woman breastfeeding in a general restaurant. Find me a restaurant that is based on the tenant of anti-breastfeeding and your examples will have some bearing.


There was no strawman and your claiming there was one is because you don't have a real argument. You simply 'pretend' that all breastfeeding women cover themselves and feed their child quietly, I simply pretended another scenario.

There is no strawman? So are we talking about people who stand up and announce what they're about to do or women breastfeeding in a restaurant? You attached breastfeeding to a rude activity in order to argue that it's rude. What activity would not be rude in a restaurant if I announced I was going to do it loudly before I started it?

Now, absent of loudly announcing she is about breastfeed, in a scenario where a woman sitting at a table simply picks her child up and begins to breastfeed it, is she being rude? Nope. The person being rude is the person who can't help but stare at her doing so or acting as if their inability to separate sexual activity and childrearing should cause her to moderate her activities and the activities of the hungry child.



Looks like I have to repeat things already said only three pages ago...


Rather, the mother has choices, she can pump beforehand or bring the pump and feed the baby from a bottle (breast milk is good for five hours at room temperature, and five days in the chill of a refrigerator or on ice) or simply feed it before arriving, or prepare a place in private in advance etc. The mother (as all other guardians of the infant have to do anyway) have 'choices' they can make to be responsible adults with children when they enter the communities that do not condone such behavior. We choose to enter and live in these communities after all, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The best thing for the child is to feed directly from the breast. You wish to something counter to the best thing for the child because of the sensitivities of people who have no business being involved.


This is not a question of “do other’s sensibilities override the needs of a starving child?” No, of course not, however this is not that question, this is simply a matter of some adults choosing to be considerate to others by using plain forethought and preparedness in advance or choosing to be jerks and forcing 'their opinions on everyone else’ simply because they want to.

Not according to you. You have absolutely said that other people's sensitivities to override the needs of the child and that the mother and child should work around those sensitivities. (P.S. I notice you have to hyperbolize the argument again because you simply can't avoid the strawman. I didn't say 'starving'. I said 'hungry'. Try pretending like you have an argument rather than simply taking it to absurd and non-existant extremes in order to pretend as if that is the norm.)

...

Nope, you don't seem to do anything besides make strawman arguments at all do you? That's sad.

There are hundreds of types of restaurants, everything from $10,000 per plate political dinners to greasy spoon slabs of SPAM on a dirty plate. What you can do in one does not mean you can do in all. You suggest that a simple request to keep your clothes on while in the common area and feed your child away from other guests is a declaration of war.

You sir, are being ridiculous.

Right… Just like standing up in the middle of some suit and tie wearing five star restaurant and announcing that you are going to breast feed your baby and anyone that doesn't like it can just go sod off, it extremely reasonable. I think not.

BTW: I already said that I'm all in favor of accepting, without reserve, breastfeeding in public places. My point is that people like you who say things like, "this is the way I think and anyone that disagrees with me is just an unreasonable S.O.B.,” or, “they are bigoted Neanderthal,” etc., and, “I don't care what they think," in the end is your argument and it is the one that is the jerks argument, not the one with reasonable and simple requests for the sake of civil sensibilities. The rules are not the same for all locations, we have different expectations to our behavior for different places that we go, to believe otherwise is entirely an, "it's all about me" mentality.
Nobody here has said ANY of the things you claim with this post. Nobody has defended an mother who obnoxiously makes a scene out of breastfeeding. In all likelihood, the ones making the scenes are those who can't seem to figure out that there's nothing wrong with it.

So quit with the "you people" and "people like you" until you can accurately reflect what we've said. I've called someone ignorant here because they openly admitted to hating children and being incapable of separating a breast from its secondary sexual context and its baby food context.

All the breastfeeding mothers I've ever seen in 30+ years of being cogent in public have made good faith efforts at covering the meal in progress. What you're suggesting is that they barge into a quiet place and flagrantly whip out a mammary gland and dare someone to tell them they can't. Please show me any example you can of this, if you can. Or better yet, to use someone else's earlier example, the person who is offended by the soles of shoes or exposed toes would be considered insane if he walked in to a quiet place or public square and demand to not be shown either of those things.

Since mothers cover this event up and it lasts maybe five minutes, tops, surely all others who are apparently too sensitive for their own good can make a good faith effort themselves. That's all I'm saying. The only "Neanderthals" are those who "get confused" at the presentation of a breast in a non-sexual manner. Those people are in desperate need of some rapid evolution.

