Cheeky_gal wrote: » Didn't realise people weren't entitled to their own opinion on Boards.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » Breast feed elsewhere, not a restaurant.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » Didn't realise people weren't entitled to their own opinion on Boards. Some of you would want to relax. Especially you Dudess with the foul language. Breast feed elsewhere, not a restaurant.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » I wonder if the majority of people feel this way.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » Some of you would want to relax. Especially you Dudess with the foul language.
ilovesleep wrote: » Is she supposed to feed her baby in the jacks or something?
Dudess wrote: » Maybe I'm being sexist, but it's particularly gear-grinding when a woman has this attitude. OP, I'm assuming her breasts were covered up as much as possible, and only the nipple in the baby's mouth wasn't? That is usually how public breastfeeding goes. Therefore, those who are offended by tits out (but it's ok on page 3) are actually imagining things. The reason some women do this is because their babies won't take bottle-feeds, and they can't limit feeds to just private places - because the baby could start getting very hungry in public. And something tells me you wouldn't be tolerant of a baby screaming with hunger in public either.
iguana wrote: » The law is very, very clear on this. The woman in question was acting within the law. You very possibly were in breach of it.
Dudess wrote: » The claim about everyone else looking shocked is no doubt made up.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » Going by people's facial expressions in the restaurant they weren't too impressed.
Toby Take a Bow wrote: » Can someone who is eating in the restaurant be fined for it? I would've thought it would only apply to people operating the restaurant.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » Firstly, I wasn't "offended". Secondly, I'm not trolling. I genuinely don't understand why she couldn't have done this in her car, in the bathroom, somewhere more private, but a restaurant? And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, the people I were with said they found it shocking too. And no, they're not "morons" for feeling this way. It's a matter of opinion and I'm entitled to it, just because you guys don't agree doesn't make me a "troll".
kincsem wrote: » The restaurant should charge the baby imo.
Toby Take a Bow wrote: » Like corkage or something?
Cheeky_gal wrote: » I genuinely don't understand why she couldn't have done this in her car, in the bathroom, somewhere more private, but a restaurant?
And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, the people I were with said they found it shocking too. And no, they're not "morons" for feeling this way.
hondasam wrote: » I'm sorry everyone but I'm with the OP on this one ignorant or not I would prefer if it did not happen in the restaurant but then again kids in restaurants tend to annoy me anyway. Having said that I'm sure she was discreet about it but I also think she could have gone to a private location to feed the baby or fed the baby before she went to the restaurant.
Killed By Death wrote: » I think I'll hide this thread. It's depressing.
Cheeky_gal wrote: » Exactly, I never once said it was "disgusting" of the mother, but I do think she could have done it elsewhere. Not in a restaurant. You all seem very annoyed. I didn't mean to cause offence. A debate more so as it's an interesting discussion.
ilovesleep wrote: » But if the woman is out and about with her baby for a couple of hours and the baby begins to get hungry, where in a busy town, village or town is private?