nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Breastfeeding in Public places

Mr_Red

Story Here

Lou Burns said she burst into tears when staff members at the five-star venue asked her to cover herself and her baby with an oversized napkin in order to avoid “causing offence” to other guests.

The mother-of-three was enjoying afternoon tea in the main Tea Room on Monday when the incident happened.

Ms Burns, who is married to actor Nick Burns - best known for the comic character Nathan Barley, told The Evening Standard waiters rushed over and covered her when she began feeding her daughter.

Im not sure if I disagree with the Hotel here.

Opinions?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ezra_pound

Tarzana2 wrote: »

This is it.

People might be fine with women breastfeeding in public, but it might personally make them uncomfortable if there's a lot of breast on show. Boobs on display in public whether to do with breastfeeding or not, whether young or old, big or small, veiny or not, would raise an eyebrow in our society currently, not just in Ireland but in most of the western world anyway. Maybe that will change but for now that would be a fairly standard reaction due to social conditioning. It's a bit unfair to attack people for it, it's not necessarily specifically to do with breastfeeding, more an exposed breast.

The reality is that this is not the issue at all. Women breast feeding in public are invariably extremely discreet and don't show anything. They are used to having to discreetly get on with it.

Tarzana2

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The point is though that breastfeeding does not equal exposed breasts.

I know that. In most cases, it won't equal exposed breasts. In some cases it will though (all of the breast basically with only nipple hidden), and my post is relevant to that instance. It's better in these cases to try and understand why someone might be taken aback and to take into account pervasive social conditioning (something we are all susceptible too in many different ways) than to judge them in a knee jerk manner.

Breasts are most certainly overly sexualised in our culture and this is a comparatively new thing (c. mid 19th century onwards). This is just how it is at this moment in time. But it can change, it's just going to take time. And understanding. On both sides.

Thumpette

I'm due my first baby in a couple of weeks and I hope to breast feed. No- one in my family ever has- it's regarded as falling somewhere from creepy to overly hippy attached to inconvenient. I just feel there are a huge number of benefits for both the baby and me, so I'm determined to try regardless. I think it's an awful shame that I'll have no family support in this (though hubbie and friends will be great)

As for the matter of feeding in public- it's nearly enough to put me off. I don't intend to be secreting myself in a dirty toilet or walking around with the baby half smothered under a blanket. I do intend to be discreet and have been buying clothes to make that easier. At the end of the day tho getting comfortable with feeding sounds challenging enough just getting positions right without obsessing that some poor fragile soul in a cafe will be offended at a 2 second nipple slip. Now I'm stubborn enough that I hope this won't effect my decisions but I'm sure a lot of people are put off breast feeding because of the likes of these instances. Surely that can't be right!

ezra_pound

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I know that. In most cases, it won't equal exposed breasts. In some cases it will though (all of the breast basically with only nipple hidden), and my post is relevant to that instance. It's better in these cases to try and understand why someone might be taken aback and to take into account pervasive social conditioning (something we are all susceptible too in many different ways) than to judge them in a knee jerk manner.

Breasts are most certainly overly sexualised in our culture and this is a comparatively new thing (c. mid 19th century onwards). This is just how it is at this moment in time. But it can change, it's just going to take time. And understanding. On both sides.

Have you ever seen that though -all of the breast with only the nipple hidden? In public? You're talking about a hypothetical situation that doesn't actually occur and using it as a defence against breast feeding.

Maybe a mother of a new born in her own home -but not in public.

RobertKK

Other mammals breastfeed in public...it is natural.

Fagashlil

Thumpette, How on earth do they find it inconvenient? I can feed my child anytime, anywhere, no need to be sterilising bottles etc? Some people are mad.

I don't get the embarrassment, especially of the older generation, I was in Mcdonalds with my MIL and baby needed to be fed, as soon as I started she threw his pram blanket over him, she was mortified, didn't know where to look. She may fcuk right off, unless she wants to eat her meals under a blanket, there's no way my child is.

I don't "whip" them out, I wear a double layer of clothes, a top that pulls up and a feeding top the clips down, no big deal, and really nobody else's business how I choose to feed my child.

Thumpette

Fagashlil wrote: »

Thumpette, How on earth do they find it inconvenient? I can feed my child anytime, anywhere, no need to be sterilising bottles etc? Some people are mad.

I don't get the embarrassment, especially of the older generation, I was in Mcdonalds with my MIL and baby needed to be fed, as soon as I started she threw his pram blanket over him, she was mortified, didn't know where to look. She may fcuk right off, unless she wants to eat her meals under a blanket, there's no way my child is.