I already said I don't think it is offensive, but I know that other people find it rude or vulgar. If I go to a Jewish Deli I don't eat a ham sandwich I kept in my pocket. If I go to a vegetarian bistro, I don't start showing pictures of my veal processing plant... It's simply rude, I don't have to go there. If I choose to go there I should choose to behave in a socially acceptable manner for the place that I am in.

There was no strawman and your claiming there was one is because you don't have a real argument. You simply 'pretend' that all breastfeeding women cover themselves and feed their child quietly, I simply pretended another scenario.

*snip the repeat of earlier BS*

Going into a Jewish deli and eating a ham sandwich probably would go unnoticed unless you SAID something or demonstrated the "hamness" of the sandwich. Restaurants usually frown on you bringing your own food anyway, so that's two reasons why that example is ludicrous.

Going into a vegetarian bistro with pictures of a veal processing plant? How far up your own alimentary canal are you digging for these examples, and how on Earth is that anything like a woman quietly sitting and minding her infant's business and no one else's? You may as well have said something like "going into a ward of paralyzed people and making fun of them because they can't dance, all while dancing. Your examples are ridiculous and have no bearing on the topic.

You don't need to "pretend" that women cover themselves up -- they DO. I don't know how old you are, but I've seen quite a lot of breastfeeding mothers in about 30 years of being aware of my surroundings in public. I have NEVER seen any of the "pretend" demonstrative scenarios you describe with regard to a woman "whippin' it out" and making a scene of feeding their child. Then again, given all of the other examples you've used, perhaps people are just plain obnoxious where you live.

Your examples require significant exaggeration and "pretending" to even imagine. A quietly feeding infant and mother all covered and snug under a nursing blanket does not. You've made enough strawmen to feed the livestock contingent of Iowa.

Nope, you don't seem to do anything besides make strawman arguments at all do you? That's sad.

There are hundreds of types of restaurants, everything from $10,000 per plate political dinners to greasy spoon slabs of SPAM on a dirty plate. What you can do in one does not mean you can do in all. You suggest that a simple request to keep your clothes on while in the common area and feed your child away from other guests is a declaration of war.

You sir, are being ridiculous.
Sorry. You're completely out of proportion and also have no idea what the word "stawman" means, or even what clothing exists to ensure no exposure of anything remotely prurient during a feeding. You are not in touch with reality, and I'll even grant you the last trollish word so that I can officially say I'm done trying to be civil or even reasonable with you.

You've lost, you just refuse to admit it, and it's sad.

The only "Neanderthals" are those who "get confused" at the presentation of a breast in a non-sexual manner. Those people are in desperate need of some rapid evolution.
That's what this really boils down to. Some people are terrified of the idea that *gasp* maybe breasts exist for some purpose other than the sexual gratification of adult males. They find it impossible to believe that somebody could see a woman's nipple and NOT be aroused to passion, or that a nipple could be performing some function that has absolutely nothing to do with a heterosexual man's penis.

Terrifying, I know, but it's true: sometimes boobies have a purpose that is totally unrelated to the sexual gratification of heterosexual men.

Nope, you don't seem to do anything besides make strawman arguments at all do you? That's sad.

There are hundreds of types of restaurants, everything from $10,000 per plate political dinners to greasy spoon slabs of SPAM on a dirty plate. What you can do in one does not mean you can do in all. You suggest that a simple request to keep your clothes on while in the common area and feed your child away from other guests is a declaration of war.

You sir, are being ridiculous.

Ha. A strawman is when I am arguing against something you didn't say. You really should familiarize yourself with the term before embarrassing yourself. I was arguing exactly what you said. If I was not, please demonstrate how I did so, like I did when I accused you of it. There is more to debating than simply saying "I'm not creating a strawman, you are." Show it or don't say it. I'll give you an example, let's say someone accused me of saying that any objection to breastfeeding is "a declaration of war". See, that would be a strawman because I never said any such thing. That's an example of a strawman.

Meanwhile, the fact that some have that requirement doesn't make the behavior rude, which is what you're claiming. I said clearly that restaurants can make any requirements of their patrons they like provided they are not illegal. However, the fact that they make those requirements doesn't make your behavior rude, just disallowed. No matter how you slice it there is nothing rude about feeding your child in public or a privately-held establishment. Nothing. Ever. In any place.

