Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

NachoBusiness · 11-12-2015 4:23am

Tommy Dillon wrote: »

Its no place to feed a baby..

Eh, surely it's the perfect place to feed a baby: a room full of fellow humans who are also eating / drinking.

topmanamillion · 11-12-2015 4:26am

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Eh, surely it's the perfect place to feed a baby: a room full of fellow humans who are also eating / drinking.

Yup and not sucking on a tit.

NachoBusiness · 11-12-2015 4:33am

topmanamillion wrote: »

Yup and not sucking on a tit.

Perhaps not, but most likely they'll be drinking fluid from tits. Just not human tits.

Isn't that strange, that people can sit in restaurants and cafes drinking glasses of another species tit milk and we see it as perfectly normal but yet a human baby drinks human milk from it's mother and it's 'off putting'.

Tommy Dillon · 11-12-2015 4:49am

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Perhaps not, but most likely they'll be drinking fluid from tits. Just not human tits.

Isn't that strange, that people can sit in restaurants and cafes drinking glasses of another species tit milk and we see it as perfectly normal but yet a human baby drinks human milk from it's mother and it's 'off putting'.

Yea but that milk is presented in a civilised manner. We don't have to suck it in a restaurant in front of other people. We aren't living in the stone age anymore. There are ways and means around everything. There is no excuse for that selfish woman to ruin other peoples dinners like that. As I said it's the most natural thing in the world but not in a restaurant with other people watching.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 5:11am

Tommy Dillon wrote: »

Yea but that milk is presented in a civilised manner. We don't have to suck it in a restaurant in front of other people. We aren't living in the stone age anymore. There are ways and means around everything. There is no excuse for that selfish woman to ruin other peoples dinners like that. As I said it's the most natural thing in the world but not in a restaurant with other people watching.

Let those other people watch I say. That's how people educate themselves. People are always going to look, or stare, or even look in disgust. Those women who are more interested in feeding their child won't be interested in drawing attention to themselves, and will be able to ignore stares from a few people, because their priority will be feeding their child.

That's how you normalise something in society - by behaving normally. If people really mean what they say about breastfeeding being normal, then they shouldn't feel a need to get into silly stare-down matches with other people because of their reactions. That's what's contradictory IMO - wants to encourage breastfeeding and inform and educate people, but when presented with the perfect opportunity to do so, gets into a staring match instead :rolleyes:

ceadaoin. · 11-12-2015 5:57am

Tommy Dillon wrote: »

Yea but that milk is presented in a civilised manner. We don't have to suck it in a restaurant in front of other people. We aren't living in the stone age anymore. There are ways and means around everything. There is no excuse for that selfish woman to ruin other peoples dinners like that. As I said it's the most natural thing in the world but not in a restaurant with other people watching.

No difference between a baby born in the stone age and a baby born today. They get hungry and need feeding. Guarantee you would be complaining about a hungry baby crying if it wasn't fed. Unless you think babies should be kept at home, along with the mothers until at least the age of weaning then you'll just have to avert your eyes. Did you look at the picture? Any people visible in the shot don't seem like they are having their dinners ruined.

Novella · 11-12-2015 8:03am

I think she looks absolutely ridiculous, desperately vying for attention. Another person didn't like seeing her breastfeeding? So what? People don't like all kinds of things about other people all the time - their hair colour, their weight, the way they chew their food, the shoes they're wearing, whatever. If we all went about our lives pretty much going out of our way to challenge people to confront us, we'd never get anything done.

And I am currently a breastfeeding mother, I just don't care if some complete stranger disapproves of my life choice.

Posting it all over social media? Give me a break. Just feed the baby, you don't need a pat on the back and a medal for it.

namloc1980 · 11-12-2015 8:44am

Tommy Dillon wrote: »

Yea but that milk is presented in a civilised manner. We don't have to suck it in a restaurant in front of other people. We aren't living in the stone age anymore. There are ways and means around everything. There is no excuse for that selfish woman to ruin other peoples dinners like that. As I said it's the most natural thing in the world but not in a restaurant with other people watching.

Breastfeeding isn't civilised now - it's "stone age". Some of the attitudes on here are very sad.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 9:33am

namloc1980 wrote: »

Breastfeeding isn't civilised now - it's "stone age". Some of the attitudes on here are very sad.

That's the argument being made by a lot of people, including the woman in the opening post, that formula feeding is "just a trend", and breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts. That reductionist attitude, to me at least, is just as sad as it is unrealistic. If someone can't make a better argument than an appeal to evolution, while at the same time they're choosing to wear clothes, I'd suggest their argument just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Ave Sodalis · 11-12-2015 9:35am

One eyed Jack wrote:

That's the argument being made by a lot of people, including the woman in the opening post, that formula feeding is "just a trend", and breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts. That reductionist attitude, to me at least, is just as sad as it is unrealistic. If someone can't make a better argument than an appeal to evolution, while at the same time they're choosing to wear clothes, I'd suggest their argument just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Can you point out who all said that formula feeding is just a trend?

