NationStates Jolt Archive

So the Breastfeeding thread started to go off topic on this so I decided to put up this one to help.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. On the otherhand, if my wife wanted to I would try to talk her out of it because frankly I don't think the culture I live in can handle it. Oh there'd be the Moral Orels who'd have an issue with the idea but they're not the ones I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the jackasses. You know who I mean. Those ubiquitous jackasses that permeate every nook and cranny of society. They're the spammers on forums, the ones in chat channels that spam inane crap, the ones who make MMOs less fun. These are the people who, no matter how old their body may be, have never mentally made it out of 3rd grade and these are the people who I see as the biggest obstacle to a comfortable public breastfeed. (Yes, even with a blanked discreetly draped over.)

So the Breastfeeding thread started to go off topic on this so I decided to put up this one to help.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. On the otherhand, if my wife wanted to I would try to talk her out of it because frankly I don't think the culture I live in can handle it. Oh there'd be the Moral Orels who'd have an issue with the idea but they're not the ones I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the jackasses. You know who I mean. Those ubiquitous jackasses that permeate every nook and cranny of society. They're the spammers on forums, the ones in chat channels that spam inane crap, the ones who make MMOs less fun. These are the people who, no matter how old their body may be, have never mentally made it out of 3rd grade and these are the people who I see as the biggest obstacle to a comfortable public breastfeed. (Yes, even with a blanked discreetly draped over.)


There is nowt wrong with it.

There is nowt wrong with it.

Ditto

It can be rather icky to see and hear, I've had some rather nasty encounters.
Doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it, though. I mean, when did eating become a moral taboo?

It can be rather icky to see and hear, I've had some rather nasty encounters.
Doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it, though. I mean, when did eating become a moral taboo?

People usually have a problem with a breast being exposed, rather than the baby having lunch.

Nothing wrong with public breastfeeding imho, babies need lots of food and breastmilk is better then bottles.

People usually have a problem with a breast being exposed, rather than the baby having lunch.

Nothing wrong with public breastfeeding imho, babies need lots of food and breastmilk is better then bottles.

They're just being silly. I don't know anybody - and I do mean ANYBODY - who doesn't like the sight of boobies.

No feeding in public, of any kind, breast or otherwise; except ice cream.

They're just being silly. I don't know anybody - and I do mean ANYBODY - who doesn't like the sight of boobies.That depends a lot on what those boobies look like. While I'm not in principle under every circumstance opposed, I would in practice gamble on "no thank you".

Don't see a problem with it, when my son wants lunch, damn it, he wants lunch! It's much easier for my wife to haul her boobs around (being attached, pre-heated, and already hydrated) than to haul around the whole kit and caboodle needed for bottle feeding.

That depends a lot on what those boobies look like. While I'm not in principle under every circumstance opposed, I would in practice gamble on "no thank you".

I'm less discriminating, I guess :D

What I can't stand is babies crying in public, those pesky little critters have painfully strong voices and incredible stamina. If your baby is crying in public and there is a chance feeding it will make it shut up then please feed it immediately.

What I can't stand is babies crying in public, those pesky little critters have painfully strong voices and incredible stamina. If your baby is crying in public and there is a chance feeding it will make it shut up then please feed it immediately.

Pop a boob in the kid's mouth, most of the time it'll make them shut up. Hell, pop a boob in my husband's mouth and he stops nagging me....

I don't have any problem whatsoever with public feeding of babies, be it breast or bottle. I don't have a problem with body functions though, some of them are private some are not. Eating is not a private function, in fact, much to my chagrin it's a rather social occasion.

I breastfed my first child, and then had to bottle feed my second, my behavior in taking them out in public (gasp!) or feeding them when they were hungry didn't change much, except I had to lug more shit around while bottle feeding and had to anticipate hunger more, since there's a whole rigmarole that goes one with making a bottle whereas with the first it meant unsnapping my bra cup and attaching baby.

I have about 4 friends who breastfeed into the second year, so it's not abnormal for me or my children or my husband to encounter a tit working. None of us have a problem. I can't quite see how anyone would. Even if you do, it's really none of your business and if you let it ruin your day, it's kinda your fault.

Pop a boob in the kid's mouth, most of the time it'll make them shut up. Hell, pop a boob in my husband's mouth and he stops nagging me....


/winner

I don't know maybe an age limit should be in place for on the bus and such because a 40+ year old man yumming down on an 80 year olds boobies may destroy my fragile mind :p

in b4 "let them eat cake"

Yes, even with a blanked discreetly draped over.

what kind of sick pervert carries a blanket round is something I'd like to know!

I am Wilgrove and I support Public breastfeeding. Especially if it'll shut the little tikes up.

I am Wilgrove and I support Public breastfeeding. Especially if it'll shut the little tikes up.

maybe you should seize the initiative for the good of your fellow man:

Wherever a child cries in hunger Wilgrove's teat will be there! wherever there is a a pasta bar Wilgrove's teat will be there! wherever little monsters congregate Wilgrove' teat will be there!

ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

I voted for the second option because although I don't have a problem with it per se, I think that a degree of discretion is the better part of valour - there are occasions when it may not be appropriate. As a general rule, though, yes, it should absolutely be allowed.

There's nothing wrong with it.

maybe you should seize the initiative for the good of your fellow man:

Wherever a child cries in hunger Wilgrove's teat will be there! wherever there is a a pasta bar Wilgrove's teat will be there! wherever little monsters congregate Wilgrove' teat will be there!

ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

Too bad I'm a male and my teats don't produce any milk. :p

People usually have a problem with a breast being exposed, rather than the baby having lunch.

It's generally the nipple that people have a problem with. Not the entire breast. After all, nobody has a problem with bikini tops that show off quite a bit of the breast itself.

And you'll really only see a breastfeeding woman's nipple if you happen to catch her in the transition between feeding and not feeding - before the baby has latched on. Even then, you'll generally only see it if her blanket or whatever she's using to cover up has shifted.

This leads me to believe that, despite what people may say to the contrary, it's the actual breastfeeding that bothers them, not the breast.

Nothing wrong with public breastfeeding imho, babies need lots of food and breastmilk is better then bottles.

^This

Too bad I'm a male and my teats don't produce any milk. :p

Theoretically, they could if you wanted them to. It would just take some work to get your mammaries working.

Too bad I'm a male and my teats don't produce any milk. :p

Doesn't mean they wouldn't shut the baby up. =)

I've seen babies try to suckle men before. I think sometimes they just want something to suckle more than they want food.

So the Breastfeeding thread started to go off topic on this so I decided to put up this one to help.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. On the otherhand, if my wife wanted to I would try to talk her out of it because frankly I don't think the culture I live in can handle it. Oh there'd be the Moral Orels who'd have an issue with the idea but they're not the ones I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the jackasses. You know who I mean. Those ubiquitous jackasses that permeate every nook and cranny of society. They're the spammers on forums, the ones in chat channels that spam inane crap, the ones who make MMOs less fun. These are the people who, no matter how old their body may be, have never mentally made it out of 3rd grade and these are the people who I see as the biggest obstacle to a comfortable public breastfeed. (Yes, even with a blanked discreetly draped over.)

The 'trolls' of society are going to be pains in the ass anyway, no matter what. If you look at cultures that haven't had the kind of breast taboo we 'modern' westerners have, there's really no big deal to women walking around permanently unclad on the top half (except concerns like temperature, obviously).

The only reason it's a big deal now, is because we fetishize the female breast.

Personally, I'm all in favour of breast-feeding babies if they need it, and I don't care ifthat's in the comfort of your own home, in the street, or at the next table in a restaurant. Baby is hungry, and if some troll can't keep control of his tackle just because there's a tit out at the next table, that troll should be kicked out of the restaurant, not the hungry baby and his/her mommy/food supply.

Too bad I'm a male and my teats don't produce any milk. :p

it looks like you have already hit some teething trouble then :p

I'm sure the babies will get milk out of you one way or another

Theoretically, they could if you wanted them to. It would just take some work to get your mammaries working.

hmmm and how would you achieve this?

hmmm and how would you achieve this?
Males have mammary glands, you just have to tweak your nipples enough and possibly take some hormones. You won't produce as much milk as a woman, but milk will come.

Males have mammary glands, you just have to tweak your nipples enough and possibly take some hormones. You won't produce as much milk as a woman, but milk will come.

I once had a friend whose mother explained in great detail how easily a man can breastfeed, all he had to do is start letting th ebaby suckle and the rest would attend to itself.

...and this was the same person who went on and on about how old her son's karma is.

I once had a friend whose mother explained in great detail how easily a man can breastfeed, all he had to do is start letting th ebaby suckle and the rest would attend to itself.

...and this was the same person who went on and on about how old her son's karma is.
This old lady told me a few days back that I was her mother in a past life.... despite the fact that her mom only died 5 years ago.... I brought this to her attention and she said "oh, she was soulless for a while"

:eek:

Of course public breastfeeding is perfectly fine. Frankly, I'm a bit disturbed by people who think that breastfeeding is somehow a dirty or necessarily private thing, since it rather implies that they see feeding one's child as a sex act. Ew.

So the Breastfeeding thread started to go off topic on this so I decided to put up this one to help.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. On the otherhand, if my wife wanted to I would try to talk her out of it because frankly I don't think the culture I live in can handle it. Oh there'd be the Moral Orels who'd have an issue with the idea but they're not the ones I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the jackasses. You know who I mean. Those ubiquitous jackasses that permeate every nook and cranny of society. They're the spammers on forums, the ones in chat channels that spam inane crap, the ones who make MMOs less fun. These are the people who, no matter how old their body may be, have never mentally made it out of 3rd grade and these are the people who I see as the biggest obstacle to a comfortable public breastfeed. (Yes, even with a blanked discreetly draped over.)


so if you, the wife and the baby were out somewhere and the baby started screaming because she was hungry you would try to talk your wife out of feeding her where you were?

id rather deal with a jackass than a hungry baby.

A polite request to the public at large:

The next time you are in a situation where you could comment on how a woman is dressed (or undressed), don't. The next time you are in a situation where you might tell a woman how she ought to display or cover her body, don't. The next time you find yourself wanting to instruct a woman on how she ought to stand, sit, dress, undress, or otherwise deal with her body in order that she might be displayed more to your liking, don't.

Just stop yourself that one time, and let it be one less time that a woman has to deal with somebody telling her what to do with her body.

I know it's too much to ask that people shut the hell up and get over themselves and quit telling women what to do all the damn time, but if we could just get each person to put a cork in it once in a while that would really be lovely.

Consider it a personal favor you are doing for me, if you like, and know that I deeply appreciate it.

Love always,
Bottle

so if you, the wife and the baby were out somewhere and the baby started screaming because she was hungry you would try to talk your wife out of feeding her where you were?

id rather deal with a jackass than a hungry baby.

As I understand it at this point her plans are to keep bottles with us for that sort of thing. (Don't blame me. Her initiative.)

As I understand it at this point her plans are to keep bottles with us for that sort of thing. (Don't blame me. Her initiative.)

as is her right as feeder of the baby.

i take pictures of breast feeding women.

as is her right as feeder of the baby.

Yes. Have I said something that might suggest otherwise?

So the Breastfeeding thread started to go off topic on this so I decided to put up this one to help.

What do you think?
I don't mind. but
1) no complaints from the mother if people watch (or stare... some people are just plain rude.)
2) they don't make a big show of it. I don't mind whipping out the blanket and sitting quietly... but those that require the dinner music and spotlight... :p

Other than that, baby needs to be fed.

and for those who happen upon a feeding mother...
1) show some dignity. afford her some privacy. I don't mean leave, but at least don't drool while watching.
2) where they are breastfeeding is alot cleaner than the bathroom you are about to suggest... better yet, why don't you take your food there to eat. if it's clean enough for baby, then it's clean enough for you.
3) it's considered very impolite to ask if the other tap is taken.

3) it's considered very impolite to ask if the other tap is taken.

Dammit.

I'm in favor of anything that lets the boobies be free. Be free, boobies, be free!

A polite request to the public at large:

The next time you are in a situation where you could comment on how a person is dressed (or undressed), don't. The next time you are in a situation where you might tell a person how they ought to display or cover their body, don't. The next time you find yourself wanting to instruct a person on how they ought to stand, sit, dress, undress, or otherwise deal with their body in order that she might be displayed more to your liking, don't.

Just stop yourself that one time, and let it be one less time that a person has to deal with somebody telling them what to do with their body.

I know it's too much to ask that people shut the hell up and get over themselves and quit telling people what to do all the damn time, but if we could just get each person to put a cork in it once in a while that would really be lovely.

Consider it a personal favor you are doing for me, if you like, and know that I deeply appreciate it.

Love always,
Bottle

Usually I dislike it when people "fix" other people posts. In this case I realise that it is usually the case that it's chauvenistic males telling females what to to do, but it really does go both ways. Focusing your post on women only, well, focuses it on women. I'd rather see gender mostly ignored...

Peace and Love, Dais. ;)

(Mostly - I am heterosexual... ;) Lordy I hope thyat exception doesn't sound creepy...)

Yes. Have I said something that might suggest otherwise?

not that i recall

I don't mind. but
1) no complaints from the mother if people watch (or stare... some people are just plain rude.)
2) they don't make a big show of it. I don't mind whipping out the blanket and sitting quietly... but those that require the dinner music and spotlight... :p

Other than that, baby needs to be fed.

and for those who happen upon a feeding mother...
1) show some dignity. afford her some privacy. I don't mean leave, but at least don't drool while watching.
2) where they are breastfeeding is alot cleaner than the bathroom you are about to suggest... better yet, why don't you take your food there to eat. if it's clean enough for baby, then it's clean enough for you.
3) it's considered very impolite to ask if the other tap is taken.

Well said.

And a note for those who haven't seemed to encountered it - mom's can be very subtle. I teach kids, and a fair number of mom's have been known to breastfeed in a fairly public situation, and you'd be surprised how many times I've been sitting and talking with little Taro's mama, and only realised afterwards that, hey Taro's little brother was having lunch...

not that i recall

K. just making sure. :)

Usually I dislike it when people "fix" other people posts. In this case I realise that it is usually the case that it's chauvenistic males telling females what to to do, but it really does go both ways. Focusing your post on women only, well, focuses it on women.