I don't "whip" them out, I wear a double layer of clothes, a top that pulls up and a feeding top the clips down, no big deal, and really nobody else's business how I choose to feed my child.

There's no logic to it really- think the inconvenient stems from not being able to get people to share in feeding duties. A lot of people have also commented that it's selfish and doesn't let the dad or anyone else who wants 'a go' at feeding the baby have their turn! I think all it takes is for someone to break the pattern tho. My 9 year old niece was horrified when I said first I was gonna fb but we've had loadsa chats (about how I wouldn't be bothered sterilising etc) and she's totally come round now.

Fagashlil

Good for you for being so determined. What my MIL doesn't realise that the more she nags me about getting pud on bottles, the longer I'm going to breastfeed for. It's better for us. It was tough for the first while, but once it works it works so well. Plenty of other ways for people to "have a go" there's always plenty of nappies to be changed, I don't get this weird obsession of other people wanting to feed someone else's child?

dubstarr

Thumpette wrote: »

I'm due my first baby in a couple of weeks and I hope to breast feed. No- one in my family ever has- it's regarded as falling somewhere from creepy to overly hippy attached to inconvenient. I just feel there are a huge number of benefits for both the baby and me, so I'm determined to try regardless. I think it's an awful shame that I'll have no family support in this (though hubbie and friends will be great)

As for the matter of feeding in public- it's nearly enough to put me off. I don't intend to be secreting myself in a dirty toilet or walking around with the baby half smothered under a blanket. I do intend to be discreet and have been buying clothes to make that easier. At the end of the day tho getting comfortable with feeding sounds challenging enough just getting positions right without obsessing that some poor fragile soul in a cafe will be offended at a 2 second nipple slip. Now I'm stubborn enough that I hope this won't effect my decisions but I'm sure a lot of people are put off breast feeding because of the likes of these instances. Surely that can't be right!

Nobody in my family bf at all.I was the only one.And teh sharing of the feeding of the baby i bet they wont offer to do the nighttime feeds.And then there are the horror stories of not being able to go out and drink.Or you will get sore nipples and mastitis.
Well your nippples do be sore until they toughen up and i only get mastitas once when my 2nd son was a yearvold.Some of us really had no bother feeding.Its not all doom and gloomAnd being discreet just buy a vest top and put it over your bra,unclip bra pull vesttop down.Put baby on,job done.

The only thing is i used it as a get out clause if somebody was annoying have to go and feed the baby,go upstsirs and have a nap.Win win situation.

[Deleted User]

Wow, pretty much everyone in my family breastfed. My Mother, my aunts, grandparents etc.. I didn't even know that some babies weren't breastfed until a was about 6 or 7, I remeber asking my Mother why we never had big containers of powder with cute animals on them like my schoolfriend had at home

Tarzana2

ezra_pound wrote: »

You're talking about a hypothetical situation that doesn't actually occur and using it as a defence against breast feeding.

I'm for breast-feeding in public.

As someone said earlier in the thread, at what stage a person becomes uncomfortable is a bit subjective, and I just think it's helpful to understand why it might make a person uncomfortable rather than going on the defensive.

Cienciano

Anyone that somehow thinks the world will end cos they saw some boob skin in public really need to get themselves a life

volchitsa

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I'm for breast-feeding in public.

As someone said earlier in the thread, at what stage a person becomes uncomfortable is a bit subjective, and I just think it's helpful to understand why it might make a person uncomfortable rather than going on the defensive.

The real question is whether or not it is a reasonable reaction to have. All the rest flows from the reply one gives to that.
If it is reasonable to feel that a woman shouldn't breast feed in public at all, then fair enough, we can have a discussion around that - but you seem to say it isn't actually reasonable to feel that. Right?

So then how exactly is it helpful to "understand" that other people might have this unreasonable reaction? In particular, do you agree a woman who makes an effort to understand that someone else might be uncomfortable at seeing her feeding her child is likely to end up bottle feeding in order to avoid the situation arsing in the first place?

And how far should we take this sensitivity to other people's unreasonable reactions anyway? What about people who are uncomfortable with a homosexual couple being seen out in public, should we respect their sensitivities too and expect such couples to pretend to be business partners? Or someone who is uncomfortable with seeing unveiled women?

Tarzana2

volchitsa wrote: »

The real question is whether or not it is a reasonable reaction to have. All the rest flows from the reply one gives to that.

Probably not, but I'd say there are many conventions that don't logically make much sense that are blindly followed, just due to people being conditioned that way.

People can and should discuss it, but berating people for it isn't helpful, IMO. You can bring people around to your way of thinking by articulately explaining your position or you can whinge "I don't see WHY you are not OK with this" as plenty have done in this thread.