It is not discourteous. You have not established that it is and your attempts to add other rude activities and other strawmen is evidence you know your argument has failed. I take the fact that you know your argument is failing as evidence that you are more aware of how silly this argument is than you let on, which bodes well for my opinion of you.

That's what this really boils down to. Some people are terrified of the idea that *gasp* maybe breasts exist for some purpose other than the sexual gratification of adult males. They find it impossible to believe that somebody could see a woman's nipple and NOT be aroused to passion, or that a nipple could be performing some function that has absolutely nothing to do with a heterosexual man's penis.

Terrifying, I know, but it's true: sometimes boobies have a purpose that is totally unrelated to the sexual gratification of heterosexual men.

Wait, what? Not for sex? I want to change my argument then.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nursing.cover.ap/index.html

This debate seems to come up again and again. So I have a few questions. Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?

You'll get my answers as the discussion goes on.

Not a damn thing wrong with a mother feeding her infant child in public either from a tit or a bottle. I think we Americans are to hung up with breastafobia. :eek:

That's what this really boils down to. Some people are terrified of the idea that *gasp* maybe breasts exist for some purpose other than the sexual gratification of adult males. They find it impossible to believe that somebody could see a woman's nipple and NOT be aroused to passion, or that a nipple could be performing some function that has absolutely nothing to do with a heterosexual man's penis.

Terrifying, I know, but it's true: sometimes boobies have a purpose that is totally unrelated to the sexual gratification of heterosexual men.

*Applause* "Hear Hear!" I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately its not only men who think that. :( I know you didn't say it was but I have argued about this with my previous g/f so I wanted to contribute my two cents. She was one of those who labeled it as wrong because she got turned on by the brief glimpse. She was of the opinion shared by many a male I've known that anything that turned them on should be kept hidden. I don't know for certain if this at the heart of the objection for all people but I am as convinced as I could be without a proper survey.

Actually, the problem is equally then the people that think they don't have to do it discreetly and damn anybody that might be offended, they'll walk into the middle of the crowd and 'announce' that they are going to do it, doing it, and then done as they parade in circles making a public display of it all...

And yet, I have never seen such a person. The closest was the lady in the restaurant that my friend had to deal with - and she didn't announce it or "parade in circles making a public display of it all." She simply got upset when asked to move to a corner booth (something I think was unreasonable of her, btw).

In case you didn't notice, your 'imaginary' extremes example can be used both ways, and it's equally useless in both directions for finding an acceptable 'middle ground' of civil behavior as it wastes all it's time pointing fingers at who the problem is.

My 'extreme' isn't imaginary. Quite a few people on this very thread have stated that a mother should never, under any circumstances, breastfeed in public. Yours, on the other hand, seems pretty imaginary.

Again your example goes too far.

In what way?

Most women whom breast feed go back to work long before the weaning is started and due to that pumping is far more common than non-pumping breast-feeding mothers (in America anyway).

Indeed. And many of those infants, once the bottle use begins, will not go back to the breast. From that point in time, pumping is the only way to get them breastmilk. Pumping is sometimes more convenient, and many women switch over to it, especially once they are going back to work, but it does carry its own problems.


The best thing for the child is to feed directly from the breast. You wish to something counter to the best thing for the child because of the sensitivities of people who have no business being involved.

And for the mother as well. Studies have shown that women who breastfeed have a decreased incidence of osteoporosis and other problems that pregnancy is seen as a risk factor for.

And for the mother as well. Studies have shown that women who breastfeed have a decreased incidence of osteoporosis and other problems that pregnancy is seen as a risk factor for.

HYPERBOLE!!! I mean, it's not hyperbole, but how are people going to argue against you with no support unless they pretend you're exaggerating.

Breastfeeding is fine so long as you bring a blanket or something to try to cover it up.

If you don't,

At least share the wealth:p

IMHO, breastfeeding is okay, as long as one is aware of one's surroundings. For example, breastfeeding in a restruant, in a park, is all okay. You may want to cover up though, which is something I see many mothers do. I would. In front of a crowd of horney teenage middleschoolers (dont ask.)? Um, better not. You have a right to feed your baby. But for heaven sake, also use your common sense!