While I understand what you are saying, your alterations were not a "fix" because they actually removed my specific and deliberate intent in this case.

I intended to focus the post on women, and how people need to knock it the fuck off with telling women how to display or not display themselves, and no I don't think it is remotely necessary for anybody to spare a thought for the poor poor menz in this case.

This is a thread about public breastfeeding. My post was specifically about the treatment of women. Believe it or not, it is possible to have a few topics or a few posts that address women and NOT men, every now and again, without men dying off in mass numbers for lack of attention.

Well said.

And a note for those who haven't seemed to encountered it - mom's can be very subtle. I teach kids, and a fair number of mom's have been known to breastfeed in a fairly public situation, and you'd be surprised how many times I've been sitting and talking with little Taro's mama, and only realised afterwards that, hey Taro's little brother was having lunch...

I'm always rather confused in these discussions because I have yet to encounter a woman who breastfed in public and wasn't discreet about it. Even most of the women I've known who breastfed in their own homes were discreet if there was someone other than close family present.

Eurgh, no. Put it away.

Eurgh, no. Put it away.

*stages nurse-in*
*pops out breast*
*attaches baby*

I know it's too much to ask that people shut the hell up and get over themselves and quit telling women what to do all the damn time, but if we could just get each person to put a cork in it once in a while that would really be lovely.

what if we do it because we care and you happen to notice it most because we are hardest on the stars?

see I can be really nice and horrendously demeaning :)

1) no complaints from the mother if people watch (or stare... some people are just plain rude.)

wouldn't this be one of those cases of intentionally looking away being worse?

This is a thread about public breastfeeding. My post was specifically about the treatment of women. Believe it or not, it is possible to have a few topics or a few posts that address women and NOT men, every now and again, without men dying off in mass numbers for lack of attention.

so what your saying is your against my new found breastfeeding capacity?

*stages nurse-in*
*pops out breast*
*attaches baby*

Brings camera for por... prosperity... yeah, prosperity.

LOL... sorry Smunk... but I see you carrying a bag marked "assessories" filled with various sizes and colors... :D

A polite request to the public at large:

The next time you are in a situation where you could comment on how a woman is dressed (or undressed), don't.

When did "My, that dress looks lovely on you." stop being a polite compliment?

It's fine so long as people that don't want to deal with it can easily leave. A park bench? Fine. In a museum or library? Fine.

On a bus/train or in a restaurant? Not fine. People may not be able to move/look another way and their rights don't just evaporate because a kid's hungry and the Mom didn't bring a bottle.

Same was as you can legally talk on your cell phone in the movie theatre, but if you do so while the movie is actually playing and someone complains, you either hang up or walk out into the hallway.

Them wimminz needz to be kuvered.

*nods*

I see it as covered by existing laws, if it's illegal to get your breasts out in public, it's illegal. The purpose shouldn't matter.

But as long as people are discreet about it it doesn't bother me.

wouldn't this be one of those cases of intentionally looking away being worse?

dunno, I've looked away from breast feeding mothers. it's more to give them privacy incase anything does pop out.

one woman was breastfeeding her child while shopping for a book, I didn't realize what she was doing unill the baby finished and... er... detached itself... leaving the feeding apparatus exposed in full glory.

I just smoothly turned towards the bookshelf, continued to recommend books, pointing them out and giving her the privacy to clean up. thus looking away, but not being obnoxious about it.

On a bus/train or in a restaurant? Not fine. People may not be able to move/look another way and their rights don't just evaporate because a kid's hungry and the Mom didn't bring a bottle.

Why do they have a right not to see a baby eat? Why shouldn't a baby be able to eat in a restaurant?

Meanwhile, it may not be a matter of the mom not bringing a bottle. From what I understand, infants often won't go back to the breast after getting used to a bottle nipple. Thus, using a bottle could interfere with a mother's ability to continue breastfeeding.

Same was as you can legally talk on your cell phone in the movie theatre, but if you do so while the movie is actually playing and someone complains, you either hang up or walk out into the hallway.

Different situation. Someone talking on a cell phone directly interferes with your ability to hear the movie. Hence the reason that it is disallowed and you will be asked to leave.

I see it as covered by existing laws, if it's illegal to get your breasts out in public, it's illegal. The purpose shouldn't matter.

The law only requires that the nipple be covered. During feeding, it is. At most, you might get a flash of it before baby latches on or after baby is done.

Of course, you won't see many people arrested for accidentally momentarily flashing a nipple.

Meanwhile, the law is sexist. Men can have exposed nipples, but women cannot. Seems to me like bad law.

When did "My, that dress looks lovely on you." stop being a polite compliment?

perhaps when her lover was nearby.
or possibly if she wasn't wearing a dress, i suppose that would cause a bit of confusion.

On a bus/train or in a restaurant? Not fine. People may not be able to move/look another way and their rights don't just evaporate because a kid's hungry and the Mom didn't bring a bottle.

...and what "rights" would those be, exactly?

It's fine so long as people that don't want to deal with it can easily leave. A park bench? Fine. In a museum or library? Fine.

On a bus/train or in a restaurant? Not fine. People may not be able to move/look another way and their rights don't just evaporate because a kid's hungry and the Mom didn't bring a bottle.

Same was as you can legally talk on your cell phone in the movie theatre, but if you do so while the movie is actually playing and someone complains, you either hang up or walk out into the hallway.

yes but THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE. its not like a woman is pulling her breast out and letting it hang there.

Usually I dislike it when people "fix" other people posts. In this case I realise that it is usually the case that it's chauvenistic males telling females what to to do, but it really does go both ways. Focusing your post on women only, well, focuses it on women. I'd rather see gender mostly ignored...

Peace and Love, Dais. ;)

(Mostly - I am heterosexual... ;) Lordy I hope thyat exception doesn't sound creepy...)

A 'fix' in this case might be somewhat irrelevent... unless there is a big men-breast-feeding-babies controversy that I'm not really aware of.

yes but THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE. its not like a woman is pulling her breast out and letting it hang there.

And even if she was, I would be in support of it.

...and what "rights" would those be, exactly?

Silly. Didn't you know that the constitution guarantees the right to not see female nipples?

Come on, ppl! Is the need to argue and feel like we´re proving others wrong so big in NSG that even the desire and right of a mother to breast feed her child whenever she can is challenged by us? I wonder if those challenging are mothers or have actually breast fed a child in their lives...

Come on, ppl! Is the need to argue and feel like we´re proving others wrong so big in NSG that even the desire and right of a mother to breast feed her child whenever she can is challenged by us? I wonder if those challenging are mothers or have actually breast fed a child in their lives...

Have you?

Have you?

Nope. I have never done it. I don´t have kids. But I do think it´s a perfectly natural thing.

Come on, ppl! Is the need to argue and feel like we´re proving others wrong so big in NSG that even the desire and right of a mother to breast feed her child whenever she can is challenged by us? I wonder if those challenging are mothers or have actually breast fed a child in their lives...

well think:

1) babies usually drink lady milk (and thus men have no part in the process)

2a) you are what you eat

2b) men will talk about tits on the slightest hat droppings
3) a breast buildup is common in the human mind which causes overload and thus temporarily those affected become tits themselves

its all about release and the fact that nobody really cares all that much about anything anyway

And even if she was, I would be in support of it.

me too.. tho I could only support two breasts... I guess three or four if I was allowed to use my head...

what?

well think:

1) babies usually drink lady milk (and thus men have no part in the process)

2a) you are what you eat

2b) men will talk about tits on the slightest hat droppings
3) a breast buildup is common in the human mind which causes overload and thus temporarily those affected become tits themselves

its all about release and the fact that nobody really cares all that much about anything anyway

Even with your... weird... explanation, it´s sad that people do not care about it, or anything for that matter. Breast feeding is something beautiful. I´ve seen young mothers do it and their babies grow strong. It´s just an amazing side of the mother/child relationship that shouldn´t be contested.

Breast feeding is something beautiful.

sucking on someone milk gland is a beautiful thing? what do you say about penises?

It´s just an amazing side of the mother/child relationship that shouldn´t be contested.

lets say it wasn't a mother/child relationship more a farther/child?

edit: and the very act of stating breastfeeding as beautiful crashed jolt!

sucking on someone milk gland is a beautiful thing? what do you say about penises?



lets say it wasn't a mother/child relationship more a farther/child?

edit: and the very act of stating breastfeeding as beautiful crashed jolt!

I must emphasize for you one little deatil: Breast feeding.
Do men breast feed? Do they produce milk of the drinkable tasty variety? Hm? Nope. And yes, it´s a beautiful thing, and I´ll say it again, Jolt be damned.;)

sucking on someone milk gland is a beautiful thing? what do you say about penises?


I'm going to make a t-shirt that says this and sell them.

The law only requires that the nipple be covered. During feeding, it is. At most, you might get a flash of it before baby latches on or after baby is done.

Of course, you won't see many people arrested for accidentally momentarily flashing a nipple.

Would be illegal in some US states although most make an exception to avoid people kicking up fuss, which I disagree with. And depending on the position and etc the baby does not fully cover the nipple.


Meanwhile, the law is sexist. Men can have exposed nipples, but women cannot. Seems to me like bad law.
I agree, but this is the world we live in.

the baby does not fully cover the nipple.


A properly latched on baby covers the whole nipple and most if not all of the areola.

Breastfeeding in public (last I checked) was legal throughout the US and was protected in at least 39 states as a mother's right.

...and what "rights" would those be, exactly?

To not be exposed to Indecent exposure for one. Likewise, one also has the right to access public buildings without hinderance. One could postulate that public breastfeeding could be such a hinderance (especially in our vicitim culture of today).

A properly latched on baby covers the whole nipple and most if not all of the areola.

Breastfeeding in public (last I checked) was legal throughout the US and was protected in at least 39 states as a mother's right.

Latched on....makes them sound like those things from Aliens...those gross, clingy monsters....what are they called....oh yeah, Paul Reiser.



I have no problem with women titty dripping in public...I do think that the really effusive squirters should be required to carry liability insurance in case they grapefruit some innocent in the eye, causing a debilitating injury that will outlast the ensuing hilarity by several minutes.

To not be exposed to Indecent exposure for one. Likewise, one also has the right to access public buildings without hinderance. One could postulate that public breastfeeding could be such a hinderance (especially in our vicitim culture of today).
Breastfeeding isn't indecent exposure though, if it were it would be illegal, and it's not illegal so one might assume it's not indecent exposure.

I've showed more of my breast in a swimsuit than I showed while breastfeeding. Seriously.

Breastfeeding isn't indecent exposure though, if it were it would be illegal, and it's not illegal so one might assume it's not indecent exposure.

I've showed more of my breast in a swimsuit than I showed while breastfeeding. Seriously.

Yeah, but you swim like a whore.

Yeah, but you swim like a whore.

:upyours: I swim like a slut, thankyouverymuch. Whores sink.

:upyours: I swim like a slut, thankyouverymuch. Whores sink.

The only thing that keeps you afloat are those glorious sweaterpuppies you carry around.

Why do they have a right not to see a baby eat? Why shouldn't a baby be able to eat in a restaurant?

Meanwhile, it may not be a matter of the mom not bringing a bottle. From what I understand, infants often won't go back to the breast after getting used to a bottle nipple. Thus, using a bottle could interfere with a mother's ability to continue breastfeeding.

Different situation. Someone talking on a cell phone directly interferes with your ability to hear the movie. Hence the reason that it is disallowed and you will be asked to leave.


The law is not against the child feeding, but HOW it is feeding. In most of the US, you cannot consume alcohol on the street for example. The baby could eat in a restaurant from a bottle. The same way I can guzzle a Fosters out of a can in a paper bag on 5th Avenue.

Um, no. That's about as likely as you not eating a sloppy joe because it's not a hamburger. :D

It's *exactly* the same situation. There are people out there that don't want to duck into a meal while someone is breastfeeding in their field of vision.
But what I'm more getting at is that neither necessarily is legal or illegal, but it is more of a common courtesy. People usually go get drunk at bars, not at Burger King. People usually go jogging in the park or on the sidewalk and not at JCPenny. People (at least here) now go outside or into certain clubs to smoke. Etc.

There's simply no way I can agree that breastfeeding is like breathing and MUST be allowed everywhere. It's simply not the case. Is it like public urination? No. But it is most like consuming alcohol or smoking: it's a private activity that while it COULD be done in certain areas with others, really shouldn't be regarded as anything but something you should not "force" other people to deal with.

To not be exposed to Indecent exposure for one. Likewise, one also has the right to access public buildings without hinderance. One could postulate that public breastfeeding could be such a hinderance (especially in our vicitim culture of today).

First, as I said before, I am deeply disturbed by the notion that feeding one's child could possibly be "indecent." To me, fetishizing that act is a great deal more disgusting than a partially exposed breast could ever be.

But you do bring up a good point, though not the one you meant to bring up. One does have the right to access public buildings without hindrance - even if one has an infant! And, quite frankly, I think "you are required to starve your infant while on these premises" sounds like a bit more of an inconvenience than "it is theoretically possible that someone else on these premises might actually have breasts, and you might have to be in the same general vicinity as said breasts." Even though breasts are apparently horrifying, indecent things (despite the fact that you cannot plausibly be forced to look at or interact with the breasts in question, but gosh darn it, I'm sure the mere existence of a boobie will somehow harm you terribly), I still think that maybe, just maybe, the actual physical needs of the mother and child might possibly trump the all-important need of others not to risk seeing a hint of tits.

The only thing that keeps you afloat are those glorious sweaterpuppies you carry around.

Boy are they buoyant!

Any woman that I know (me included) breastfeed very unobtrusively. We cover our selves and our baby. There is nothing to see
I don't see what the big deal is.

Breastfeeding isn't indecent exposure though, if it were it would be illegal, and it's not illegal so one might assume it's not indecent exposure.

I've showed more of my breast in a swimsuit than I showed while breastfeeding. Seriously.