UCDVet

I love this topic - mostly because it exposes some of the hypocrisy we take for granted. We could change our laws to be logically consistent, to make actual sense; but we won't because it makes people uncomfortable.

Why do we have laws preventing women from walking around topless? Clearly to protect the innocent sensibilities of everyone around them. Same deal with all clothing / indecent exposure laws.

Either breastfeeding should be illegal for the same reason....or it should be legal for all women to walk around topless, should they so desire.

Fagashlil

There's a huge difference between breastfeeding and walking around topless, it's idiotic to compare them.

UCDVet

Fagashlil wrote: »

There's a huge difference between breastfeeding and walking around topless, it's idiotic to compare them.

What's the huge difference?

If you actually stop and think about it; there really isn't.

seventeen sheep

UCDVet wrote: »

I love this topic - mostly because it exposes some of the hypocrisy we take for granted. We could change our laws to be logically consistent, to make actual sense; but we won't because it makes people uncomfortable.

Why do we have laws preventing women from walking around topless? Clearly to protect the innocent sensibilities of everyone around them. Same deal with all clothing / indecent exposure laws.

Either breastfeeding should be illegal for the same reason....or it should be legal for all women to walk around topless, should they so desire.

That is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Fagashlil wrote: »

There's a huge difference between breastfeeding and walking around topless, it's idiotic to compare them.

He's right, boobs don't suddenly stop being natural just because they're not feeding a baby.

If a woman wants to have them out in public who are you to tell her she can't? What is your reason for that? It's clear from this thread that other people having an issue with it is exactly that, their problem.

You can with a baby but she can't without a baby?

volchitsa

UCDVet wrote: »

What's the huge difference?

If you actually stop and think about it; there really isn't.

There really is you know. If you stop and think about it.

One is someone acting inappropriately, in order to shock, the other is much like wearing a swimsuit at a swimming competition even though the vast majority of people there are fully dressed - in Saudi Arabia obviously that too is unacceptable, but not in Western Europe. Because we don't have a permanent ban on nudity (look at billboards and films) we just expect the state of dress/undress to be suitable for what the person is doing.

Fagashlil

UCDVet wrote: »

What's the huge difference?

If you actually stop and think about it; there really isn't.

If I'm waking around topless, both my breasts are out.

If I'm breastfeeding my child, first of all I'm sitting down, and secondly, the only time you may see anything is when baby is latching on/off.

There's a specific purpose to breastfeeding, I'm not doing it for the sake of it or for the attention, I'm doing it to give my child the best nourishment I can.

Do the people who have such an issue with breastfeeding feel the same way when they go into a shop and see FHM/Nuts etc on the shelf?

Why isn't there a 16 page thread on how offensive some people find that?

UCDVet

seventeen sheep wrote: »

That is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read.

Maybe you could explain why?

It's illegal in Ireland for women to expose their breast. Except for breastfeeding. If you can't see a contradiction there, well, I'm not sure anyone can convince you otherwise....but you'd be wrong.

A law that says women can't take off their shirt, by it's very definition infringes upon the rights of women. That's fine, we have lots of laws that infringe upon the rights of individuals, but we do so for the greater good. To protect other innocent people from having their rights infringed upon. So, it's illegal for women to take off their shirts *because* we're saying other people have a right NOT to see topless women.

We're saying that women being topless is harmful or disruptive to people at large. That it is such a bad thing, we need legal protection from it.

UNLESS THERE IS A BABY INVOLVED.

How does that make any sense? If there is no harm in seeing a woman's breast, there should be no law against it. If there is harm in seeing a woman's breast - a nearby baby won't alleviate it.

Fagashlil

nm wrote: »

He's right, boobs don't suddenly stop being natural just because they're not feeding a baby.

If a woman wants to have them out in public who are you to tell her she can't? What is your reason for that? It's clear from this thread that other people having an issue with it is exactly that, their problem.

You can with a baby but she can't without a baby?

I've never said someone can't walk around topless, I've no problem with a female being topless, have done it myself many times on holidays. It's the law that says someone can't, however the law says I'm free to feed my child in public.

I still think it's idiotic to compare the 2.

UCDVet

volchitsa wrote: »

There really is you know. If you stop and think about it.

One is someone acting inappropriately, in order to shock, the other is much like wearing a swimsuit at a swimming competition even though the vast majority of people there are fully dressed - in Saudi Arabia obviously that too is unacceptable, but not in Western Europe. Because we don't have a permanent ban on nudity (look at billboards and films) we just expect the state of dress/undress to be suitable for what the person is doing.

Being topless is only inappropriate because you are presuming that it is. You haven't presented any reason why not having a shirt on (for women) is inappropriate.