On the picture on the magazine itself, I think the picture could have been done a lot better, and caused less controversy. Like, perhaps the woman holding the child, and maybe covering the breast up more significantly. As far as I'm concerned, it looks like hte woman just stuck her breast out for hte baby to <s>fall on</s> latch on, and isn't interacting at all. The picture looks like it's emphasizing the breast, and not the child. It should have been more of a mother-child bond picture, or a baby feeding. the huge breast, adn the pose, take away from the message... heavily.

i think it should be made complusory... :D

There comes a point where being 'polite' is dependent on which house you are in. Should burping be offensive? No, it should not. However, I'd be a jerk if I went into my neighbor's house and burped away claiming my 'rightness' by insisting that it was good manners in Japan. It would still be ill-mannered of me. If you 'knew' it was offensive to the restaurant atmosphere, you should have covered up or gone to the bathroom, not because it was indecent, but because it was offensive and you were in their place, not your own place. Courteousness is not a ‘rights’ issue, sometimes we have the ‘right’ to be as rude as we want, but that doesn’t make it right to do so.

The baby's head takes up most of the picture. The breast is only a small part and doesn't actually expose anything. It's not unusually large. There is nothing that makes it stand out. And the baby is looking up at the mother. That is a bonding picture. That's what baby's do. They didn't fake it unless they drew the eyes on the baby. Perhaps if what you notice most in that picture is the breast, the issue isn't the picture.

The baby's head takes up most of the picture. The breast is only a small part and doesn't actually expose anything. It's not unusually large. There is nothing that makes it stand out. And the baby is looking up at the mother. That is a bonding picture. That's what baby's do. They didn't fake it unless they drew the eyes on the baby. Perhaps if what you notice most in that picture is the breast, the issue isn't the picture.

Still think the picture could've been done more tastefully...

Still think the picture could've been done more tastefully...
What is "tasteless" about it?

Holy crap, people, we are not in goddam middle school! It's a BREAST. Showing a breast is not offensive. Showing a breast, particularly engaged in the act of feeding an infant, should be regarded as one of the most simple, natural, beautiful images in human culture. It should be regarded as such even if the breast isn't perfectly air-brushed and perky. It should be regarded as such even if *gasp* you can see a bit of nipple. It's a BREAST.

Breastfeeding is fine so long as you bring a blanket or something to try to cover it up.

If you don't,

At least share the wealth:p
I know you were joking, but this is really kind of sick if you think about it...

"Ladies, never forget that your bodies are public property, and their primary function is to (sexually) entertain others. If you want people to let you use your breasts for the function of breast feeding, you must cover them up in public. If you don't, then you're obligated to share your body with anybody who wants it, whether you want to or not."

Now THAT is tasteless.

Now I really want to be a woman and have kids. I would breastfeed fucking everywhere.

I really dont know. if the womans hot, then i do want to see her tits but the baby ruins it for me, and if shes not hot then she should just put them away and stop offending my eyes.

I really dont know. if the womans hot, then i do want to see her tits but the baby ruins it for me, and if shes not hot then she should just put them away and stop offending my eyes.

Gouge them out lest they be offended. Wouldn't want to offend your poor little eyes. Here's something you should have learned by now - hot or not, those things you think you should be covered or uncovered based on your attraction to their owner are used for feeding infants. The fact that your attraction to them is more important to you than this function speaks volumes about your character.

The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half -- 43 percent -- of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places.

... oh dear. :(

Here's something you should have learned by now - hot or not, those things you think you should be covered or uncovered based on your attraction to their owner are used for feeding infants.They're also used to attract mates. If they only had to feed a baby, they wouldn't be as large. In fact, they would probably hardly be there at all unless a woman was nursing, if our closest simian relatives are anythign to go by.
And either way that does not mean they should be whipped out in public.

The fact that your attraction to them is more important to you than this function speaks volumes about your character.It's not like he'll be allowed to feed on them, now is he. So that function is quite irrelevant to him.

They're also used to attract mates. If they only had to feed a baby, they wouldn't be as large. In fact, they would probably hardly be there at all unless a woman was nursing, if our closest simian relatives are anythign to go by.
And either way that does not mean they should be whipped out in public.

It's not like he'll be allowed to feed on them, now is he. So that function is quite irrelevant to him.

So you're contention is that I should approve of people acting in the most selfish and base nature we can find. Yes, they attract people, but their most basic function is to feed children. The fact that he would subjugate that function to his desires does speak volumes about his character and you just translated what it says.

And either way, you've not given a reason why they should not be 'whipped out in public'.

Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? No, it's endearing. If it was a really ugly baby or an ugly breast, or worse both, I'd find it offensive though.
And if everyone was breastfeeding in public, that'd be more the reality of it. (Well, my reality of it.)