It isn't during the act, but it may be while the kid is not latched on. Local statutes vary. I *know* that it wouldn't be considered I.Ex. in NYC, but Boston is a question mark.

I can believe that. I also believe that you are probably more skilled/better at covering up than some of what I've seen.

It isn't during the act, but it may be while the kid is not latched on. Local statutes vary. I *know* that it wouldn't be considered I.Ex. in NYC, but Boston is a question mark.

I can believe that. I also believe that you are probably more skilled/better at covering up than some of what I've seen.

Listen, if I have to look at butt cracks, whale tails and tramp stamps, surely you (of all people) can put up with 5 seconds of tit.

First, as I said before, I am deeply disturbed by the notion that feeding one's child could possibly be "indecent." To me, fetishizing that act is a great deal more disgusting than a partially exposed breast could ever be.

But you do bring up a good point, though not the one you meant to bring up. One does have the right to access public buildings without hindrance - even if one has an infant! And, quite frankly, I think "you are required to starve your infant while on these premises" sounds like a bit more of an inconvenience than "it is theoretically possible that someone else on these premises might actually have breasts, and you might have to be in the same general vicinity as said breasts." Even though breasts are apparently horrifying, indecent things (despite the fact that you cannot plausibly be forced to look at or interact with the breasts in question, but gosh darn it, I'm sure the mere existence of a boobie will somehow harm you terribly), I still think that maybe, just maybe, the actual physical needs of the mother and child might possibly trump the all-important need of others not to risk seeing a hint of tits.

That's true, but one of the basic issues with society at large is that most people are not progressive.

I have to laugh at your example. It's purile at best, and simplistic at worst. You're saying that the child must be fed that very moment at the table of the restaurant, that there is just no way possible that she could go to the ladies room, or perhaps another table not in the middle of everyone's view? :rolleyes:
If you go back to my original post, I pointed out that it is OK in places that do not "trap" others into being forced to watch something they do not wish to view. And that's ALL I'm saying. I don't think its right or wrong myself. But I can see how OTHERS could be offended.
You know. Others. The ones people like you fail to take into account while ranting about how stupid they are for not seeing things your way.

That's true, but one of the basic issues with society at large is that most people are not progressive.

I have to laugh at your example. It's purile at best, and simplistic at worst. You're saying that the child must be fed that very moment at the table of the restaurant, that there is just no way possible that she could go to the ladies room, or perhaps another table not in the middle of everyone's view?

How about when some lady starts breast feeding in a restaurant YOU go eat in the bathroom and see how enjoyable that is?

How about when some lady starts breast feeding in a restaurant YOU go eat in the bathroom and see how enjoyable that is?
True, it's more efficient that way, 1 person going instead of two, besides I bet he even fits in the stall better than mother and child.

Listen, if I have to look at butt cracks, whale tails and tramp stamps, surely you (of all people) can put up with 5 seconds of tit.

While I agree in principle, that's not the point now is it? I've seen *way* too many 10# sausages in 5# casings. I've seen all kinds of crap that I really didn't need to. But I tolerate it as I just don't care that much. But if I light up a stogie in Bryant Park? I'm SATAN!! (Never mind that it's legal, but hey... it's evil! They know smoking is EVIL!!) ;)

All I'm saying is that public breastfeeding is like public cell usage: it should be allowed, but discouraged in areas where it may offend. For example, I don't want to see either in St. Patrick's or on the Subway. But I've endured both on the latter.

How about when some lady starts breast feeding in a restaurant YOU go eat in the bathroom and see how enjoyable that is?

Hey, I'm paying for my meal and the kid is not. :p

Hey, I'm paying for my meal and the kid is not. :p
Mom is paying for both her AND her child's meal. Add in Dad and you got three to your one.

And bathrooms are not the cleanest place to eat now are they?

That's true, but one of the basic issues with society at large is that most people are not progressive.

I have to laugh at your example.

It's not an example. It's the example. It's the perfect test case of whether public breastfeeding is OK or not. Is it OK in a public place, where adults are eating?

A restaurant isn't perfectly public. Otherwise, it's the ideal example.

It isn't during the act, but it may be while the kid is not latched on. Local statutes vary. I *know* that it wouldn't be considered I.Ex. in NYC, but Boston is a question mark.

I can believe that. I also believe that you are probably more skilled/better at covering up than some of what I've seen.

I asked this question in a previous thread and it was never addressed. What exactly is it about breastfeeding in public that offends some people. Why is it considered more offensive than strippers stripping or lap dancers lap dancing? Is it, perhaps, because in this culture a woman's breasts have been so completely sexualized that their real function - feeding infants - has been completely forgotten? If this is the case (and I'm convinced that it is) then the problem is the culture, not mothers who are using breasts for their original and primary purpose.

I asked this question in a previous thread and it was never addressed. What exactly is it about breastfeeding in public that offends some people. Why is it considered more offensive than strippers stripping or lap dancers lap dancing?Is it? I don't think church goers would at all find it appropriate if people started stripping on the pulpit or lap-dancing. I think they'd be much more likely to excuse breastfeeding.
If you're talking about a strip club, well yeah; if there were such a thing as a breast feeding club, I doubt anyone would find breast feeding inappropriate there.

Is it, perhaps, because in this culture a woman's breasts have been so completely sexualized that their real function - feeding infants - has been completely forgotten?I doubt it. If it's 'real' function would make it ok to use it in public, then if people thought it's 'real' function were sexual, they shouldn't have a problem with that.
It more likely is that it's simply against convention, and things that go against convention makes people uncomfortable. That's why farting in company is impolite, and burping, and spitting, and dozens of other perfectly natural bodily functions.

If this is the case (and I'm convinced that it is) then the problem is the culture, not mothers who are using breasts for their original and primary purpose.The problem is most certainly cultural, but I don't believe it is so in the way you think it is. It is a cultural problem in the way that wearing a birthday hat to a funeral is. People have taken to the convention that it is inappropriate, and therefore it is.
It doesn't help that in western countries women have less and less children, and breastfeed for shorter periods of time; which means public breastfeeding is always an uncommon sight. If every tenth women you came across was breastfeeding a child, nobody would even notice any more.

So the Breastfeeding thread started to go off topic on this so I decided to put up this one to help.

What do you think?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. On the otherhand, if my wife wanted to I would try to talk her out of it because frankly I don't think the culture I live in can handle it. Oh there'd be the Moral Orels who'd have an issue with the idea but they're not the ones I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the jackasses. You know who I mean. Those ubiquitous jackasses that permeate every nook and cranny of society. They're the spammers on forums, the ones in chat channels that spam inane crap, the ones who make MMOs less fun. These are the people who, no matter how old their body may be, have never mentally made it out of 3rd grade and these are the people who I see as the biggest obstacle to a comfortable public breastfeed. (Yes, even with a blanked discreetly draped over.)

Hmm...

Overall I don't see a problem. Admittedly people would probably be a wee bit uncomfortable at first due to the way society views the human body, but I think it would be overall very good, because it would, in essence, loosen us up.

A properly latched on baby covers the whole nipple and most if not all of the areola.
Then the woman I walked in on wasn't doing it properly, or her baby was unusually small etc etc


Breastfeeding in public (last I checked) was legal throughout the US and was protected in at least 39 states as a mother's right.

I glanced at wiki and it said that the majority had statutes making exceptions in public indecency laws for breastfeeding. So I'm assuming some don't.

Then the woman I walked in on wasn't doing it properly, or her baby was unusually small etc etc



I glanced at wiki and it said that the majority had statutes making exceptions in public indecency laws for breastfeeding. So I'm assuming some don't.

the ones that don't are the ones where the police have the common sense not to arrest a breast feeding woman, for public indecency. So no law was needed.

Given all the objective and important benefits of breastfeeding (i.e. leaving aside all the appeals to aesthetics, 'purity' and the like). I'm not really sure why anyone would be against breastfeeding.

the ones that don't are the ones where the police have the common sense not to arrest a breast feeding woman, for public indecency. So no law was needed.

It would still be illegal though.

I don't think breastfeeding should be an exception. Breasts are breasts, either it's allowable to display them or not, whatever the purpose.

It would still be illegal though.

I don't think breastfeeding should be an exception. Breasts are breasts, either it's allowable to display them or not, whatever the purpose.

Since breasts are breasts does that include man boobies?

I asked this question in a previous thread and it was never addressed. What exactly is it about breastfeeding in public that offends some people. Why is it considered more offensive than strippers stripping or lap dancers lap dancing? Is it, perhaps, because in this culture a woman's breasts have been so completely sexualized that their real function - feeding infants - has been completely forgotten? If this is the case (and I'm convinced that it is) then the problem is the culture, not mothers who are using breasts for their original and primary purpose.

You can't get a lap dance or see strippers outside of the bar, so it's a private enterprise. Even in NYC women cannot be topless for a "business purpose". Ergo no lap dances on those horse carriage in Central Park.

As for what it is, different people have different hangups. That's all. I personally don't care so much, but I can understand why some people would. The same way I understand I just can't whip out a cigar after dinner at Morton's and start puffing away.

Culture is where laws are derived from. That's why it took time to get Universal Suffrage, End Slavery, have (and recind) Prohibition. That's why we have the War on Drugs. It's *all* cultural.

It's not an example. It's the example. It's the perfect test case of whether public breastfeeding is OK or not. Is it OK in a public place, where adults are eating?

A restaurant isn't perfectly public. Otherwise, it's the ideal example.

And, as I keep saying: it should be LEGAL but only allowed when not offensive/a discouragement to others. The cell phone use example stands. You cannot use a cellphone inside a court room. You also are escorted to a private area in better restaurants. All I'm saying is that it should be treated the same way.

A restuarant is most certainly public by any and every definition of the law. As are bars, pool halls, movie theatres, etc. They're all accessible to or shared by all members of the community, no one is descriminated against. If we were talking about a private club or something, they could make their own rules.

Mom is paying for both her AND her child's meal. Add in Dad and you got three to your one.

And bathrooms are not the cleanest place to eat now are they?

No, she's paying for a future meal for the kid at best. Unless the food magically goes through her system in zero time? ;)

Ah. So all those "Baby Changing Stations" are unsterile dens of filth, eh? C'mon now. All I'm saying is that there are those whom may be offended by it and that there should be an area where this activity can be done quietly and out of view. Just like cell phones should not be chatted on ad nauseum at dinner.

And, as I keep saying: it should be LEGAL but only allowed when not offensive/a discouragement to others. The cell phone use example stands. You cannot use a cellphone inside a court room. You also are escorted to a private area in better restaurants. All I'm saying is that it should be treated the same way.

A restuarant is most certainly public by any and every definition of the law. As are bars, pool halls, movie theatres, etc. They're all accessible to or shared by all members of the community, no one is descriminated against. If we were talking about a private club or something, they could make their own rules.

Why not just make it legal and get used to it? I think it would have an overall positive effect on our culture as a whole and I don't see how it could have a negative effect beyond the "Ick!" factor.

No, she's paying for a future meal for the kid at best. Unless the food magically goes through her system in zero time? ;)
Still ends up going to the child, no matter when.

Ah. So all those "Baby Changing Stations" are unsterile dens of filth, eh? C'mon now
You don't nurse on a changing table, you change diapers. The whole idea is to get the yucky stuff OUT, not put it IN to your baby.

All I'm saying is that there are those whom may be offended by it and that there should be an area where this activity can be done quietly and out of view. Just like cell phones should not be chatted on ad nauseum at dinner.
Small problem with your example though, with a cell phone, I can reasonably ask you to step outside in order to take your call. Being A. A phone call can be conducted anywhere, and B. The person calling is most likely able to wait until you can call that person back once asked to go outside.

Nursing a baby does not fit either of those. Most women sit to nurse, it saves a lot of wear and weight, not to mention more secure for the baby. Babies do not wait, when they are hungry they will let you know, loudly. They keep on letting you know loudly until whatever needs they have are met, they are not going to accept Mom saying "Please wait a second while I step outside, ok?"

So you are asking that women who are nursing take a screaming kid somewhere probably out of the way of where they are (Being, again, it's not just a matter of stepping outside) to do something that can be reasonably be conducted where they are.

Having enjoyed endless searching for bathrooms with changing stations which you'd THINK would be plentiful, I'm unwilling to think that nursing stations would be any different.

Why not just make it legal and get used to it? I think it would have an overall positive effect on our culture as a whole and I don't see how it could have a negative effect beyond the "Ick!" factor.

Personally I'm all for it. Likewise, we need to end the War on Drugs and get rid of all these horrible gun control laws too.

Personally I'm all for it. Likewise, we need to end the War on Drugs and get rid of all these horrible gun control laws too.

This would be easier.

Still ends up going to the child, no matter when.


You don't nurse on a changing table, you change diapers. The whole idea is to get the yucky stuff OUT, not put it IN to your baby.


Small problem with your example though, with a cell phone, I can reasonably ask you to step outside in order to take your call. Being A. A phone call can be conducted anywhere, and B. The person calling is most likely able to wait until you can call that person back once asked to go outside.

Nursing a baby does not fit either of those. Most women sit to nurse, it saves a lot of wear and weight, not to mention more secure for the baby. Babies do not wait, when they are hungry they will let you know, loudly. They keep on letting you know loudly until whatever needs they have are met, they are not going to accept Mom saying "Please wait a second while I step outside, ok?"

So you are asking that women who are nursing take a screaming kid somewhere probably out of the way of where they are (Being, again, it's not just a matter of stepping outside) to do something that can be reasonably be conducted where they are.

Having enjoyed endless searching for bathrooms with changing stations which you'd THINK would be plentiful, I'm unwilling to think that nursing stations would be any different.

This was a spurious post of mine to begin with, as I was sacastically responding to someone's complaint about my saying that the mother should go to a less public place.
However, if you really want to debate this as a point, it DOES matter as she may or may not turn the food in question into milk, may stop breastfeeding by the time it becomes milk (for whatever reason), etc.

But I've notices that those places are the CLEANEST in the restroom by far. How much is it to ask that a nursing mother goes somewhere not in view of everyone? This is hardly a burden.

And children cry for many reasons too. There are hunger crys, changing crys, etc. I'm not saying don't feed the kid. I'm saying take a minute or two to find a designated area, or at least an area that is more out of the way.