And why do you assume that the only reason to be topless is in order to shock? If a man takes off his shirt, why is it that he might have a valid reason, but if a woman does it - it's to shock?

UCDVet

Fagashlil wrote: »

I've never said someone can't walk around topless, I've no problem with a female being topless, have done it myself many times on holidays. It's the law that says someone can't, however the law says I'm free to feed my child in public.

I still think it's idiotic to compare the 2.

The law is the law. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make it idiotic to compare laws. In fact we SHOULD compare laws, to ensure that they actually make sense.

Two laws that dictate when women can expose their breasts absolutely should be compared and considered as a whole.

volchitsa

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe you could explain why?

It's illegal in Ireland for women to expose their breast. Except for breastfeeding. If you can't see a contradiction there, well, I'm not sure anyone can convince you otherwise....but you'd be wrong.

A law that says women can't take off their shirt, by it's very definition infringes upon the rights of women. That's fine, we have lots of laws that infringe upon the rights of individuals, but we do so for the greater good. To protect other innocent people from having their rights infringed upon. So, it's illegal for women to take off their shirts *because* we're saying other people have a right NOT to see topless women.

We're saying that women being topless is harmful or disruptive to people at large. That it is such a bad thing, we need legal protection from it.

UNLESS THERE IS A BABY INVOLVED.

How does that make any sense? If there is no harm in seeing a woman's breast, there should be no law against it. If there is harm in seeing a woman's breast - a nearby baby won't alleviate it.

I presume you're in first year of vet, or we're in deep doodoo if that is the level of reflexion after several years of vet studies in Ireland!

You've never heard of the concept of relative harm, apparently?

Banning breastfeeding in public comes down to ensuring that the vast majority of babies will be bottle fed, despite knowing that this is not ideal for them, and is far more expensive for families. That is a great harm than the risk of seeing a part of a breast in public - particularly in a society where nudity is ever-present.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Fagashlil wrote: »

If I'm waking around topless, both my breasts are out.

So if someone is breastfeeding twins in public, you're against that?

Fagashlil wrote: »

There's a specific purpose to breastfeeding, I'm not doing it for the sake of it or for the attention, I'm doing it to give my child the best nourishment I can.

And if someone is breastfeeding for attention (like say a flash mob), you're against that too then?

UCDVet

Fagashlil wrote: »

If I'm waking around topless, both my breasts are out.

If I'm breastfeeding my child, first of all I'm sitting down, and secondly, the only time you may see anything is when baby is latching on/off.

There's a specific purpose to breastfeeding, I'm not doing it for the sake of it or for the attention, I'm doing it to give my child the best nourishment I can.

Do the people who have such an issue with breastfeeding feel the same way when they go into a shop and see FHM/Nuts etc on the shelf?

Why isn't there a 16 page thread on how offensive some people find that?

Either it is harmful for the public to see 'anything' or it isn't.

If it is harmful - we shouldn't allow anyone to do it public.
If it isn't harmful - we should allow anyone to do it in public whenever they want.

And if it is harmful - we should have a problem with it on the shelf of a shop.

volchitsa

UCDVet wrote: »

Being topless is only inappropriate because you are presuming that it is. You haven't presented any reason why not having a shirt on (for women) is inappropriate.

And why do you assume that the only reason to be topless is in order to shock? If a man takes off his shirt, why is it that he might have a valid reason, but if a woman does it - it's to shock?

Not sure what your point is. I haven't said it's necessarily inappropriate, you said it was banned, so I was assuming that was the basis for it. But perhaps it isn't, I don't know, and nor do I care. Even if it is legal, it would, IMO be the same as someone in a swimsuit (not a nipple in sight) going to the restaurant or the cinema - it would be inappropriate in that sense, not in a legal sense.

What is so hard to grasp about the idea of dressing appropriately for one's activities - including breast feeding?

UCDVet

volchitsa wrote: »

I presume you're in first year of vet, or we're in deep doodoo if that is the level of reflexion after several years of vet studies in Ireland!

You've never heard of the concept of relative harm, apparently?

Banning breastfeeding in public comes down to ensuring that the vast majority of babies will be bottle fed, despite knowing that this is not ideal for them, and is far more expensive for families. That is a great harm than the risk of seeing a part of a breast in public - particularly in a society where nudity is ever-present.

1.) You shouldn't presume. I've never attended vet school.

2.) You're presenting a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) - implying that we as a society must choose between larger harm (bottle feeding) or a smaller harm (seeing a breast in public).

It's entirely possible to encourage breast feeding without it being legal to expose one's breast in public.

I've also yet to see any evidence that would suggest an exposed breast causes any harm.