Do you think it would harm a child to see it?Depends on how they've been indoctrinated to respond to it. There is no natural reason why it should do any harm, seeing as they've seen breast regularly the first months/years of their life. The only problem there really is is if the parents (or others) make a problem of it. Tell a kid it should be traumatised often enough, and it will be.

Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public?If it's sufficiently discreet I wouldn't notice it, and hence not care.
If it's less than discreet it would most probably bother me, as it doesn't fit in the world picture I'm accustomed to.

Is it really a sexual thing?No, I don't think so.

So you're contention is that I should approve of people acting in the most selfish and base nature we can find.I don't think that's quite what I said. In fact, I don't think I gave any moral direction one way or another.
If peopel were to act in the most selfish and base natural way we can find, they'd be running around naked breastfeeding and copulating.

Yes, they attract people, but their most basic function is to feed children.I disagree that that is their most basic function. Without reproduction there are no children to breastfeed. If either function is more basic, it's the one that promotes reproduction.

The fact that he would subjugate that function to his desires does speak volumes about his character and you just translated what it says.I don't really think it says much about his character. He'd have to expand on it first; there really wasn't much of an opinion to start judging people on. Now judging people on little to no information, that shows character.

And either way, you've not given a reason why they should not be 'whipped out in public'.Because I don't want them to :P
Same reason I don't want people running around naked. It shouldn't matter, but it does.

It has to do with the same anti-public nudity laws applying no matter what the reason for the nudity was.:rolleyes:

If you ever catch fire one day, I hope no one bothers to remove the plastic and whatever polymers you're wearing that have fused with your skin because its illegal.

And if there was any sense of divine irony, it'd be the underwear you're wearing that gets melted.

Sorry to jump back into the topic, but I exchanged emails about this with one of my homeschooling groups, and I was shocked at what I read. You should probably know that the group I was in email converastion with is the one where it's "put the baby in a sling and breastfeed until they are 3, have 20 kids and live in a commune" group, the only reason I associate with them is that they have a curriculum swap, otherwise they think I am a heathen.

I really thought (btw I didn't start the conversation) that they would be "pro-breastfeeding in public" you know since they do extended feeding, but I guess I was naive, since I failed to realize that they don't go in public, they hang around their anti-hippie commune all the damn time.

Once again I am the heathen, I guess it's because I have daughters, and I try to promote a "love your body" type of thing around here, but really I don't have a problem with the picture.

Some comments in the emails

I'd rather not have my sons and husband seeing a private part of a woman's body! Don't misunderstand me, I totally support breastfeeding myself and do it as long as I possibly can with each child, but it *is* considered a private part in today's American culture. Most men, including my husband, *are* very visual creatures.

I asked her if she makes her husband bathe her sons so that she doesn't have to see a "private part of a man's body" and she said I was being "way too serious" about this issue and called me a "man hater"

WTF?

If you ever catch fire one day, I hope no one bothers to remove the plastic and whatever polymers you're wearing that have fused with your skin because its illegal.

And if there was any sense of divine irony, it'd be the underwear you're wearing that gets melted.
Lol nice ... I think that last part is going in my sig ... time for a change

I don't think that's quite what I said. In fact, I don't think I gave any moral direction one way or another.
If peopel were to act in the most selfish and base natural way we can find, they'd be running around naked breastfeeding and copulating.

There is nothing selfish about breastfeeding, so your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. What you said was to complain when I pointed out that breasts have a function he wasn't recognizing and that his assessment of whether that function should be used was a selfish one, which is undeniable. Your reply was to suggest that I should accept his behavior and that I should accept your ridiculous assertion that they shouldn't be 'whipped out in public' because you don't like it. The selfish base behavior is the ridiculous assertion that what you want should dictate when and where a baby feeds.


I disagree that that is their most basic function. Without reproduction there are no children to breastfeed. If either function is more basic, it's the one that promotes reproduction.

That's just stupid. Reproduction can occur without ever seeing or feeling a breast. The attraction to the breast is based on a verility suggestion by the fact that they are large much like symmatry is a symbol of good genes. The reason for our attraction to them is because they feed children. Apparently, even their 'reproductive' use ties back to the basic function.

By the same ridiculous logic, reproduction is just a remarkable waste of resources if the child is not fed.


I don't really think it says much about his character. He'd have to expand on it first; there really wasn't much of an opinion to start judging people on. Now judging people on little to no information, that shows character.