It is reasonable that I should be able to smoke at a baseball game because I'm OUTSIDE. But I can't at Shea! I can light a cigar up on any street, but not there. It's a burden I live with. And before you say its not the same, it's no less a burden for me than for a mother to PACK A BOTTLE before going out.

Hey, I'm not saying it is ideal at this time. But then so little is.

This would be easier.

Exactly. But since humanity bases its laws on culture, we must make allowances.

I can go buy a machine gun if I go get a special license, submit to a background check, etc. All this for something I should legally have according to the Bill of Rights.

Likewise, one cannot print just any old thing in the newspaper or yell fire in a crowded building.

I don't think asking breastfeeding mothers to move to a less trafficked area or designated spaces (we have a nursing room in our building) is a hardship.

But I've notices that those places are the CLEANEST in the restroom by far. How much is it to ask that a nursing mother goes somewhere not in view of everyone? This is hardly a burden.
Would YOU want to eat your dinner off of one? Again, when you get your meal served to you in a toilet stall with pissing and crapping going around you, then, yes, you may ask.

And, again, not every toilet has a changing station, how many nursing stations are there? How convenient are they to whatever situation the mother may be doing? What if the mother has other children to watch as well, then what?

And children cry for many reasons too. There are hunger crys, changing crys, etc. I'm not saying don't feed the kid. I'm saying take a minute or two to find a designated area, or at least an area that is more out of the way.
A minute or two? Right. Just an FYI, at Disneyland in LA (Kid and family friendly now) there is ONE nursing area at the front of the park. ONE.

There's three smoking areas though.

It is reasonable that I should be able to smoke at a baseball game because I'm OUTSIDE. But I can't at Shea! I can light a cigar up on any street, but not there. It's a burden I live with. And before you say its not the same, it's no less a burden for me than for a mother to PACK A BOTTLE before going out.
Bullshit. One, secondhand smoke can cause lung damage. Breast milk does not. Two, making a bottle takes far more in terms of time, equipment, and other factors than just popping out a boob (And one which most places are ill equipped to deal with), meaning bottle feeding is indeed much more of a burden. Three, bottle feeding can cause nipple confusion, making it harder for newborns and infants to take to the breast in the first place. My son's doctor recommended no bottle feeding for the first three weeks and sparingly after that up until the first 3 months just to make sure. So, yes, the burden there might be a baby that refuses to take the breast later on and misses out on a number of important benefits. Four, and finally, again, YOU are and adult, if YOU don't get your cigar, well, C'est la vie, right? A baby does not understand that concept and will promptly make life MORE difficult for his or her mother and everyone around him.

And all because someone MIGHT get their knickers in a bunch over something they probably enjoyed themselves as a babe-in-arms?

I don't think asking breastfeeding mothers to move to a less trafficked area or designated spaces (we have a nursing room in our building) is a hardship.
How big is this building, BTW?

How big is this building, BTW?

It is four floors, holds about 300 employees.

Since breasts are breasts does that include man boobies?

Sure, we need more boob equality.

Would YOU want to eat your dinner off of one? Again, when you get your meal served to you in a toilet stall with pissing and crapping going around you, then, yes, you may ask.

And, again, not every toilet has a changing station, how many nursing stations are there? How convenient are they to whatever situation the mother may be doing? What if the mother has other children to watch as well, then what?


A minute or two? Right. Just an FYI, at Disneyland in LA (Kid and family friendly now) there is ONE nursing area at the front of the park. ONE.

There's three smoking areas though.


Bullshit. One, secondhand smoke can cause lung damage. Breast milk does not. Two, making a bottle takes far more in terms of time, equipment, and other factors than just popping out a boob (And one which most places are ill equipped to deal with), meaning bottle feeding is indeed much more of a burden. Three, bottle feeding can cause nipple confusion, making it harder for newborns and infants to take to the breast in the first place. My son's doctor recommended no bottle feeding for the first three weeks and sparingly after that up until the first 3 months just to make sure. So, yes, the burden there might be a baby that refuses to take the breast later on and misses out on a number of important benefits. Four, and finally, again, YOU are and adult, if YOU don't get your cigar, well, C'est la vie, right? A baby does not understand that concept and will promptly make life MORE difficult for his or her mother and everyone around him.

And all because someone MIGHT get their knickers in a bunch over something they probably enjoyed themselves as a babe-in-arms?

Is the mother putting her breast on the changing station? No? QED. :)
I see changing stations in most restrooms I go into, unless its a small restaurant.
She has other children to watch? Hmm. How about doing something crazy and... PACKING A BOTTLE OF BREAST MILK?

Never been to Disney, so I can't speak to that. But they do have one. I'm also sure their restrooms have changing stations. And that there are some more private spots in the park than in front of the roller coaster?

LOL! What anyone thinks the pros and cons of one activity are over the other are irrelevant. What we're talking about are RIGHTS, not social engineering. Can you say for 100% that having to watch breastfeeding NEVER causes anyone trauma, ever? No, of course not.
Yes, I agree with the rest of what you said. And you know what? The mother can also do what we did: feed before leaving the house and don't go anywhere for long time periods before the child is half a year old.

Someone MIGHT be offended by a cigar outdoors, but I still can't light up. There's no difference. Recall, I'm not saying it's illegal, should be illegal, banned, etc. All I'm saying is that it should be done without being in direct sight of others out of courtesy.

The law is not against the child feeding, but HOW it is feeding.

The law isn't against either. Certain people think it should be, however.

In most of the US, you cannot consume alcohol on the street for example.

Indeed, but rather irrelevant. Laws like that have to do with disturbing the peace and public drunkenness.

The baby could eat in a restaurant from a bottle.

....or out of a breast.

Um, no. That's about as likely as you not eating a sloppy joe because it's not a hamburger. :D

Wrong. It happens. The reason is that the nipples are very different. IIRC, it is easier to suck liquid through a bottle nipple than a breast nipple. For that reason, babies who get used to it often won't go back to the breast.

It's *exactly* the same situation. There are people out there that don't want to duck into a meal while someone is breastfeeding in their field of vision.

....which is their own problem.

But what I'm more getting at is that neither necessarily is legal or illegal, but it is more of a common courtesy.

I see nothing discourteous about a mother feeding her child. If she puts the breast in your face, that would be a problem. But feeding her child where you might possibly happen to see it? It's your problem if it bothers you.

All I'm saying is that it should be done without being in direct sight of others out of courtesy.

The arguement is that there is nothing rude or discourteous about breast feeding.

And that it is unrealistic to be courteous to all the people all the time. People get offended at stupid things all the time

The law isn't against either. Certain people think it should be, however.



Indeed, but rather irrelevant. Laws like that have to do with disturbing the peace and public drunkenness.



....or out of a breast.



Wrong. It happens. The reason is that the nipples are very different. IIRC, it is easier to suck liquid through a bottle nipple than a breast nipple. For that reason, babies who get used to it often won't go back to the breast.



....which is their own problem.



I see nothing discourteous about a mother feeding her child. If she puts the breast in your face, that would be a problem. But feeding her child where you might possibly happen to see it? It's your problem if it bothers you.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Actually, its a blue law in my area. Nothing do to with disturbing the peace or public intoxication, everything to do with legislating morality. That's also why it is illegal to purchase alcohol (except in a bar or restaurant) in Connecticut on a Sunday.

Or out of a bottle. :) We can do that all day.

It happens sometimes. You know, the same way how some people get drunk off one beer, others off of 5. And USED to it means this is going on all the time. So feed the kid at home, eh? Or somewhere less in view. It's not like we're talking about starving the child, or making the mom go down some dark alley. :rolleyes:

Which means that by your logic, I can whip out my cell phone the next time I see a breastfeeding mother in public and describe it as luridly as I want within her earshot.
C'MON NOW! Let's be reasonable here, eh?

YOU don't. Others may/do. And while I personally don't care, I see why others may/do.

I have to laugh at your example. It's purile at best, and simplistic at worst. You're saying that the child must be fed that very moment at the table of the restaurant, that there is just no way possible that she could go to the ladies room, or perhaps another table not in the middle of everyone's view? :rolleyes:

To the ladies room? You think infants should have to eat in public bathrooms? Would you eat in a public bathroom?

As for moving to another table, that generally isn't the decision of the guest. A mother might ask for a corner table or something out of the way, but where you get seated is really up to the restaurant.

If you go back to my original post, I pointed out that it is OK in places that do not "trap" others into being forced to watch something they do not wish to view. And that's ALL I'm saying. I don't think its right or wrong myself. But I can see how OTHERS could be offended.

No one is trapped into watching. They decide whether or not to do so.


I asked this question in a previous thread and it was never addressed. What exactly is it about breastfeeding in public that offends some people. Why is it considered more offensive than strippers stripping or lap dancers lap dancing? Is it, perhaps, because in this culture a woman's breasts have been so completely sexualized that their real function - feeding infants - has been completely forgotten? If this is the case (and I'm convinced that it is) then the problem is the culture, not mothers who are using breasts for their original and primary purpose.

Strippers probably aren't the best example here, as they are restricted to very specific areas.

I do wonder, though, why breastfeeding is supposedly more offensive than bathing suits or some formal dresses.

http://www.thai-blogs.com/pictures/guest/Chotiros_Suriyawong.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/05/12/fashion/12surg.jpg

And both of those actually cover more than is legally necessary.

The arguement is that there is nothing rude or discourteous about breast feeding.

And that it is unrealistic to be courteous to all the people all the time. People get offended at stupid things all the time

Right. And as I've been pointing out for several pages now, that arguement is *not* one that has any merit other than those whom believe it to be true. The same as open container laws or cellphone free zones. While I personally don't care, I feel that nursing mothers should limit the areas they breastfeed in out of courtesy of others if at all possible. And that's ALL.

Yes, that is true. And the reason why there needs to be more courtesy out there.

To the ladies room? You think infants should have to eat in public bathrooms? Would you eat in a public bathroom?

As for moving to another table, that generally isn't the decision of the guest. A mother might ask for a corner table or something out of the way, but where you get seated is really up to the restaurant.



No one is trapped into watching. They decide whether or not to do so.


Already answered all these in the thread already.

I don't think breastfeeding should be an exception. Breasts are breasts, either it's allowable to display them or not, whatever the purpose.

It's allowable to display breasts throughout the nation. The question is whether or not it is ok to display nipples.

But I agree with you. It's either ok to display nipples or it isn't. Since nipple exposure is allowed in some cases (ie. men), it should be allowed in all cases.


As for what it is, different people have different hangups. That's all. I personally don't care so much, but I can understand why some people would. The same way I understand I just can't whip out a cigar after dinner at Morton's and start puffing away.

A cigar is a different situation altogether. The smoke from your cigar does not stay at your table and it can pose a health risk to those around you. So if a restaurant decides not to allow it, that is their prerogative.

A breastfeeding woman isn't spraying milk at you, nor does it pose any kind of health risk to you.

Ah. So all those "Baby Changing Stations" are unsterile dens of filth, eh? C'mon now.

Those are for changing a diaper - dealing with excrement - just like what the rest of us do in a bathroom.

They are not for feeding, any more than a toilet is.

Right. And as I've been pointing out for several pages now, that arguement is *not* one that has any merit other than those whom believe it to be true. The same as open container laws or cellphone free zones. While I personally don't care, I feel that nursing mothers should limit the areas they breastfeed in out of courtesy of others if at all possible. And that's ALL.

Yes, that is true. And the reason why there needs to be more courtesy out there.

If you let me indulge in circular reasoning.

I think the people who find breast feeding offensive and discourteous deserve to be offended :)

I agree there should be more courtesy in the public sphere, but only if it is based on reasonable ideas of courtesy.

A cigar is a different situation altogether. The smoke from your cigar does not stay at your table and it can pose a health risk to those around you. So if a restaurant decides not to allow it, that is their prerogative.

A breastfeeding woman isn't spraying milk at you, nor does it pose any kind of health risk to you.

A cigar is also an inanimate object. it doesn't just suddenly start smoldering and demand you smoke it ;)

LOL! What anyone thinks the pros and cons of one activity are over the other are irrelevant. What we're talking about are RIGHTS, not social engineering. Can you say for 100% that having to watch breastfeeding NEVER causes anyone trauma, ever? No, of course not.

If it causes them trauma, they have some serious problems that should probably be treated by a medical professional immediately.

Someone MIGHT be offended by a cigar outdoors, but I still can't light up. There's no difference.

....except for the fact that the smoke travels and affects other people while the milk doesn't, and wouldn't be harmful even if it did.

Or out of a bottle. We can do that all day.

Sure, if you want to risk being unable to breastfeed.

So feed the kid at home, eh? Or somewhere less in view. It's not like we're talking about starving the child, or making the mom go down some dark alley.

It's not always that convenient. Even mothers do have lives and things they need to get done, you know.

Which means that by your logic, I can whip out my cell phone the next time I see a breastfeeding mother in public and describe it as luridly as I want within her earshot.
C'MON NOW! Let's be reasonable here, eh?

What?

YOU don't. Others may/do. And while I personally don't care, I see why others may/do.

Here's the thing. I don't care if others have a problem with it any more than I care if others have a problem with someone holding their partner's hand or wearing a shirt that advertises their favorite candidate or wearing a strappy shirt.

It is not, in any way, harming them. If they don't want to see it, they can easily ignore it and choose not to look in that direction. As such, if it offends them in some way, that's their problem and no one else's.

The mother can also do what we did: feed before leaving the house and don't go anywhere for long time periods before the child is half a year old.

Good grief. This is your idea of a reasonable solution? Never leave the house for more than an hour for six months?

I...can't even summon up words.

Exactly. But since humanity bases its laws on culture, we must make allowances.

I can go buy a machine gun if I go get a special license, submit to a background check, etc. All this for something I should legally have according to the Bill of Rights.

Likewise, one cannot print just any old thing in the newspaper or yell fire in a crowded building.

I don't think asking breastfeeding mothers to move to a less trafficked area or designated spaces (we have a nursing room in our building) is a hardship.

