Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

Plumbthedepths

RacoonQueen wrote:

Holy Jesus I think this must be the stupidest post I've ever seen on boards and that really does take some doing.

The post you quoted in fairness was a sarcastic response to the nonsense spouted by someone else.

paleoperson

the beer revolu wrote: »

No they aren't.
Everyone is laughing at you, the OP, and One Eyed Jack.

Real life out loud laughing.

It's a pity you would say this, now he will feel emboldened and as if there was the slightest shred of truth in all that nonsense.

I would argue that anyone who thinks breasts are not sexual or "no more sexual than any other body part" is not a fully functioning member of society.

Sorry about that

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Less of the demonising of women who choose not to breastfeed, please.

Shame on you.

No shame at all, I haven't demonised anyone. I think you're trying to be provocative. You'd be more productive if you'd take a quick look at those guidelines.

One eyed Jack

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not denying evolution, I've admitted it's a function of breasts however it is very much an additional function as it only exists in humans whereas mammary glands produce milk across all mammals because it's their primary function. Mammals evolved with mammary glands to produce and store milk for their young. The fact that in humans they've evolved to also be a sexual attraction is very much an add-on. You'd hardly argue the ability to make puppy eyes is of equal importance to a dog as sight. It's an additional function that evolved long after they evolved eyes in the first place.

This stuff about assuming primary and secondary functions in evolution is denying evolution, or at least not understanding what evolution actually means. It’s like an appeal to nature fallacy that assumes evolution has some form of consciousness that determines what is good and what is bad. It falls flat on its arse for numerous phenomena in evolution which are just... evolution.

I wouldn’t argue that anything in evolution is more important than anything else, because I am aware of for example numerous genetic conditions which at one point in evolution offered what would be considered an advantage, which are now considered a disadvantage or a disability in modern society.

Plumbthedepths

paleoperson wrote:

I would argue that anyone who thinks breasts are not sexual or "no more sexual than any other body part" is not a fully functioning member of society.

I don't find breasts sexual at all, I can understand why some do but having been breastfeed myself seen my siblings breastfeed and watched my wife feed our children in the same manner they do nothing for me on a sexual basis whereas a nice shapely ass.....mmmm.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It's like riding a bike really isn't it, breastfeeding.

Tricky to get the hang of but once you've learned it you just never lose the knack of sucking a boob.

Jack, seriously. Are you ok?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know, “monkey see, monkey do” is a fairly valid assumption that applies in human and animal behaviour, only humans had the capacity throughout history to develop alternative means of nourishing their infants so we didn’t have to breastfeed.

Newborns don't copy anyone, they have a rooting instinct where they search for the milk. Just like all mammals. This is not difficult stuff.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This stuff about assuming primary and secondary functions in evolution is denying evolution, or at least not understanding what evolution actually means.

Says the poster who said that babies were given plant milk before breast feeding was a thing.

One eyed Jack

bee06 wrote: »

If you put a newborn baby on it’s mother’s chest it will crawl to the nipple to latch on. It’s the baby’s instinct. It’s not watching all the other babies going “hmm, that looks good, I’ll have me some of that”.

I should have clarified I suppose that I wasn’t referring to babies watching other babies breastfeeding, i was referring to people who saw women breastfeeding and copied them. The idea that breastfeeding is the easiest method of nourishing an infant comes from the fact that it’s a popular method of feeding infants, not solely for it’s nutritional value but because it releases hormones like oxytocin in the woman breastfeeding, which influences bonding between the infant and the breastfeeding woman. While the need for nourishment is instinctive in infants, that’s a different argument from suggesting that breastfeeding is instinctive in women. I happen to know that there’s a lot more to women than imagining their primary function is to breed and feed so to speak, but because of cultural and social influences, motherhood is elevated in most societies throughout human civilisation.

OMM 0000

I used to have a pet crow, a lovely little fella who loved a sing song and would eat anything. One day we were on Grafton Street and he was dying for a snack, so I started **** into his mouth. I got arrested and did three years in Mountjoy. It's really a disgrace - if women can breast feed their kids in public, why can't I **** into a crow's mouth? Makes no sense. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Katelyn Putrid Tackle wrote: »

It's like riding a bike really isn't it, breastfeeding.

Tricky to get the hang of but once you've learned it you just never lose the knack of sucking a boob.

Jack, seriously. Are you ok?

I’m fine, but honestly electro, thanks for asking.

Pint of water beside me and chilled out on the couch

Plumbthedepths

Have you ever read someone's comments and wondered to yourself how did they even figure out how to write?