I have plenty of information to draw on. He gave very selfish, openly selfish, reasons for how the decision of it happening should be made. There is nothing unclear about that. My conclusion. He is selfish in regards to breasts. Based on... *gasp* his being selfish in regards to breasts.

There is nothing selfish about breastfeeding, so your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.If you act without disregard for eanyone else, you're being selfish. With breastfeeding in public you may be disregarding all the people that don't want that. So it's in a certaind egree selfish.

What you said was to complain when I pointed out that breasts have a function he wasn't recognizing and that his assessment of whether that function should be used was a selfish one, which is undeniable. What I said was solely in response to you neglecting the multifunctionality of breast. And judging harshly about someone on meager cause.

Your reply was to suggest that I should accept his behaviorNo, it was only a rationalization of why the behaviour makes sense. I'm not one to tell people what they should and should not accept about people's behaviour.

and that I should accept your ridiculous assertion that they shouldn't be 'whipped out in public' because you don't like it.I never actually said they shouldn't be whipped out in public. Just that because breastfeeding is natural is no reason they ough to. Peeing is quite natural, btu that likewise doesn't mean men should whip out their penis and start peeing where they want, or even int he gutter (since there is of course the distinction one is slightly messier).
Just because something is natural does not mean it should be done in public.

The selfish base behavior is the ridiculous assertion that what you want should dictate when and where a baby feeds.I'm not dictating anything, I'm simply giving my opinion that I don't prefer it. I'm not dictator of the world yet, and even if I were, I'd have far more interesting things to do than dictate where people breastfeed. Just as long as they don't do it where I can see it.
Not to mention you take some statements faaaaaaar to seriously.

That's just stupid. Reproduction can occur without ever seeing or feeling a breast. True, but it is promoted greatly by lust.
Like I said, if attraction weren't a function of breast, they wouldn't stand out. They are multifunctional. Simple as that. You're the one adamant that one function must be primary to another; I rate them rather more equitable, with the caveat that if one were to be primary, it'd be the other.
Nevermind the whole thing is quite irrelevant. Since it has no implication for societal norms.

The attraction to the breast is based on a verility suggestion by the fact that they are large much like symmatry is a symbol of good genes. The reason for our attraction to them is because they feed children. Apparently, even their 'reproductive' use ties back to the basic function.I don't think our baser instinct think things through that far. The correlation between the "breasts are great" instinct and childcare and health means that evolution promotes that instinct. But it doesn't give it additional meaning. The instinct doesn't say "breast are great because ..." They simply are a.f.a. the male (heterosexual) mind is concerned.
Evolution is a causal process, not a rational one, after all.

By the same ridiculous logic, reproduction is just a remarkable waste of resources if the child is not fed.It may be fed in other ways though.

I have plenty of information to draw on.One sentence.
Possibly not even seriously.

My conclusion. He is selfish in regards to breasts. Based on... *gasp* his being selfish in regards to breasts.That hardly "speaks volumes about his character" as you claimed before. One sentence isn't a volume, usually.

If you act without disregard for eanyone else, you're being selfish. With breastfeeding in public you may be disregarding all the people that don't want that. So it's in a certaind egree selfish.

Actually, selfishness generally requires acting with total disregard for *everyone* else, with thought given only to yourself. Considering that a breastfeeding woman is almost certainly considering her infant, it couldn't really be seen as selfishness. Not to mention that, unless the woman is being "in your face" about it (something I have never seen), you cannot really say that she is disregarding others. If she is wearing a nursing bra and/or has a blanket to cover up, she is quite obviously considering the sensibilities of others.

I never actually said they shouldn't be whipped out in public. Just that because breastfeeding is natural is no reason they ough to. Peeing is quite natural, btu that likewise doesn't mean men should whip out their penis and start peeing where they want, or even int he gutter (since there is of course the distinction one is slightly messier).
Just because something is natural does not mean it should be done in public.

Once again, the comparison of feeding an infant to excretion of waste.

You know, I'm beginning to think that the people who can't handle the thought of breastfeeding are on a level with those who can't say "penis" or "vagina" or "breast" or think about excretion without giggling uncontrollably. That might be a reason that so many people equate them.

It may be fed in other ways though.

None that are as healthy for both the infant and mother, however.

That hardly "speaks volumes about his character" as you claimed before. One sentence isn't a volume, usually.

You can talk for hours and say nothing of substance, I don't see why one sentence can't be meaningful.