I don't really know many mothers who breastfeed in direct view of anyone. I think that the culture we live in as of today makes that so. I think culture can be improved as it has been improved since the beginning of man and that in the future we'll all be naked and babies will live in a land of fully exposed milk vending mommies. But I don't think it is a right step to make a law and waste tax payers dollars on something that is completely natural and beneficial for both mother and child. Asking that mothers use a nursing room that is specifically set up for this is as reasonable as backing down if that mother tells you to, "Bugger off, the flesh of my flesh is hungry. And hungry NOW."

A cigar is a different situation altogether. The smoke from your cigar does not stay at your table and it can pose a health risk to those around you. So if a restaurant decides not to allow it, that is their prerogative.

A breastfeeding woman isn't spraying milk at you, nor does it pose any kind of health risk to you.



Those are for changing a diaper - dealing with excrement - just like what the rest of us do in a bathroom.

They are not for feeding, any more than a toilet is.

And by the same token, if they don't want to allow nursing mothers at the tables, that's their right too. Thanks for agreeing with me: that something is in sight is the same as it being in the air nearby or in earshot.

MAY not, but that's not the point. That she's in vision MAY be, the same was as inhaling a little second hand smoke MAY be harmful.

She could stand there without the table deployed. Or next to it, as there are usally a lot of open room around them. As posted before, I'm not advocating she lay the child down and "plop a boob out" onto the changing table!

If you let me indulge in circular reasoning.

I think the people who find breast feeding offensive and discourteous deserve to be offended :)

I agree there should be more courtesy in the public sphere, but only if it is based on reasonable ideas of courtesy.

All of which I also agree with. But as we're in a society that takes it upon itself to legislate OTHER public activities (nudity, alcohol, drugs, skateboarding, etc!), this clearly is a topic which also needs to be legislated such that it is performable without interferring with others. :)

Good grief. This is your idea of a reasonable solution? Never leave the house for more than an hour for six months?

I...can't even summon up words.

Read the post, Luke! FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. :rolleyes:

If a new mom is taking a newborn out for five hours at a stretch on a daily basis, that's just plain wrong.

I don't really know many mothers who breastfeed in direct view of anyone. I think that the culture we live in as of today makes that so. I think culture can be improved as it has been improved since the beginning of man and that in the future we'll all be naked and babies will live in a land of fully exposed milk vending mommies. But I don't think it is a right step to make a law and waste tax payers dollars on something that is completely natural and beneficial for both mother and child. Asking that mothers use a nursing room that is specifically set up for this is as reasonable as backing down if that mother tells you to, "Bugger off, the flesh of my flesh is hungry. And hungry NOW."

You need to ride the 6 train in NYC. I see it all the time. Again, personally, I don't care, but others do.

Yes, as stated before in the tread, it's cultural.

Fine. Then we immediately need to recind all laws which are cultural in nature. Hello 24/7 liquor stores, porn everywhere and OK to public smoking, drinking and urination.
Crazy? Yes. But to many people, it's all the same thing.

All of which I also agree with. But as we're in a society that takes it upon itself to legislate OTHER public activities (nudity, alcohol, drugs, skateboarding, etc!), this clearly is a topic which also needs to be legislated such that it is performable without interferring with others. :)

I don't quite understand why it should necessarily follow though. Just because some activities are legislated doesn't mean *all* activities should be legislated on.

Read the post, Luke! FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. :rolleyes:

If a new mom is taking a newborn out for five hours at a stretch on a daily basis, that's just plain wrong.

Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought this was a suggestion as to how to avoid needing to nurse in public. Seeing as a hungry baby is generally going to want to nurse a lot more often than every five hours, I guess your suggestion that new mothers should cloister themselves away from the world was actually entirely irrelevant to the discussion, then. My mistake.

(And what, exactly, is "just plain wrong" about a mother taking her infant outside the home frequently, anyway?)

If it causes them trauma, they have some serious problems that should probably be treated by a medical professional immediately.



....except for the fact that the smoke travels and affects other people while the milk doesn't, and wouldn't be harmful even if it did.



Sure, if you want to risk being unable to breastfeed.



It's not always that convenient. Even mothers do have lives and things they need to get done, you know.



What?



Here's the thing. I don't care if others have a problem with it any more than I care if others have a problem with someone holding their partner's hand or wearing a shirt that advertises their favorite candidate or wearing a strappy shirt.

It is not, in any way, harming them. If they don't want to see it, they can easily ignore it and choose not to look in that direction. As such, if it offends them in some way, that's their problem and no one else's.

Agreed. Just like people that yell at me that they're getting cancer because I'm smoking outside. :rolleyes:

How many times do I need to say it: The smoke travels UP, and that some people being offended by the sight of breastfeeding is the point, not how harmful you think smoking may be.

IF the kid is 3 months older or less. IF its done too many times. Have you worn your seatbelt 100% of the times you've been in a motor vehicle in your life? How about always cut up your food into 1cm squares and chewed 25 times? None of what we're talking about are absolutes, PLEASE stop treating them as such.

Yes. And they therefore need to plan their days. Like we do. Recall, I'm not calling for bans or any other extreme craziness. Just that people be couteous. That I'm having to debate it over many pages tells me that zealotry of POV runs rampant.

The point was that you're saying there is nothing to be offended about public breastfeeding. I'm pointing out that the mother shouldn't be offended if I performed such a stunt. The idea being that what some find offensive others do not.
As we're in a society, we need to live WITH each other, not just "screw you, I think your POV is narrowminded so I will do this just to annoy you".

Yes, I know you don't care. That's why your argument fails.

I don't quite understand why it should necessarily follow though. Just because some activities are legislated doesn't mean *all* activities should be legislated on.

Ah, but they are. That's the unfortunate legacy of a litigious society.

Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought this was a suggestion as to how to avoid needing to nurse in public. Seeing as a hungry baby is generally going to want to nurse a lot more often than every five hours, I guess your suggestion that new mothers should cloister themselves away from the world was actually entirely irrelevant to the discussion, then. My mistake.

(And what, exactly, is "just plain wrong" about a mother taking her infant outside the home frequently, anyway?)

My point was that it should be avoided as much as possible. I think over the last 5 pages or so I've made it abundently clear that I really don't care, but that it needs to be worked out such that people don't need to see it every time they turn around.

A newborn typically needs lots of quiet and lacks a fully developed immune system. Being in public for long periods of time frequently is to be avoided for the child's health. This is a basic childcare concept that's been around for thousands of years.

Ah, but they are. That's the unfortunate legacy of a litigious society.

Though that does not mean we should kowtow to the legacy and self-appointed custodians of a perverted "decency"

And by the same token, if they don't want to allow nursing mothers at the tables, that's their right too. Thanks for agreeing with me: that something is in sight is the same as it being in the air nearby or in earshot.

I didn't agree to any such thing.

But I do agree that restaurants could refuse to serve a nursing mother, just as they could refuse to serve a woman who was wearing a sleeveless shirt. I, for one, would refuse to eat at a restaurant that kicked out a breastfeeding mother, however.

But pretending that smoke in the air is the same as something you might see if you happen to look over is ridiculous.

She could stand there without the table deployed. Or next to it, as there are usally a lot of open room around them. As posted before, I'm not advocating she lay the child down and "plop a boob out" onto the changing table!

She would still be in the bathroom. Would you take your food into the bathroom, hold you plate over the counter, and eat off of it?

It is patently ridiculous to expect anyone - including an infant - to eat in a restroom, especially a public one.

Agreed. Just like people that yell at me that they're getting cancer because I'm smoking outside.

....except it isn't.

How many times do I need to say it: The smoke travels UP, and that some people being offended by the sight of breastfeeding is the point, not how harmful you think smoking may be.

The smoke doesn't just travel up, and pretending that it does is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, being offended by the sight of something is quite different from being directly affected by it. Some people are offended by the sight of a couple holding hands. Does that mean they should only do it when they can't be seen?

IF the kid is 3 months older or less. IF its done too many times. Have you worn your seatbelt 100% of the times you've been in a motor vehicle in your life? How about always cut up your food into 1cm squares and chewed 25 times? None of what we're talking about are absolutes, PLEASE stop treating them as such.

Darling, you are the one treating it as an absolute, acting as if a mother could always just use a bottle instead.

The point was that you're saying there is nothing to be offended about public breastfeeding. I'm pointing out that the mother shouldn't be offended if I performed such a stunt. The idea being that what some find offensive others do not.

Your "stunt" was specifically designed to be offensive. It was also, as you stipulated, loud. I can choose not to look over at someone. I cannot choose not to hear someone yelling into his phone nearby.

As we're in a society, we need to live WITH each other, not just "screw you, I think your POV is narrowminded so I will do this just to annoy you".

I don't think many breastfeeding moms are doing it just to annoy anyone.

Yes, I know you don't care. That's why your argument fails.

My argument "fails"....why, again?

There are "offenses" that are entirely the problem of the offended person. For instance, some people are offended by two men holding hands. Does that mean that my gay friends should be "courteous" and never ever display affection in public? Some people are offended by interracial couples. Does that mean they should never go out in public?

My answer to things like this is that those people can shove it.

By your logic, none of us should ever do anything that might possibly maybe offend a portion of the population, no matter how much we need to do it or how ridiculous their objection is. I find that idea to be silly. There's a point at which you just have to live your own life and not worry about what silly objections others might have.

Read the post, Luke! FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. :rolleyes:

If a new mom is taking a newborn out for five hours at a stretch on a daily basis, that's just plain wrong.

Why? Tell me do you have childen of your own?

Meanwhile, being offended by the sight of something is quite different from being directly affected by it. Some people are offended by the sight of a couple holding hands. Does that mean they should only do it when they can't be seen?

It is this part of the arguement that makes the least sense to me.

I've actually seen a "modesty survey" that makes it fairly clear that some people (presumablly, some men) are offended by pretty much anything a woman does/wears. Should we wear kid gloves when dealing with them too?

The idea that it is up to the rest of society to keep them cosseted and unoffended is ludicrous.

There is empirical evidence to show that breastfeeding is beneficial. Not only to mother and child, but also society at large. Empirical evidence that supports breastfeeding that I think overrides the lunatic fringe's desire to not see a mammal's mammary used for its primary function

It is this part of the arguement that makes the least sense to me.

I've actually seen a "modesty survey" that makes it fairly clear that some people (presumablly, some men) are offended by pretty much anything a woman does/wears. Should we wear kid gloves when dealing with them too?

The idea that it is up to the rest of society to keep them cosseted and unoffended is ludicrous.

There is empirical evidence to show that breastfeeding is beneficial. Not only to mother and child, but also society at large. Empirical evidence that supports breastfeeding that I think overrides the lunatic fringe's desire to not see a mammal's mammary used for its primary function
I think Dem was arguing against the analogy of cig smoke. saying that smoke moves around and affects those even when they are not trying to inhale the second hand smoke.

so in context, he's saying people are offended by PDA's such as holding hands. so to keep those that are offended, should people restrict holding hands to only when they are isolated from the general public (i.e. only at home.)

Thus pointing out the silliness of comparing the two. since, for those offended by breastfeeding can only look away to remove the offense, while those who don't want to smell cig smoke has to leave the premesis.

I think...

Though that does not mean we should kowtow to the legacy and self-appointed custodians of a perverted "decency"

Yep. The same way we kowtow to the global warming crowd, political correctness and self-appointed custodians of gun control. :)

Why? Tell me do you have childen of your own?

Yes, why?

No, she's paying for a future meal for the kid at best. Unless the food magically goes through her system in zero time? ;)

Ah. So all those "Baby Changing Stations" are unsterile dens of filth, eh? C'mon now. All I'm saying is that there are those whom may be offended by it and that there should be an area where this activity can be done quietly and out of view. Just like cell phones should not be chatted on ad nauseum at dinner.

Some people find the view of other's eating nauseating. Strange but true.

Perhaps we should create separate areas for every patron, so that I don't have to be offended by watching you eat?

But I've notices that those places are the CLEANEST in the restroom by far. How much is it to ask that a nursing mother goes somewhere not in view of everyone? This is hardly a burden.


Why don't you eat in the toilets?

She has other children to watch? Hmm. How about doing something crazy and... PACKING A BOTTLE OF BREAST MILK?


How is making that demand any more intrinsically reasonable than... her packing a breast full of breast milk?

And by the same token, if they don't want to allow nursing mothers at the tables, that's their right too.

That's just idiotic. A restaurant table is designed as a venue for consumption, a toilet area is designed as a venue for elimination of waste.

When you can explain why it is more appropriate for baby to eat (with their incomplete little immune systems as a bonus) in the waste elimination area, rather than in the consumption area, you'll have an argument worth making.

Frankly, it's this kind of response that makes me want to shit in the dinner of anyone that complains about a nursing mother.

But I do agree that restaurants could refuse to serve a nursing mother, just as they could refuse to serve a woman who was wearing a sleeveless shirt. I, for one, would refuse to eat at a restaurant that kicked out a breastfeeding mother, however.

If you are ever in a restaurant that refuses to serve a breastfeeding woman, you should inform the owner or manager of the restaurant that they are probably breaking the law, according to Canadian and US law.

http://www.infactcanada.ca/Breastfeeding_Rights.htm

http://www.007b.com/breastfeeding_public.php

Women are allowed to breastfeed their children anywhere at anytime.

All of which I also agree with. But as we're in a society that takes it upon itself to legislate OTHER public activities (nudity, alcohol, drugs, skateboarding, etc!), this clearly is a topic which also needs to be legislated such that it is performable without interferring with others. :)

As you can read above, legislation has been debated and provided. The legislation clearly states that the people who are offended by the sight of a breastfeeding woman will simply have to deal with it.

I didn't agree to any such thing.

But I do agree that restaurants could refuse to serve a nursing mother, just as they could refuse to serve a woman who was wearing a sleeveless shirt. I, for one, would refuse to eat at a restaurant that kicked out a breastfeeding mother, however.

But pretending that smoke in the air is the same as something you might see if you happen to look over is ridiculous.

She would still be in the bathroom. Would you take your food into the bathroom, hold you plate over the counter, and eat off of it?

It is patently ridiculous to expect anyone - including an infant - to eat in a restroom, especially a public one.



