Breastfeeding in Public places

Fagashlil · 14-12-2014 01:46PM

nm wrote: »

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

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

Did you read anywhere where I'm against breastfeeding or being topless?

Fagashlil · 14-12-2014 01:48PM

UCDVet wrote: »

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.

It's not for me to decide what people find harmful or not. I was merely comparing the 2 as society does. I've no problem with either, however I do hav an issue with people who find one acceptable and not the other.

UCDVet · 14-12-2014 01:48PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

My point was that are laws are inconsistent, and I find the topic amusing because of it.

'Appropriate dress' is just a cop-out way of saying, 'Dress how I think is right'. In some places appropriate dress means nobody should see any part of you, except your eyes. In other places, being completely naked is perfectly find - it is, after all, our natural, default, state of being.

Personally, I don't care. But one law that guarantees the right to expose a breast and another law that makes it illegal to expose a breast is pretty ridiculous to me.

volchitsa · 14-12-2014 01:52PM

UCDVet wrote: »

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.

I don't actually think seeing an exposed breast causes any harm, myself. The harm comes from inculcating in children a hypersexualized view of humans, in which an exposed breast is seen as purely sexual. And that is very harmful.

In countries where nudity is not seen as necessarily sexualized, there wouldn't be an issue with it, other than, as I said, the question of being dressed appropriately for an occasion and an activity. I'm just not sure that your insistence that the two are the same is going to encourage nudity - it is far more likely to discourage breast feeding. Which also cause harm.

Venus In Furs · 14-12-2014 02:13PM

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.

nm wrote: »

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

But breastfeeding mothers tend not to be topless, they tend to cover up while breastfeeding, so I don't think you actually *really* feel there's hypocrisy at play here. Good attempt at arguing for the sake of arguing/faux concern though.

seventeen sheep · 15-12-2014 04:44PM

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.

OK think about it this way.

It is wrong and illegal to physically injure another person.

If someone walks up to a stranger in the street and stabs him, it is wrong.

But if someone is involved in a car accident and a surgeon amputates his leg to save the patient's life, why isn't it wrong and illegal? Technically speaking, they are injuring them in the process, aren't they?

The above makes about as much sense as your argument.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 15-12-2014 06:12PM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

But breastfeeding mothers tend not to be topless, they tend to cover up while breastfeeding, so I don't think you actually *really* feel there's hypocrisy at play here. Good attempt at arguing for the sake of arguing/faux concern though.

They shouldn't have to cover-up, isn't that the whole point of the thread?

And as has been stated a million times, rightfully or wrongfully they don't care what other people think. So why if a woman wants to go topless without feeding, should she care what other people think?

nxbyveromdwjpg · 15-12-2014 06:15PM

seventeen sheep wrote: »

OK think about it this way.

It is wrong and illegal to physically injure another person.

If someone walks up to a stranger in the street and stabs him, it is wrong.

But if someone is involved in a car accident and a surgeon amputates his leg to save the patient's life, why isn't it wrong and illegal? Technically speaking, they are injuring them in the process, aren't they?

The above makes about as much sense as your argument.

No, it doesn't.

We're talking about whether other peoples sensibilities count for something or not. A little different from a life or death situation.

volchitsa · 15-12-2014 06:33PM

nm wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

We're talking about whether other peoples sensibilities count for something or not. A little different from a life or death situation.

You do realize that a baby that doesn't get fed can die, don't you?
And even if its death is not imminent, someone else's false modesty is really not enough to balance out the suffering caused to a hungry baby being made to do without food for no good reason.

dark crystal · 15-12-2014 06:41PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Personally, I don't care. But one law that guarantees the right to expose a breast and another law that makes it illegal to expose a breast is pretty ridiculous to me.

Well, it's just simple common sense, no?

To give another example, it's legal for men to expose their penises whilst using communal urinals, but illegal for men to expose their penises in public outside that setting. Why do you reckon that is?

Should men be forced to use enclosed stalls in case they offend another man's sensibilities?

nxbyveromdwjpg · 15-12-2014 06:53PM

volchitsa wrote: »

You do realize that a baby that doesn't get fed can die, don't you?
And even if its death is not imminent, someone else's false modesty is really not enough to balance out the suffering caused to a hungry baby being made to do without food for no good reason.