ToddyDoody

ZilkyG wrote: »

Genuine question. This seems to be all the rage now, and the argument for it, is that it's completely natural! Well so is ****ting, yet society dictates that we must withdraw to the shadows for something so 'natural'.

Zilky if you want to s*it in public you go for it.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Newborns don't copy anyone, they have a rooting instinct where they search for the milk. Just like all mammals. This is not difficult stuff.

Actually it's very difficult stuff! It's as complex as it is fascinating, that a newborn knows how to seek out a breast moments after birth.

I grew up on a farm, yet I never cease to be amazed by how calves and foals instinctively seek-out the dark part of the dam's groin (they never start by nuzzling the forelegs) for their food. I know it's a biological reflex, but how?

But I get what you're saying, and completely agree.

Plumbthedepths

OMM 0000 wrote:

I used to have a pet crow, a lovely little fella who loved a sing song and would eat anything. One day we were on Grafton Street and he was dying for a snack, so I started **** into his mouth. I got arrested and did three years in Mountjoy. It's really a disgrace - if women can breast feed their kids in public, why can't I **** into a crow's mouth? Makes no sense.

You're confusing public masturbation with feeding a child. Did your solicitor not explain the difference?

StudentDad

I posted on this earlier and then read the thread. I'm baffled as to why there is such a dislike of breastfeeding, as shown by some of the posts. As far as I'm concerned breastfeeding a baby is probably the most logical route to take. It's tax free, entirely natural and does not require the paraphernalia and added outlay of formula milk. If a mother chooses to feed her child in this way it should be celebrated. So, the way I see it is if an individual has a gripe with seeing a woman feeding her child in this manner. Maybe, they should just mind their own business. Bearing in mind that interfering in any way with this practice will, if necessary, bring a legal sanction on the interfering individual.

Plumbthedepths

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

I grew up on a farm, yet I never cease to be amazed by how calves and foals instinctively seek-out the dark part of the dam's groin (they never start by nuzzling the forelegs) for their food. I know it's a biological reflex, but how?

Yet a poster here claims nature has no intent and all this behaviour is learned. Who teaches the new born animals?

Lefty Bicek

eviltwin wrote: »

Who is demonising women who use formula?

Obviously, the other poster is. Duh. If a person says, as the other poster did, that

'the WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines on breastfeeding. These are based on best evidence... '

... then anything else other than breastfeeding, is by definition, not best practice.

For an alternative perspective on that type of judgementalism...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/an-unrealistic-pressure-mothers-on-what-its-like-to-breastfeed

Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary.

Since people think they're smart enough to throw the WHO around, have some of this...

https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/bf_counselling_participants_manual3.pdf

There are many situations in which expressing breastmilk is useful and important to enable a mother to initiate or continue breastfeeding.

Expressing milk is useful to:
- relieve engorgement;
- relieve blocked duct or milk stasis;
- feed a baby while he learns to suckle from an inverted nipple;
- feed a baby who has difficulty in coordinating suckling;
- feed a baby who `refuses', while he learns to enjoy breastfeeding;
- feed a low-birth-weight baby who cannot breastfeed;
- feed a sick baby, who cannot suckle enough;
- keep up the supply of breastmilk when a mother or baby is ill;
- leave breastmilk for a baby when his mother goes out or to work;
- prevent leaking when a mother is away from her baby.
- help a baby to attach to a full breast;
- express breastmilk directly into a baby's mouth;
- prevent the nipple and areola from becoming dry and sore.

So, really, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing milk. Nothing.

It might even seem to be sensible to have a bottle handy in the baby bag when you're out and about.

But who would notice that ?

Plumbthedepths

Lefty Bicek wrote:

Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary.

How do you know ?

OMM 0000

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You're confusing public masturbation with feeding a child. Did your solicitor not explain the difference?

No, I was too busy **** into his mouth.

volchitsa

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary.

So, really, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing milk. Nothing.

It might even seem to be sensible to have a bottle handy in the baby bag when you're out and about.

But who would notice that ?

So, buy a breast feeding pump and bottles, oh and a sterilising system for bottles. Then pump enough milk into a series of bottles or freezer bags put them in a freezer, and when you're going out don't forget to have everything ready so that by the time the baby is hungry you have both enough to satisfy him/her but not so much that you end up having to throw out your preciously collected breast milk. Because you can't just go and buy more in the shop.