....except it isn't.



The smoke doesn't just travel up, and pretending that it does is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, being offended by the sight of something is quite different from being directly affected by it. Some people are offended by the sight of a couple holding hands. Does that mean they should only do it when they can't be seen?



Darling, you are the one treating it as an absolute, acting as if a mother could always just use a bottle instead.



Your "stunt" was specifically designed to be offensive. It was also, as you stipulated, loud. I can choose not to look over at someone. I cannot choose not to hear someone yelling into his phone nearby.



I don't think many breastfeeding moms are doing it just to annoy anyone.



My argument "fails"....why, again?

There are "offenses" that are entirely the problem of the offended person. For instance, some people are offended by two men holding hands. Does that mean that my gay friends should be "courteous" and never ever display affection in public? Some people are offended by interracial couples. Does that mean they should never go out in public?

My answer to things like this is that those people can shove it.

By your logic, none of us should ever do anything that might possibly maybe offend a portion of the population, no matter how much we need to do it or how ridiculous their objection is. I find that idea to be silly. There's a point at which you just have to live your own life and not worry about what silly objections others might have.

Ah. So for you then everything is relative and you'd have to SEE something for there to be a ruling on it?

The point isn't that should I take my food in the bathroom, but instead should I pay to watch someone feed their child. The answer is no. I came in for a meal, not to see that. likewise, I don't want to see people fornicate on the tables, get into a fight, or sing along to the radio.
***AGAIN*** please explain to me how being in the bathroom is any worse than being anywhere else. I've asked this for several pages now. She's STANDING next to the changing station, not rubbing her breasts over it then feeding the kid. :rolleyes:
It is patently ridiculous that you keep thinking I am inferring that the kid eat out of the toilet or something.

You keep telling yourself that, anti-smoking Nazi. :D Oh, is that offensive? Hmm. Better not smoke outdoors anymore either! Oh wait, even THAT law was too radical for NYC. Although apparently not for Oakland CA. http://www.nbc11.com/news/14358255/detail.html

ROFLMAO. Really? GO BUY A CIGARETTE OR CIGAR. Go ahead! Light it outside. Watch where the smoke goes. Ever wonder why in a building fire you crawl on the floor?!? Smoke RISES. Basic physics.

It's the SAME thing. If I see something offensive, then it effects me just the same as if I smell it. We all have 5 senses, right? :)
If we were in Saudi Arabia (or several other places), damn straight I wouldn't be seen holding hands with a woman in public. But we're talking about NYC (or at least I am). And for the nth time: I'm not calling for breastfeeding apartheid, I'm calling for rational courtesy, and for the setting up of MORE nursing rooms/areas!

Always? Nice absolute. I'm still waiting for you to explain how on Earth using one in those situations (which SHOULD be uncommon!) of being stuck in public with nowhere else to go is a problem.

As is public breastfeeding to some people. See your holding hands example in other cultures.

No, I don't think so either. Which is why I don't understand why you're so hard-core against my position that it's fine so long as it is as invisible as possible and that if a facility is available that it be used.

Your arguement fails on the basic premise that you're dictating how it must be without taking into account those that your position is contrary to. If offense is directly the problem of the offended party, then you've just rewritten TONS of American case law. Consider that we live in a society where Speedy Gonzalez is no longer shown because he's thought to be a racist character. Or consider that the Confederate flag has been removed from every statehouse in the South. Or that the 10 Commandments have been from courthouses. QED.

Thus if you're telling everyone that doesn't like your POV to shove it, your position fails because of its inherent intolerance. You can't say the offense is a problem only to the offended party. If that were true, then I get to smoke next to you on a bus while holding an M-16 and wearing a "Dempublicents1 likes small boys" t-shirt. Thus, it is an absurd position to take. Indeed, many of our laws were made to STOP people from being offended.

No, my logic is that everything should be treated THE SAME. I'm railing against people like you that want it any differently than that.

If you are ever in a restaurant that refuses to serve a breastfeeding woman, you should inform the owner or manager of the restaurant that they are probably breaking the law, according to Canadian and US law.

http://www.infactcanada.ca/Breastfeeding_Rights.htm

http://www.007b.com/breastfeeding_public.php

Women are allowed to breastfeed their children anywhere at anytime.



As you can read above, legislation has been debated and provided. The legislation clearly states that the people who are offended by the sight of a breastfeeding woman will simply have to deal with it.

Thank you! I checked a few states, and since it's the law I'm fine with it. Pity this wasn't posted many pages ago.
Though it is worth noting that this is on a state-by-state basis. For example, I would reason that a 20 year old mom in Vermont breastfeeding in a bar is breaking the law. But that's not the point. :)

Why don't you eat in the toilets?

Sure. I have an appetizer for you right here. :p

Sure. I have an appetizer for you right here. :p

'Sure' is not actually an answer to 'why?'.

It all becomes clear.

For example, I would reason that a 20 year old mom in Vermont breastfeeding in a bar is breaking the law. But that's not the point. :)

And if she's been drinking enough, long enough, maybe she's breaking THREE laws!

Well, could even be four, if we dare to ask how old the one being breastfed is.

But we shall be polite, and uphold proper decorum, and not ask.

That's just idiotic. A restaurant table is designed as a venue for consumption, a toilet area is designed as a venue for elimination of waste.

When you can explain why it is more appropriate for baby to eat (with their incomplete little immune systems as a bonus) in the waste elimination area, rather than in the consumption area, you'll have an argument worth making.

Frankly, it's this kind of response that makes me want to shit in the dinner of anyone that complains about a nursing mother.

Mmm. Thank you for your tolerance of my tolerance of other people's POVs. You are very enlightened.

Mmm. Thank you for your tolerance of my tolerance of other people's POVs. You are very enlightened.

Your suggestion is that babies eat in the same room that people shit in. If you find that logical and appropriate, I don't see why you would complain if I were to take a huge dump in your salad.

Your suggestion is that babies eat in the same room that people shit in. If you find that logical and appropriate, I don't see why you would complain if I were to take a huge dump in your salad.

Hmm. And so another goes off on a tangent. Did you read the whole thread? Really?

ROFLMAO. Really? GO BUY A CIGARETTE OR CIGAR. Go ahead! Light it outside. Watch where the smoke goes. Ever wonder why in a building fire you crawl on the floor?!? Smoke RISES. Basic physics.



If you are only looking at BASIC phisics you may want to take an advanced course

One that covers gas expansion to start with.

Or maybe even wind
http://www.inyocounty.info/2007%20images/20070706_WindAt7Pines3-DM.jpg

Smoke does NOT always rise strait up the real world is way more complex then that

Hmm. And so another goes off on a tangent. Did you read the whole thread? Really?

Indeed. I must have misinterpreted your use of 'restroom' in "But I've notices that those places are the CLEANEST in the restroom".

Clearly you mean a bedroom, somewhere where people literally 'rest'.

Thank you! I checked a few states, and since it's the law I'm fine with it. Pity this wasn't posted many pages ago.
Though it is worth noting that this is on a state-by-state basis. For example, I would reason that a 20 year old mom in Vermont breastfeeding in a bar is breaking the law. But that's not the point. :)

If a woman were to breastfeed in a Vermont bar, I think the only law she would be breaking would be those that bar minors from drinking establishments.

Vermont is one of the 39 states that explicitly protects the right of mothers to breastfeed anywhere.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

Mark, You don't have to look. Ask to switch chairs with someone at your table, ask the server to find you a new table. It is easy to avoid looking.

I think Dem was arguing against the analogy of cig smoke. saying that smoke moves around and affects those even when they are not trying to inhale the second hand smoke.

so in context, he's saying people are offended by PDA's such as holding hands. so to keep those that are offended, should people restrict holding hands to only when they are isolated from the general public (i.e. only at home.)

Thus pointing out the silliness of comparing the two. since, for those offended by breastfeeding can only look away to remove the offense, while those who don't want to smell cig smoke has to leave the premesis.

I think...

Umm, I was agreeing with Dem. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough :)

You need to ride the 6 train in NYC. I see it all the time.

On the number 6 train you will see just about anything.

The point isn't that should I take my food in the bathroom, but instead should I pay to watch someone feed their child. The answer is no. I came in for a meal, not to see that.

You didn't pay to watch me eat either. But if I happen to be in the same restaurant as you, and you choose to look at me, you will. Does that mean I should go eat in the bathroom?

***AGAIN*** please explain to me how being in the bathroom is any worse than being anywhere else. I've asked this for several pages now. She's STANDING next to the changing station, not rubbing her breasts over it then feeding the kid. :rolleyes:

Would you go eat in a public bathroom. Why or why not?

A bathroom is the place that people go to urinate and defecate. That is not an appropriate place to eat.

It is patently ridiculous that you keep thinking I am inferring that the kid eat out of the toilet or something.

No, just in the room designed for using the toilet, where other people are using the toilet.

You keep telling yourself that, anti-smoking Nazi. :D Oh, is that offensive? Hmm. Better not smoke outdoors anymore either! Oh wait, even THAT law was too radical for NYC. Although apparently not for Oakland CA. http://www.nbc11.com/news/14358255/detail.html

Keep telling myself what? The fact that smoke travels laterally as well as upwards?

I've been around plenty of smokers, dear. I've even smoked myself. Believe it or not, you can see (and smell) the way the smoke moves.

It's the SAME thing. If I see something offensive, then it effects me just the same as if I smell it. We all have 5 senses, right? :)

You can choose to look away. You cannot choose to shut off your sense of smell or the allergic reaction that smoke might cause.

Meanwhile, there is a significant difference between being bothered by something that might cause a health risk and being bothered by a woman feeding her child.

If we were in Saudi Arabia (or several other places), damn straight I wouldn't be seen holding hands with a woman in public. But we're talking about NYC (or at least I am). And for the nth time: I'm not calling for breastfeeding apartheid, I'm calling for rational courtesy, and for the setting up of MORE nursing rooms/areas!

By your logic, it is "rational courtesy" for people to arrange their lives around any illogical problem someone might have with their actions.

And, apparently, if people have silly objections to certain actions they are not in any way harmed by, we should build rooms for people engaging in such actions to be out of the public eye.

As is public breastfeeding to some people. See your holding hands example in other cultures.

The holding hands example works here. We have irrational people in our own culture who have a problem with certain couples holding hands.

We also have irrational people who have a problem with breastfeeding.

They shouldn't be coddled. They should have to recognize that other people don't have to and should not be pressured to arrange their lives around someone else's hangups.

No, I don't think so either. Which is why I don't understand why you're so hard-core against my position that it's fine so long as it is as invisible as possible and that if a facility is available that it be used.

Because I don't think that a breasfeeding mom should have to arrange her life around people who have some sort of hangup over breastfeeding. Those people are the ones being ridiculous. Why on earth should she be inconvenienced for their sake?

I do think a breastfeeding mom should probably be discreet about it. But most are, and people still get all up in arms about someone daring to breastfeed a child at the next table.

Your arguement fails on the basic premise that you're dictating how it must be without taking into account those that your position is contrary to.

Those people are being just as ridiculous as people who are offended by interracial or gay couples. I don't think people like that need to be "taken into account". I think they need to grow up.

If offense is directly the problem of the offended party, then you've just rewritten TONS of American case law.

Not all offense. But in this case (or in the case of couples holding hands), the offense is directly the problem of the offended party. The offense is a direct result of their own ridiculous hangups.

Thus if you're telling everyone that doesn't like your POV to shove it, your position fails because of its inherent intolerance. You can't say the offense is a problem only to the offended party. If that were true, then I get to smoke next to you on a bus while holding an M-16 and wearing a "Dempublicents1 likes small boys" t-shirt. Thus, it is an absurd position to take. Indeed, many of our laws were made to STOP people from being offended.

Very few of our laws were made to stop people from being offended - because you don't have a right to avoid offense.

They were made to keep people from being harmed.

If you smoked next to me on a bus, I would likely have an allergic reaction. That's what happens these days when anyone smokes next to me. I could thus show harm. It has nothing to do with offense.

An M-16 on a bus would be a danger to everyone on the bus. Thus, it is within the purview of the government to say that you cannot have it there. It has nothing to do with offense.

Meanwhile, the t-shirt you describe would not be illegal. And unless I could show that someone actually believed it, I couldn't even take civil action against you. I could get as offended as I like, but there would be no legal recourse because you have the right to wear such a t-shirt.


No, my logic is that everything should be treated THE SAME. I'm railing against people like you that want it any differently than that.

You are arguing that dissimilar things should be treated the same.

And, apparently, if people have silly objections to certain actions they are not in any way harmed by, we should build rooms for people engaging in such actions to be out of the public eye.

The holding hands example works here. We have irrational people in our own culture who have a problem with certain couples holding hands.

We also have irrational people who have a problem with breastfeeding.

They shouldn't be coddled. They should have to recognize that other people don't have to and should not be pressured to arrange their lives around someone else's hangups.



Because I don't think that a breasfeeding mom should have to arrange her life around people who have some sort of hangup over breastfeeding. Those people are the ones being ridiculous. Why on earth should she be inconvenienced for their sake?

I do think a breastfeeding mom should probably be discreet about it. But most are, and people still get all up in arms about someone daring to breastfeed a child at the next table.



Those people are being just as ridiculous as people who are offended by interracial or gay couples. I don't think people like that need to be "taken into account". I think they need to grow up.



Not all offense. But in this case (or in the case of couples holding hands), the offense is directly the problem of the offended party. The offense is a direct result of their own ridiculous hangups.

Very few of our laws were made to stop people from being offended - because you don't have a right to avoid offense.

How are you defining irrational here? Because that's a very subjective statement.

If someone believes breasts should be covered at all time in public then their opposition to breastfeeding in public would be perfectly rational.

How are you defining irrational here? Because that's a very subjective statement.

If someone believes breasts should be covered at all time in public then their opposition to breastfeeding in public would be perfectly rational.

If someone believes that being gay is evil, their opposition to a gay couple holding hands in public would be "rational".

Of course, if the first premise is irrational....

On the number 6 train you will see just about anything.