Utter sensationalism. As you said yourself it's death is not imminent, so a completely moot point.

Do you really think anyone wants babys to suffer or die? Come on.

They can be fed almost anywhere without people viewing, it's NOT a life or death situation by any stretch of the imagination.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 15-12-2014 07:24PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Well, it's just simple common sense, no?

To give another example, it's legal for men to expose their penises whilst using communal urinals, but illegal for men to expose their penises in public outside that setting. Why do you reckon that is?

Should men be forced to use enclosed stalls in case they offend another man's sensibilities?

At the urinal, everyone is using it.

The closest comparison to that example would actually be a breastfeeding room (?), which has already been deemed unacceptable by posters in this thread who insist it must done be in public.

volchitsa · 15-12-2014 07:28PM

nm wrote: »

At the urinal, everyone is using it.

The closest comparison to that example would actually be a breastfeeding room (?), which has already been deemed unacceptable by posters in this thread who insist it must done be in public.

Umm, this incident occurred in a restaurant. What do you think people mostly do there, if not eat? Which is exactly what the baby was doing. Wasn't it?

dark crystal · 15-12-2014 08:20PM

nm wrote: »

At the urinal, everyone is using it.

The closest comparison to that example would actually be a breastfeeding room (?), which has already been deemed unacceptable by posters in this thread who insist it must done be in public.

You're missing the point. I was replying to a poster who was questioning why bodily exposure was legal in one situation and not another.

Wabbit Ears · 15-12-2014 09:30PM

Never once, ever, in my near enough a half century on this planet seen any woman who is breastfeeding be anything but discreet. These "flash the tits out for all to see" ladyfolk simply don't exist in my experience.

Piliger · 15-12-2014 10:33PM

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Never once, ever, in my near enough a half century on this planet seen any woman who is breastfeeding be anything but discreet. These "flash the tits out for all to see" ladyfolk simply don't exist in my experience.

I agree. I have seen occasional instances regularly over forty+ years ... and I have never witnessed anything but a positive atmosphere around the woman, with either no notice being taken or warm discreet smiles from people passing by.

We are living through an appalling time where 'taking offence' is now seen as some kind of disproportionate Right that is being bestowed on tiny monitories to complain and disrupt our lives.

Instead of those who complain about silly things like this being told to go fcuk themselves ... in as polite or offensive way as may be chosen, they are being handed control over our lives and the vast majority are being told THEY must change.

Kiwi in IE · 15-12-2014 11:42PM

nm wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

We're talking about whether other peoples sensibilities count for something or not. A little different from a life or death situation.

Other peoples sensibilities do not count in this case. Anybody who has a problem with women breast feeding in public should stay home in case they see one and get upset.

bnt · 15-12-2014 11:45PM

I flew to the USA on Sunday, and ended up on one side of a middle 3-seat row. The lady on the other side had a kid of about 2 months, who spent half the flight sleeping and the other half feeding. Not only was she discreet, it did a number on the kid too: he cried for about 1 minute of a flight of almost 8 hours. :cool:

volchitsa · 16-12-2014 12:07AM

bnt wrote: »

I flew to the USA on Sunday, and ended up on one side of a middle 3-seat row. The lady on the other side had a kid of about 2 months, who spent half the flight sleeping and the other half feeding. Not only was she discreet, it did a number on the kid too: he cried for about 1 minute of a flight of almost 8 hours. :cool:

This is definitely true, I've done a lot of travelling with babies, and one of the huge advantages is that even if you don't let them use you as a dummy the rest of the time, when you need to, to keep them quiet when travelling etc, you can. It's the best sleep aid there is for a baby.

Piliger · 16-12-2014 12:13AM

Oh dear god don't get me going about dummies :rolleyes::mad::rolleyes::mad:

seventeen sheep · 16-12-2014 12:17AM

Piliger wrote: »

Oh dear god don't get me going about dummies :rolleyes::mad::rolleyes::mad:

...

Please, do go on?

Venus In Furs · 16-12-2014 12:19AM

nm wrote: »

At the urinal, everyone is using it.

The closest comparison to that example would actually be a breastfeeding room (?), which has already been deemed unacceptable by posters in this thread who insist it must done be in public.