Are you offended by the picture on the magazine? Do you think it would harm a child to see it? Are you offended by the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding in public? Is it really a sexual thing?
No, no, no, and no. It's just a very beautiful thing and has nothing to do with sex. Hell! I stay horny anyway, so how would I know if it "affected" me? :D

And even if it did affect me, that's my own problem, not a problem for women who choose to breastfeed.

If you act without disregard for eanyone else, you're being selfish. With breastfeeding in public you may be disregarding all the people that don't want that. So it's in a certaind egree selfish.

False. If you act without REGARD for anyone else it's selfish. That means if you did act with regard anyone then it's not selfish. Breastfeeding in public offends some people, not all people. And it's certainly acting with regard for the infant. The people being selfish are the people who would have the child go hungry to protect their sensitivities.


What I said was solely in response to you neglecting the multifunctionality of breast. And judging harshly about someone on meager cause.

No, it was only a rationalization of why the behaviour makes sense. I'm not one to tell people what they should and should not accept about people's behaviour.

No, actually you're one who only says what you will and will not accept about the behavior of others whether it affects you or not. How magnamimous of you.


I never actually said they shouldn't be whipped out in public. Just that because breastfeeding is natural is no reason they ough to. Peeing is quite natural, btu that likewise doesn't mean men should whip out their penis and start peeing where they want, or even int he gutter (since there is of course the distinction one is slightly messier).

Actually, you did say they shouldn't be whipped out in public. "Because I don't want them to :P Same reason I don't want people running around naked. It shouldn't matter, but it does."

Meanwhile, there is no comparison to peeing in public and breastfeeding in public. Breastfeeding is *gasp* feeding. It is not excreting waste. They are pretty much opposite activities. One is very sanitary. One is very unsanitary. Your ability to make an argument here is questionable.


Just because something is natural does not mean it should be done in public.

Okay. Now, if that was my argument, then you'd have a point. I didn't. We permit eating in public. If you outlaw feeding in public, then I'll agree with you. As it is, you mistreat infants under a ridiculous idea of sensitivity.


I'm not dictating anything, I'm simply giving my opinion that I don't prefer it. I'm not dictator of the world yet, and even if I were, I'd have far more interesting things to do than dictate where people breastfeed. Just as long as they don't do it where I can see it.

You contradict yourself. You say you wouldn't dictate where people breastfeed and then you dictate where people breastfeed. "Just as long as they don't do it where I can see it." You really should read what you post. Meanwhile, I agree. We should eat give our opinion where other people can eat. I say that people who say children cannot feed in public should stop being hypocrites and go and hide in the bathroom when they eat as well. Problem solved.


Not to mention you take some statements faaaaaaar to seriously.

No. Actually, I consider embarrassing people who can't make a rational argument to be quite enjoyable. I'm not taking it seriously at all. You're not make a solid enough argument for taking this seriously to be necessary.


True, but it is promoted greatly by lust.

Seriously. I'd really hope you can do better than this. What do you think our lust is dictated by?


Like I said, if attraction weren't a function of breast, they wouldn't stand out. They are multifunctional. Simple as that. You're the one adamant that one function must be primary to another; I rate them rather more equitable, with the caveat that if one were to be primary, it'd be the other.
Nevermind the whole thing is quite irrelevant. Since it has no implication for societal norms.

I am adamant. It is. I made my argument. Apparently the only reply you have is to complain you don't like my supported assertions.

The fact that we have societal norms that would cause a child to go hungry because we cannot control our 'lust' is something that should weigh on the hearts and minds of any human with a conscience. I'm embarrassed for a society that values modesty over the care for infants.


I don't think our baser instinct think things through that far. The correlation between the "breasts are great" instinct and childcare and health means that evolution promotes that instinct. But it doesn't give it additional meaning. The instinct doesn't say "breast are great because ..." They simply are a.f.a. the male (heterosexual) mind is concerned.
Evolution is a causal process, not a rational one, after all.

The cause is rational. It doesn't require any thinking. Evolution found ways to ensure our offspring were more likely to survive and reproduce. One is to notice a signal for a more verile woman based on the basic function of the breast and the other is to notice symmetry. It's a completely causal process that makes rational sense.


It may be fed in other ways though.

"Men may be attracted other ways though." Again, if you're going to make an argument to outweight the arguments I've made it has to not be equally applicable to both funcitons. So far, you've failed to do so.

If all breasts fell off today reproduction would not suffer. However, infants would. I've not ever seen a study that suggests that it is better for infants to not be breastfed. It is also better for the mother. That's why it's the primary function of the breast.