LOL! Just stop flooding up there, huh? :D

Umm, I was agreeing with Dem. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough :)

ah, my mistake. sorry. :)

Can you say for 100% that having to watch breastfeeding NEVER causes anyone trauma, ever? No, of course not.

Can you say for 100% that having to see blacks NEVER causes anyone trauma, ever? No, of course not. Therefore blacks should not be allowed in places where people might get traumatised by seeing them. At least, by your reasoning.

There is nowt wrong with it.

Bloody true.

If someone believes that being gay is evil, their opposition to a gay couple holding hands in public would be "rational".

Of course, if the first premise is irrational....

Which you failed to demonstrate. You just called them 'silly' repeatedly.

This was a spurious post of mine to begin with, as I was sacastically responding to someone's complaint about my saying that the mother should go to a less public place.
However, if you really want to debate this as a point, it DOES matter as she may or may not turn the food in question into milk, may stop breastfeeding by the time it becomes milk (for whatever reason), etc.

But I've notices that those places are the CLEANEST in the restroom by far. How much is it to ask that a nursing mother goes somewhere not in view of everyone? This is hardly a burden.

You are starting to go wrong about here.

*many many posts*

Agreed. Just like people that yell at me that they're getting cancer because I'm smoking outside. :rolleyes:

How many times do I need to say it: The smoke travels UP, and that some people being offended by the sight of breastfeeding is the point, not how harmful you think smoking may be.

Talk physics all you like, non-smokers have a cunning thing called "smell" which allows them to detect when they are breathing smoke!

If they're staring at you and muttering, and moving their children to one side or the other, there is a very good chance that they are breathing your smoke. Not just being assholes.

Your suggestion that a changing station in or near a public toilet is a suitable (or, was it 'preferable') place to breast-feed was quite disgraceful. I am glad to see you are about to retract it. :)

Would you go eat in a public bathroom. Why or why not?

That is a good question!

Hint for Markreich: Airborne bacteria

How about anyone who is offended at the sight of breast-feeding while they are eating, should go perch on a change table in the toilet precinct, with their meal on their lap and their long-stemmed wineglass on the tiles. It's not like they'd need to touch anything, is it? :rolleyes:

Which you failed to demonstrate. You just called them 'silly' repeatedly.

I tend to use silly and irrational pretty much interchangeably.

Do you think it isn't silly to act like one is traumatized by the sight of woman breastfeeding a baby? Do you think it makes sense to act like the process carries the same issues as defecation?

How about suggesting repeatedly that an infant eat in the bathroom just because some people can't handle seeing him eat?

I think breastfeeding is perfectly natural and acceptable, however whilst in public, I think it is more comfortable for everyone (including the mother herself) do it discreetly, with a little blanket or specially designed shirt.

I think breastfeeding is perfectly natural and acceptable, however whilst in public, I think it is more comfortable for everyone (including the mother herself) do it discreetly, with a little blanket or specially designed shirt.

I think women are perfectly natural and acceptable, however whilst in public, I think it is more comfortable for everyone (including the women herself) to be discreet, with covering over their entire bodies.

I think women are perfectly natural and acceptable, however whilst in public, I think it is more comfortable for everyone (including the women herself) to be discreet, with covering over their entire bodies.

Do you prefer the full burqa, or is a head-scarf enough for you? :p

Do you prefer the full burqa, or is a head-scarf enough for you? :p

Oh, it's not for me. It's for the sake of others, including the women themselves. It's either wrap themselves up from head to toe, or send them to a different room while other people are around. Preferably a toilet.

I think breastfeeding is perfectly natural and acceptable, however whilst in public, I think it is more comfortable for everyone (including the mother herself) do it discreetly, with a little blanket or specially designed shirt.

Maybe there's a solution there. I wouldn't back myself to always recognize a nursing dress or blouse, though the woman having a baby with her and smelling of milk might tip me off.

So perhaps nursing clothes should have some special markings, so less perceptive people are fairly warned of where a tit is likely to appear. Some kind of "breast at work" symbol on one or both ... I'm imagining something like the hammer and sickle. Not ... anything discreet.

Oh, it's not for me. It's for the sake of others, including the women themselves. It's either wrap themselves up from head to toe, or send them to a different room while other people are around. Preferably a toilet.

And if the toilet isn't clean enough for them, they should clean it quick smart!

I'm wondering now if maybe we could make them wear the baby inside their clothes. It would keep the noise down, as well as protecting members of the public from being stared at.

Babies do that, they totally stare you down, and when you're "OK then" and want to make something of it, everyone's all "oh, poor little baby, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong." As if!

And if the toilet isn't clean enough for them, they should clean it quick smart!

I'm wondering now if maybe we could make them wear the baby inside their clothes. It would keep the noise down, as well as protecting members of the public from being stared at.

Babies do that, they totally stare you down, and when you're "OK then" and want to make something of it, everyone's all "oh, poor little baby, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong." As if!

You ever noticed that babies don't say "Baby baby baby"?

In many ways, babies aren't really Pokemon, at all.

I dont see why anyone wouldnt support Public Breast Feeding...


I mean, even Bible Nuts should see it as 'gods natural way' or some shit like that...

And if you shut them up, your generally unopposed...

I voted for the second option because although I don't have a problem with it per se, I think that a degree of discretion is the better part of valour - there are occasions when it may not be appropriate. As a general rule, though, yes, it should absolutely be allowed.


That.

I tend to use silly and irrational pretty much interchangeably.

Do you think it isn't silly to act like one is traumatized by the sight of woman breastfeeding a baby? Do you think it makes sense to act like the process carries the same issues as defecation?

How about suggesting repeatedly that an infant eat in the bathroom just because some people can't handle seeing him eat?

I think it's an inherently subjective issue. Most people would object to a grown man sucking on a woman's nipple in a restaurant, when logically there is no real difference between the two to people watching. The act is the same, the man's head would in fact obscure more from view, but the reaction would be different.

I think it's an inherently subjective issue. Most people would object to a grown man sucking on a woman's nipple in a restaurant, when logically there is no real difference between the two to people watching. The act is the same, the man's head would in fact obscure more from view, but the reaction would be different.

What's wrong with sucking women's nipples in restaurants?
...That didn't come out right, sorry.

I think it's an inherently subjective issue. Most people would object to a grown man sucking on a woman's nipple in a restaurant, when logically there is no real difference between the two to people watching. The act is the same, the man's head would in fact obscure more from view, but the reaction would be different.

Ummm nowt to do with one being an overtly public sexual act, and the other well feeding a baby?

I think it's an inherently subjective issue. Most people would object to a grown man sucking on a woman's nipple in a restaurant, when logically there is no real difference between the two to people watching. The act is the same, the man's head would in fact obscure more from view, but the reaction would be different.

Are you being deliberately obtuse and difficult?

I love public breasts. :)

Ummm nowt to do with one being an overtly public sexual act, and the other well feeding a baby?

So? Logically from the perspective of the viewer what you see is exactly the same?

Are you being deliberately obtuse and difficult
I'm trying to make the point that what we find acceptable and unacceptable public occurrences is an entirely subjective idea rather than a logical one.

So? Logically from the perspective of the viewer what you see is exactly the same?

No it isn't. That's just absurd.

I'm trying to make the point that what we find acceptable and unacceptable public occurrences is an entirely subjective idea rather than a logical one.

You're not making the point very convincingly for this case though.

A baby receiving its only food it not the same as a fully grown man getting kicks is a public place.

A fully grown man getting kicks in a public place is not the same as a baby recieving its food.

I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

You may as well compare a breastfeeding mother to a sow with piglets at a petting farm.

No it isn't. That's just absurd.



You're not making the point very convincingly for this case though.

A baby receiving its only food it not the same as a fully grown man getting kicks is a public place.

A fully grown man getting kicks in a public place is not the same as a baby recieving its food.

I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

You may as well compare a breastfeeding mother to a sow with piglets at a petting farm.

In terms of what you can see the act is identical. The only difference is the purpose and it being a man rather than a baby. Any extra offence is in your head rather than a difference in what you're seeing.

You are seeing one human sucking the tit of another human. If the reactions were purely logical then there should be no difference between the two.

I think it's an inherently subjective issue. Most people would object to a grown man sucking on a woman's nipple in a restaurant, when logically there is no real difference between the two to people watching. The act is the same, the man's head would in fact obscure more from view, but the reaction would be different.

That could have something to do with breastmilk not being the food on which a grown man subsists?

In terms of what you can see the act is identical. The only difference is the purpose and it being a man rather than a baby. Any extra offence is in your head rather than a difference in what you're seeing.

You are seeing one human sucking the tit of another human. If the reactions were purely logical then there should be no difference between the two.

Logic does not exclude purpose or context.

In terms of what you can see the act is identical. The only difference is the purpose and it being a man rather than a baby. Any extra offence is in your head rather than a difference in what you're seeing.

You are seeing one human sucking the tit of another human. If the reactions were purely logical then there should be no difference between the two.Species really shouldn't matter either than, should it. You'd just see one animal sucking the tit of another. No logical difference at all.
Or if the women uses a breastpump, really, it's just one physical entity sucking the tit of another. Absolutely no logical difference in terms of what you see. As long as you avoid interpreting what you see in any realistic way.

I'd take it several steps farther and say I am okay with public sexual acts.

In terms of what you can see the act is identical. The only difference is the purpose and it being a man rather than a baby. Any extra offence is in your head rather than a difference in what you're seeing.

You are seeing one human sucking the tit of another human. If the reactions were purely logical then there should be no difference between the two.

So, other then the situations being completely different, they are exactly the same?

You honestly believe that? Pull the other one (it has bells on)


Also "logical." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Species really shouldn't matter either than, should it. You'd just see one animal sucking the tit of another. No logical difference at all.
Or if the women uses a breastpump, really, it's just one physical entity sucking the tit of another. Absolutely no logical difference in terms of what you see. As long as you avoid interpreting what you see in any realistic way.

The obvious place to go with this is a mother bottlefeeding a baby vs a mother breastfeeding a baby.

After all, the only thing different is the delivery method.

Which, if you think about it, is less different. Compared to the age, purpose, gender and function that Forsakia is ignoring in his example.

That could have something to do with breastmilk not being the food on which a grown man subsists?


Logic does not exclude purpose or context.
You don't actually see the milk, from a viewing point of view it makes no difference. You're still seeing the same thing.

Which, if you think about it, is less different. Compared to the age, purpose, gender and function that Forsakia is ignoring in his example.
Firstly, gender?

If you're going to go age then where's your cut off point? A woman naturally lactates as long as the milk is taken out of her breast. The point is there's no logical reason why breastfeeding should offend someone less than my example, because there's no logical difference in what you're seeing. The purpose doesn't change what you're actually seeing, just how you perceive it.



Species really shouldn't matter either than, should it. You'd just see one animal sucking the tit of another. No logical difference at all.
Or if the women uses a breastpump, really, it's just one physical entity sucking the tit of another. Absolutely no logical difference in terms of what you see. As long as you avoid interpreting what you see in any realistic way.

Logically there is no difference in what you see (although you could argue a difference with the pump). There is no logical reason why breastfeeding should be an exception. Either it's acceptable to see a tit in public, or it isn't.

Too bad I'm a male and my teats don't produce any milk. :p

Try oestrogen, (or estrogen if ure a yank :P same stuff different spelling).

Makes Females make more milk (or hormones i forget lol), makes men grow
b00bs. Lol if your desperate its your faviroute drug.

Firstly, gender?

Umm, slightly more then half of babies are female...

If you're going to go age then where's your cut off point? A woman naturally lactates as long as the milk is taken out of her breast.


1) I was being playful in that post.
2) Logic doesn't mean what I think you think it means.
3) Are you really this dense or are you just being obtuse?

The point is <snip>

Quite frankly, your point is stupid

The purpose doesn't change what you're actually seeing,

Yes it does. You're just being absurd.

Umm, slightly more then half of babies are female...

Eh, the adult could be female easily as well.


1) I was being playful in that post.
2) Logic doesn't mean what I think you think it means.
3) Are you really this dense or are you just being obtuse?



Quite frankly, your point is stupid



Yes it does. You're just being absurd.

My point is (though I seem to have drifted off) that if you're offended by something you're offended by it. And that would be the logic for banning public viewing of it. An exception for breastfeeding makes no sense. If it doesn't offend (or insert whatever word you prefer) people to see a nipple brought out for the purpose of breast feeding then there's no reason it should offend people brought out for another purpose.

My point is (though I seem to have drifted off) that if you're offended by something you're offended by it. And that would be the logic for banning public viewing of it. An exception for breastfeeding makes no sense. If it doesn't offend (or insert whatever word you prefer) people to see a nipple brought out for the purpose of breast feeding then there's no reason it should offend people brought out for another purpose.

Clearly, I shouldn't be bothered by one person beating the crap out of another with a baseball bat. After all, I'm perfectly alright with someone pulling out a baseball bat to hit a ball. It must therefore be ok to pull it out hit a person, right? The purpose can't possibly matter.

Eh, the adult could be female easily as well.

Except you clearly said "grown man". (I double checked)

My point is (though I seem to have drifted off) that if you're offended by something you're offended by it. And that would be the logic for banning public viewing of it.

That doesn't make everything potentially offensive equal, nor does it mean it should be controlled in the public sphere simply by dint of it potentially offending a lunatic fringe.

An exception for breastfeeding makes no sense.

Of course it does. It makes as much sense as also making making a exception for holternecks, couples holding hands, listening to music and myriad otherthings that some get offended by.

If it doesn't offend (or insert whatever word you prefer) people to see a nipple brought out for the purpose of breast feeding then there's no reason it should offend people brought out for another purpose.

Of course there is a difference. But true, there is no reason a nipple should be seen as offensive.

After reading throughout this thread I'm seriously considering becoming a wet nurse, for additional income and all that jazz, and I'm going to advertise my trade here on NSG. The perk is that I'm willing to take baby and adult costumers. Anyone interested?

:D

Except you clearly said "grown man". (I double checked)

Construe one to include both. It's normal enough.



Of course it does. It makes as much sense as also making making a exception for holternecks, couples holding hands, listening to music and myriad otherthings that some get offended by.