There's no insisting it "must" be done in public, there's insisting a woman should not have to feel bad about breastfeeding in public when she needs to - it's not like everywhere has a breastfeeding room.

Piliger · 16-12-2014 12:22AM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

There's no insisting it "must" be done in public, there's insisting a woman should not have to feel bad about breastfeeding in public when she needs to - it's not like everywhere has a breastfeeding room.

And even if there were one, I am sure many would prefer not to be shunted aside into some private place as if it is something dirty or negative.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 16-12-2014 12:27AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Other peoples sensibilities do not count in this case. Anybody who has a problem with women breast feeding in public should stay home in case they see one and get upset.

Ok so if breastfeeding we don't care about other people think, but if those people want to get breasts out (without feeding) we go nuts and in that case we absolutely do want them to care and need them to abide by what we think they should do.

I just want to be clear that it is accepted that it's a double standard.

If feeding the bearer has the divine right to do whatever they want above all other peoples opinions which don't matter at all, but if not feeding that right isn't there and other people do matter.

If that's how it is well then that's how it is.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 16-12-2014 12:29AM

Piliger wrote: »

And even if there were one, I am sure many would prefer not to be shunted aside into some private place as if it is something dirty or negative.

How is that any more negative than a nursery, a restaurant, a toilet or a carwash? It's there to breastfeed, it's hardly shameful to use it for such.

Venus In Furs wrote: »

There's no insisting it "must" be done in public

Case in point above.

Venus In Furs · 16-12-2014 12:29AM

nm wrote: »

Ok so if breastfeeding we don't care about other people think, but if those people want to get breasts out (without feeding) we go nuts and in that case we absolutely do want them to care and need them to abide by what we think they should do.

I just want to be clear that it is accepted that it's a double standard.

If feeding the bearer has the divine right to do whatever they want above all other peoples opinions which don't matter at all, but if not feeding that right isn't there and other people do matter.

If that's how it is well then that's how it is.

Why are you pretending women don't cover their breast when breastfeeding and that feeding a baby isn't necessary?

ceadaoin. · 16-12-2014 12:33AM

nm wrote: »

Ok so if breastfeeding we don't care about other people think, but if those people want to get breasts out (without feeding) we go nuts and in that case we absolutely do want them to care and need them to abide by what we think they should do.

I just want to be clear that it is accepted that it's a double standard.

If feeding the bearer has the divine right to do whatever they want above all other peoples opinions which don't matter at all, but if not feeding that right isn't there and other people do matter.

If that's how it is well then that's how it is.

Women who are breast feeding aren't getting their breasts out. They are feeding their child. You don't see a full breast, you probably see about the same amount of skin as a woman wearing a low cut top. Is that so hard to understand?

Have you ever actually even seen a person breast feeding in public?

Kiwi in IE · 16-12-2014 12:34AM

nm wrote: »

Ok so if breastfeeding we don't care about other people think, but if those people want to get breasts out (without feeding) we go nuts and in that case we absolutely do want them to care and need them to abide by what we think they should do.

I just want to be clear that it is accepted that it's a double standard.

If feeding the bearer has the divine right to do whatever they want above all other peoples opinions which don't matter at all, but if not feeding that right isn't there and other people do matter.

If that's how it is well then that's how it is.

Say what? You are comparing a baby being breasted to someone walking about naked in public I take it?

And why would anyone care that a few miserable, ignorant, uptight gob****es might get irrationally 'offended' and put that before their child's need to be fed? Do you really think a woman with a hungry, squawking baby would or should stop to think about this before feeding them?

nxbyveromdwjpg · 16-12-2014 12:34AM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Why are you pretending women don't cover their breast when breastfeeding and that feeding a baby isn't necessary?

I'm sure they do, most I've seen do. But I'm going by the outrage of the original photo of the woman covering with a blanket or whatever it was, and putting it out there for comparison sake - in relation to whether or not you care about what other people think.

Take it that the breastfeeder has it covered then, my point is the same.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 16-12-2014 12:35AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

People who are breast feeding aren't getting their breasts out. They are feeding their child. You don't see a full breast. Is that so hard to understand?

I understand just fine. You seem to be missing the point though.

Breastfeeding in Public places

Comments