Not difficult at all of course (sarcasm, in case anyone wonders) - and why should someone be expected to do that if they don't want to, just because some people are unable to separate their sexuality from seeing random women in the street. Do you feel women on the beach shouldn't be in bikinis any more than strictly necessary, and who decides what is necessary anyway?

(There are lots of reasons for having a supply of breast milk handy - but having a bottle ready so you don't offend other people's sensibilities by feeding in public really doesn't seem to me to be one of them. In fact it seems like a contradiction of the point of breastfeeding in the first place, which is a lot to do with things like, women who don't have much money don't have to buy extra equipment, you don't need to worry about running out of milk when you're out somewhere, etc.)

eviltwin

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Obviously, the other poster is. Duh. If a person says, as the other poster did, that



... then anything else other than breastfeeding, is by definition, not best practice.

For an alternative perspective on that type of judgementalism...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/an-unrealistic-pressure-mothers-on-what-its-like-to-breastfeed

Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary.

Since people think they're smart enough to throw the WHO around, have some of this...

https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/bf_counselling_participants_manual3.pdf



So, really, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing milk. Nothing.

It might even seem to be sensible to have a bottle handy in the baby bag when you're out and about.

But who would notice that ?

It is best practice to breast feed. Always has. That doesn't mean that formula is bad, it's not, but breast milk is unique and cannot be replicated. The benefits to mother and child cannot be replicated by formula.

How on earth that demonises a woman who uses formula I fail to see. I used formula and I don't find anything judgemental is stating the obvious.

micar

I'm single......two of sisters have children

I've seen more of their boobs than any other womans in the last few years due to their breastfeeding.

FML

eviltwin

volchitsa wrote: »

So, buy a breast feeding pump and bottles, oh and a sterilising system for bottles. Then pump enough milk into a series of bottles or freezer bags put them in a freezer, and when you're going out don't forget to have everything ready so that by the time the baby is hungry you have both enough to satisfy him/her but not so much that you end up having to throw out your preciously collected breast milk.

Not difficult at all of course - and why should someone be expected to do that if they don't want to, just because some people are unable to separate their sexuality from seeing random women in the street. Do you feel women on the beach shouldn't be in bikinis any more than strictly necessary, and who decides what is necessary anyway?

(There are lots of reasons for having a supply of breast milk handy - but having a bottle ready so you don't offend other people's sensibilities by feeding in public really doesn't seem to me to be one of them.)

Don't forget the sheer time wasted pumping, it takes forever!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

micar wrote: »

I'm single......two of sisters have children

I've seen more of their boobs than any other womans in the last few years due to their breastfeeding.

FML

It's a bit like saying you know their PIN numbers because they're always buying stuff with credit cards.

Just look away.

Plumbthedepths

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Just look away.

Yeah but but.....no outrage.

One eyed Jack

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yet a poster here claims nature has no intent and all this behaviour is learned. Who teaches the new born animals?

Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested” who can still breastfeed).

You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than” us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animals”.

sydthebeat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested” who can still breastfeed).

You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than” us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animals”.

LOL

You're obviously not a sociology student.... As you've just dismissed a whole genre of science....

Plumbthedepths

One eyed Jack wrote:

Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested†who can still breastfeed).

One eyed Jack wrote:

You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than†us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animalsâ€.

Dude I'm genuinely reluctant to call you an idiot but you are making it incredibly difficult not to do so.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nature has no intent, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. Essentially, shìt just happens. Some shìt works to our advantage sometimes, and some shìt leaves us at a disadvantage in terms of how we have evolved, in the broader context of evolution as a whole. Women’s mammary glands would still produce milk for infants, but that doesn’t explain why their breasts are permanently enlarged after puberty (and that’s not even accounting for women who are “flat chested” who can still breastfeed).

And attract a mate to reproduce with before that - which pretty much knocks on the head the claim that breasts are a necessary sexual sign for males.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You might think you’re being smart with your who teaches the new born animals question, but in coming up with that question you’d be failing to acknowledge that while humans themselves are also animals, we differ from animals in that we aren’t as prone to acting on our primitive instincts. That’s why humans regard themselves as the apex of evolution, and animals are “less than” us. It’s why we say when we see people behaving in what we consider to be an inappropriate behaviour for civilised society, that they’re “acting like animals”.

Well I can quite see why someone who thinks that it's acceptable for a parent to cut off contact with their children from a previous relationship just because the new partner doesn't like that child being around wouldn't think that humans act "better" than the most basic animal instincts. Cats do better than that.