Your examples are different because the events are different. If the only difference is the purpose then an exception makes no sense. Like if you're banning wearing halternecks except where someone has nothing else clean to where.


Of course there is a difference. But true, there is no reason a nipple should be seen as offensive.

I agree. But either it's unacceptable to see it in public or it's acceptable.

After reading throughout this thread I'm seriously considering becoming a wet nurse, for additional income and all that jazz, and I'm going to advertise my trade here on NSG. The perk is that I'm willing to take baby and adult costumers. Anyone interested?

:D

There's a special wetnurse costume?

=)

I agree. But either it's unacceptable to see it in public or it's acceptable.

Exactly...and it should be Acceptable...

And if its offensive to some people, thats fine with those people...

But it doesnt give them the right to dictate their morals on everyone else...

You don't actually see the milk, from a viewing point of view it makes no difference. You're still seeing the same thing.


From the point of view of not seeing the milk, it is identical. From the point of view of not seeing the nipple, it is identical.

However, the two things are clearly not identical.

If you are in a person's private home, and you see the mother breastfeeding the child - even THOUGH it is their own home - the age of the child will make a difference to how you perceive the process. If the mother is breastfeeding her husband, the maturity of the husband is definitely going to make a difference to how you perceive the act. Baby breastfeeding is food. Adult breastfeeding will be perceived as fetishism.

You can argue that the things 'look' the same, although you know they don't... but context IS important.

Construe one to include both. It's normal enough.

Silly me, thinking we had gender neutral nouns.

In modern contexts if someone says man, they mean male. Woman = female. Clarity dictates that if you mean both sexes you use person, individual or another gender neutral noun.

Your examples are different because the events are different.

My examples are different because they are different? :confused:

Where is that much vaunted logic?

Other then evasion. Why shouldn't anything that might cause offense be regulated in the public sphere?

If the only difference is the purpose then an exception makes no sense.

I respectfully refer you to Dem's post above

Exactly...and it should be Acceptable...

And if its offensive to some people, thats fine with those people...

But it doesnt give them the right to dictate their morals on everyone else...

Society dictates its morals, hence all the public indecency laws we have etc. Hence all the laws we have.

Silly me, thinking we had gender neutral nouns.

In modern contexts if someone says man, they mean male. Woman = female. Clarity dictates that if you mean both sexes you use person, individual or another gender neutral noun.

Silly you being pedantic about the use of a pronoun that can be used as gender neutral and didn't make any differences.


Quote:
Your examples are different because the events are different.

My examples are different because they are different?

Where is that much vaunted logic?

You're showing different sets of events. My argument is regarding the same set of events with different contexts/purposes.


Other then evasion. Why shouldn't anything that might cause offense be regulated in the public sphere?

Many are.

It boils down to this. A woman reveals her nipple for (Smunkeeville's estimation) 5 seconds. In scenario A she covers it with a child, in scenario B she covers it with her shirt.

I don't see how it's plausible to claim that one is offended to the point of illegality by the second scenario's 5 seconds of viewing, but not at all by the first scenario's 5 seconds.

Society dictates its morals, hence all the public indecency laws we have etc. Hence all the laws we have.

Society (under the aegis of government) is pushing for more mothers to breastfeed.

Given the benefits to not only mother and infant, but also society at large. This is entirely logical.

Society (under the aegis of government) is pushing for more mothers to breastfeed.

Given the benefits to not only mother and infant, but also society at large. This is entirely logical.

We're also pushing for people to use condoms more. It's irrelevant to this point. Just because something is encouraged in general doesn't mean anything beyond that. People would still find it reasonable to stop them having sex in public.

It boils down to this. A woman reveals her nipple for (Smunkeeville's estimation) 5 seconds. In scenario A she covers it with a child, in scenario B she covers it with her shirt.

I don't see how it's plausible to claim that one is offended to the point of illegality by the second scenario's 5 seconds of viewing, but not at all by the first scenario's 5 seconds.

Personally, I don't think it should be illegal for a woman to show nipple at all (especially considering that it is not illegal for a man to do so).

But, that said, a woman who unintentionally flashes 5 seconds of nipple is not going to be arrested for it (there are plenty of perfectly legal articles of clothing in which this could happen). Likewise, a woman who unintentionally flashes 5 seconds of nipple while starting or ending feeding should not be.

After reading throughout this thread I'm seriously considering becoming a wet nurse, for additional income and all that jazz, and I'm going to advertise my trade here on NSG. The perk is that I'm willing to take baby and adult costumers. Anyone interested?

:D

did you just say wetnurse?
:eek:

We're also pushing for people to use condoms more. It's irrelevant to this point. Just because something is encouraged in general doesn't mean anything beyond that.

Has your government set up a website encouraging procreating? It doesn't matter really. This isn't about sex in public. Your diversions are tiresome.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say x is against y, when there is evidence to the contrary and just wave your hands and make the evidence disappear.

Personally, I don't think it should be illegal for a woman to show nipple at all (especially considering that it is not illegal for a man to do so).

But, that said, a woman who unintentionally flashes 5 seconds of nipple is not going to be arrested for it (there are plenty of perfectly legal articles of clothing in which this could happen). Likewise, a woman who unintentionally flashes 5 seconds of nipple while starting or ending feeding should not be.

Then you're holding them to the same standard, which I agree with, but is not the current legal status with the statutory exceptions for breastfeeding.

Silly you being pedantic about the use of a pronoun that can be used as gender neutral and didn't make any differences.

No pedantic would be pointing out "man" is a noun.

I'm just asking for clarity.

You're showing different sets of events. My argument is regarding the same set of events with different contexts/purposes.

That wasn't what I was replying to. But nevermind

Many are.

But that's not an answer

I don't see how it's plausible to claim that one is offended to the point of illegality by the second scenario's 5 seconds of viewing, but not at all by the first scenario's 5 seconds.

Did you type that with a straight face. Because I didn't read it with one :)

However context is important.

No pedantic would be pointing out "man" is a noun.

I'm just asking for clarity.
You're going to hell for that :p

You're going to hell for that :p

;)

Then you're holding them to the same standard, which I agree with, but is not the current legal status with the statutory exceptions for breastfeeding.

It's not really a standard I'm holding them to. It's a standard that police, etc. hold them to, as a matter of intent. A woman who is trying to flash her nipples around may be cited for public indecency. A woman who accidentally does so momentarily is incredibly unlikely to face any legal consequences.

did you just say wetnurse?
:eek:

Yup, I did just said wet nurse.

There's a special wetnurse costume?

=)

There might be. Do you have any suggestions, though?

You ever noticed that babies don't say "Baby baby baby"?

In many ways, babies aren't really Pokemon, at all.

Win

I think women are perfectly natural and acceptable, however whilst in public, I think it is more comfortable for everyone (including the women herself) to be discreet, with covering over their entire bodies.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Exactly.

After reading throughout this thread I'm seriously considering becoming a wet nurse, for additional income and all that jazz, and I'm going to advertise my trade here on NSG. The perk is that I'm willing to take baby and adult costumers. Anyone interested?

:D
will you be charging by the minute, pint or what?

will you be charging by the minute, pint or what?

By the teat pull. That way costumers are careful.:D

Exactly.

Heh, I was twenty words into a reply to that post, when I realized you couldn't possibly be serious. You scallywag!

By the teat pull. That way costumers are careful.:D

aww... that sucks! :D

I'm a breast-feeding mum at the moment. I always take a blanket with me when I go out with my daughter, and normally she's covered while she's feeding. Most people seem quite ok with that.
And I feed her anywhere that's convenient-in a movie theatre, a park bench, shopping centre, whatever. Because she needs feeding and I still need to feel like a rational, emotionally-satisfied human being, I take her out ;)
I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but where I am, nursing stations are not that common. Hell, finding a baby changing station can be hard enough. A lot of restaurants are short on space, so they only have small toilet cubicles. There is no way I want to sit on a toilet to feed my baby :(
The nursing stations here are worse than doctors' waiting-rooms IMO. They are small, painted in white (or pastels) and mind-numbingly boring. If you're lucky (?) you get background muzak to complete the job of driving you nuts. At least they could leave a few copies of Vogue or National Geo for me to look at? :p

I frankly don't care.

How are you defining irrational here? Because that's a very subjective statement.

If someone believes breasts should be covered at all time in public then their opposition to breastfeeding in public would be perfectly rational.

Except that the belief leading to the opposition is in and of itself irrational.

aww... that sucks! :D

Only a complete boob would make such a pun at a time like this.

Exactly.

So, are you trying to imply that I basically said that women should cover up?

Because, that's not what I said. I would publicly breast feed. I just think that in society - or at least, in mine - it's better to cover up a little rather than having your breast entirely exposed because of the way many people tend to react.

I don't see a problem with breastfeeding in public.

Maybe there's a solution there. I wouldn't back myself to always recognize a nursing dress or blouse, though the woman having a baby with her and smelling of milk might tip me off.

So perhaps nursing clothes should have some special markings, so less perceptive people are fairly warned of where a tit is likely to appear. Some kind of "breast at work" symbol on one or both ... I'm imagining something like the hammer and sickle. Not ... anything discreet.

:rolleyes:

I don't see a problem with breastfeeding in public.

Neither do I.

Except that the belief leading to the opposition is in and of itself irrational.So is the belief people should be dressed at all, or shouldn't have sex in public, or that people should have the freedom of speech, or that peoples beliefs and action need any justification; any belief that involves values and conventions is irrational.
Believing rationality to have some objective value is irrational. If calling something irrational is the only argument against it, then there's no rational reason to care.

:rolleyes:

What?

:rolleyes:

I mean, what?

If all you're saying is that YOU would exercise discretion, then fine. You seem to be saying, however, that "society being what it is" that it's better for a woman to cover up her baby and her breast. You don't just say "this is what I would do" -- you said it was "better for everyone."

I'm saying "fuck no" and anyone who has a problem with breastfeeding in their line of sight, deserves no consideration at all. It's just that: their problem.

And if the woman isn't prepared to stare down perverts and moralists, that's totally her business. She can be as discreet as she likes, obviously. But you didn't say that -- you said "everyone."

Do you have any reply, now that your scornful smiley has forced me to make my point without humour?

When did "My, that dress looks lovely on you." stop being a polite compliment?

Y'know what, I love you dearly, but when you wake up, I'm gonna smack you upside the head. It's a compliment when you know the woman and know it would be appreciated. It's incredibly rude to walk up to a stranger and comment on what they're wearing, nice or not. And COMMAS, dammit!

I mean, what?

If all you're saying is that YOU would exercise discretion, then fine. You seem to be saying, however, that "society being what it is" that it's better for a woman to cover up her baby and her breast. You don't just say "this is what I would do" -- you said it was "better for everyone."

I'm saying "fuck no" and anyone who has a problem with breastfeeding in their line of sight, deserves no consideration at all. It's just that: their problem.

And if the woman isn't prepared to stare down perverts and moralists, that's totally her business. She can be as discreet as she likes, obviously. But you didn't say that -- you said "everyone."

Do you have any reply, now that your scornful smiley has forced me to make my point without humour?

But your "humourous" point wasn't fair, because I was in no way insinuating what you assumed I was.

I am a woman, and I would breastfeed in public. I was trying to make myself clear, as I thought the original poster would have expected. I wasn't suggesting that women need to cover themselves and I certainly didn't say they should cover their baby: I was just making my thoughts clear, and that is that public breastfeeding is completely normal and should be accepted, but what I was trying to say is that given the responses that people may have - perverts and moralists, I suppose - it's more comfortable for the woman AND those people for the woman to use a little blanket or have a specially designed shirt. I don't know any women who wouldn't use something: I was trying to say that it's probably better if we don't take our tops off, which is something I would never imagine a mother doing anyway, so perhaps my point about descretion was null and void.

I may beio drunk right now, but Io think a woman breasthofeeding her baby in pulbi c is heartwarming. Because itos so wholesome and good and the tway things aught to be. How could anyone finde fault with a mother feedi9ng her child? To me, peopl s denouncng mothers wbho breastfeed their babies is disgusting.

When I see a mother breastfeeding her infant, it's like a great happy voice saying "Yay verily, all is right in the world and this mommy is taking care of her cute widdle baby"

It's wonderful. How people could possibly get offended at such a sweet image that just makes me go "Awwwwwwwww...." I hav e no idea.

Y'know what, I love you dearly, but when you wake up, I'm gonna smack you upside the head. It's a compliment when you know the woman and know it would be appreciated. It's incredibly rude to walk up to a stranger and comment on what they're wearing, nice or not. And COMMAS, dammit!


What if tyou want to know whereih they shop?

What if tyou want to know whereih they shop?

Pfsir, yuor speliing is idsgracefuyl. STO[P THQTA!

Pfsir, yuor speliing is idsgracefuyl. STO[P THQTA!

I'm adfroing the best I can, considdrin g how drunk I am.

I may beio drunk right now, but Io think a woman breasthofeeding her baby in pulbi c is heartwarming. Because itos so wholesome and good and the tway things aught to be. How could anyone finde fault with a mother feedi9ng her child?

That I agree with. It IS heartwarming, it makes any decent person feel tender and protective.

I'm distrustful of instinct generally. But in the case of pregnant women, nursing mothers and parents in general, I'm proud to say I discriminate in their favour.

aww... that sucks! :D

:D

Only a complete boob would make such a pun at a time like this.
So... it does bite dammit.

well, I guess we can go tit for tat on this... we really should milk it for all it's worth.

:D :fluffle:

Edit: wow...smilies are case sensitive... :eek:

:Fluffle:

:fluffle:

I may beio drunk right now, but Io think a woman breasthofeeding her baby in pulbi c is heartwarming. Because itos so wholesome and good and the tway things aught to be. How could anyone finde fault with a mother feedi9ng her child? To me, peopl s denouncng mothers wbho breastfeed their babies is disgusting.

When I see a mother breastfeeding her infant, it's like a great happy voice saying "Yay verily, all is right in the world and this mommy is taking care of her cute widdle baby"

It's wonderful. How people could possibly get offended at such a sweet image that just makes me go "Awwwwwwwww...." I hav e no idea.

You rock!:p