One sentence.
Possibly not even seriously.

When that one sentence says essentially "I want whether or not women breasts are exposed to be based on my selfish desires" it is not unreasonable to conclude that he wants women's breasts to be exposed based on his selfish desires. It's really very simple. I'm not sure why you're struggling here.

That hardly "speaks volumes about his character" as you claimed before. One sentence isn't a volume, usually.
I guess you aren't one for extrapolation. I can tell a lot about a person in the first few moments of seeing them. It was a part of my studies in the military and has been since. I met a psychologist that could predict whether or not a marriage would be around in 5 years with incredible accuracy based on an hour long discussion by the husband and wife that was not about their marriage or anything directly related. For the wise and aware, one sentence says a lot more than you realize and the most profound things one should hear are things no one ever intended to say.

Sorry to jump back into the topic, but I exchanged emails about this with one of my homeschooling groups, and I was shocked at what I read. You should probably know that the group I was in email converastion with is the one where it's "put the baby in a sling and breastfeed until they are 3, have 20 kids and live in a commune" group, the only reason I associate with them is that they have a curriculum swap, otherwise they think I am a heathen.

I really thought (btw I didn't start the conversation) that they would be "pro-breastfeeding in public" you know since they do extended feeding, but I guess I was naive, since I failed to realize that they don't go in public, they hang around their anti-hippie commune all the damn time.

Once again I am the heathen, I guess it's because I have daughters, and I try to promote a "love your body" type of thing around here, but really I don't have a problem with the picture.

Some comments in the emails



I asked her if she makes her husband bathe her sons so that she doesn't have to see a "private part of a man's body" and she said I was being "way too serious" about this issue and called me a "man hater"

WTF?

THAT is an awesome response on your part. You know how you know it's awesome? Because she couldn't reply with anything other than ad hominem.

THAT is an awesome response on your part. You know how you know it's awesome? Because she couldn't reply with anything other than ad hominem.

I agree. Go Smunkee! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

THAT is an awesome response on your part. You know how you know it's awesome? Because she couldn't reply with anything other than ad hominem.
yeah, she comes back now with "well, I should wait for my husband to get home and bathe them I guess, so that you won't think I am a hypocrite"

and I came back with "it's not my concern if you are a hypocrite or not, but I was also wondering if your husband was at work and your son had a dirty diaper would you change it? or wait for daddy to get home?"

she says "no, that's urgent, I would have to change him, he could get sick if I didn't"

like a hungry baby isn't urgent and it's great for their health to remain hungry:rolleyes:

I just don't understand these people. I breastfed my kids, I had this cool little shirt where you didn't see anything once the baby was "attached", and I put a blanket up to shield everything during the "attaching" period. 90% of people didn't even notice I was breastfeeding, the ones who did were the "can't you feed the baby later at home" idiots.

yeah, she comes back now with "well, I should wait for my husband to get home and bathe them I guess, so that you won't think I am a hypocrite"

and I came back with "it's not my concern if you are a hypocrite or not, but I was also wondering if your husband was at work and your son had a dirty diaper would you change it? or wait for daddy to get home?"

she says "no, that's urgent, I would have to change him, he could get sick if I didn't"

like a hungry baby isn't urgent and it's great for their health to remain hungry:rolleyes:

I just don't understand these people. I breastfed my kids, I had this cool little shirt where you didn't see anything once the baby was "attached", and I put a blanket up to shield everything during the "attaching" period. 90% of people didn't even notice I was breastfeeding, the ones who did were the "can't you feed the baby later at home" idiots.

There is pretty much no argument that doesn't amount to "I think breasts are dirty."

I convinced my sister-in-law that she shouldn't have to go and hide every time she is feeding her children. My mother actually got mad at me for doing it.

I don't look when women are breastfeeding because I don't want to offend them but personally I think it's one of the most maternal and wonderful things one could ever see. It's every bit as cute as watching a baby sleep or helping them walk or the like.

There is pretty much no argument that doesn't amount to "I think breasts are dirty."

I convinced my sister-in-law that she shouldn't have to go and hide every time she is feeding her children. My mother actually got mad at me for doing it.

I don't look when women are breastfeeding because I don't want to offend them but personally I think it's one of the most maternal and wonderful things one could ever see. It's every bit as cute as watching a baby sleep or helping them walk or the like.

aww.. i feel all warm and fuzzy