Azalea · 11-12-2015 9:47am

/Original and intelligent comment about sh-tting in public being natural too as if that has anything to do with feeding a hungry, crying baby

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-12-2015 9:48am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think it's necessary for women to breastfeed in public

Except for a lot of women, it is.

Tommy Dillon wrote: »

I understand that its the most natural thing in the world etc etc but so is going to the toilet... your not allowed do that in the middle of a restaurant either.

Hardly a useful comparison given the restaurant is a place for eating, and the toilet is a place for.... well the toilet. So your analogy is as desperate as it is fetid.

The restaurant is a place for eating. The baby is eating. Deal with it.

AdolfHeidler · 11-12-2015 10:02am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except for a lot of women, it is.

Hardly a useful comparison given the restaurant is a place for eating, and the toilet is a place for.... well the toilet. So your analogy is as desperate as it is fetid.

The restaurant is a place for eating. The baby is eating. Deal with it.

A Michelin starred restaurant is not place to feed your baby? People pay for premium for a particular experience there, to bring a baby and breastfeed there is highly selfish and ignorant.

Kev W · 11-12-2015 10:07am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the argument being made by a lot of people, including the woman in the opening post, that formula feeding is "just a trend", and breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts. That reductionist attitude, to me at least, is just as sad as it is unrealistic. If someone can't make a better argument than an appeal to evolution, while at the same time they're choosing to wear clothes, I'd suggest their argument just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

I'm sure you can provide a convincing argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts.

Whenever you're ready.

11-12-2015 10:07am

Seriously? Are you that offended by the human body that you'd be put off your food catching a glimpse of a bit of side boob? You'd rather a defenceless baby go hungry so you can stuff your cake hole with over priced dead animal? And you're talking about offensive?? Jesus give me strength

kleefarr · 11-12-2015 10:08am

Deleted User wrote: »

...so some woman in a restaurant in the States was breast feeding her child in a restaurant, claims she saw someone staring at her, and began to stare back defiantly. And if course handily it was snapped and did the rounds on the inane sites like Her.ie where she was heralded as some champion of women's or mother's lib...

http://www.people.com/article/mom-breastfeeding-uncovered-photo-viral

Was she striking a blow for mothers? Or should she be a little more discreet? Or does the whole thing seem a little staged to gain an internet presence?

What sort of mother is she????

The baby had to forego the important bonding between mother and child when feeding by looking into each others eyes. Instead she puts someone else first!!

Not on!

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 10:10am

sup_dude wrote: »

Can you point out who all said that formula feeding is just a trend?

seamus gave a good run down of the history of it here -

seamus wrote: »

Breastfeeding was considered unseemly for the aristocracy. That was "common" behaviour which you hired a wet nurse for. When powdered milk and formula became a thing, it was strongly marketed on a background of snobbery and, "be like the rich ladies, this is the next best thing to a wet nurse".

To a certain extent it was also considered a triumph of modern man - several companies produced "scientific" studies proving that babies on formula did just as well as on the breast. Previously, babies who weren't breastfed tended to be small and sickly. This new technology was man beating nature and making life easier.

It also helped the religious conservative narrative to not have women whipping boobs out all over the place and inflaming the passions of poor powerless men.

Ironically it was in the wealthier homes that breastfeeding made a resurgence as many thought that using formula was "common" and less motherly.

And according to Ashley Kaidel -

Lastly, your children need to see breastfeeding for the same reason you do. They need to acknowledge, comprehend and appreciate that breast milk and breast feeding is and should forever be the first and best choice for both mom and baby. Formula and bottles are a trend. Breastfeeding is not. Your 11 year old daughter watching me nurse may say "Mom, why is that baby sucking her boobie?" But as a parent and human being that understands, respects and appreciates anatomy and mothers, your reply should only and always be "because that's the way babies eat." Hopefully it encourages your daughter to grow up with the goal to breast feed and experience the incredible bond and invaluable benefits it comes with.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 10:11am

Kev W wrote: »

I'm sure you can provide a convincing argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts.

Whenever you're ready.

I have breasts Kev, can you milk me?

Kev W · 11-12-2015 10:24am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have breasts Kev, can you milk me?

Ha! Yes, I've seen films too.
Anyway, I'll take that as a "no".

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 10:46am

Kev W wrote: »

Ha! Yes, I've seen films too.
Anyway, I'll take that as a "no".

Why would you take it as a 'no'? You asked me -

Kev W wrote: »

I'm sure you can provide a convincing argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the "primary purpose" people evolved with breasts.

Whenever you're ready.

And I pointed out to you that men have evolved with breasts too, so the argument that breastfeeding is the primary purpose as to why people evolved with breasts just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Here's an alternative theory -

Why do straight men devote so much headspace to those big, bulbous bags of fat drooping from women's chests? Scientists have never satisfactorily explained men's curious breast fixation, but now, a neuroscientist has struck upon an explanation that he says "just makes a lot of sense."

Larry Young, a professor of psychiatry at Emory University who studies the neurological basis of complex social behaviors, thinks human evolution has harnessed an ancient neural circuit that originally evolved to strengthen the mother-infant bond during breast-feeding, and now uses this brain circuitry to strengthen the bond between couples as well. The result? Men, like babies, love breasts.

When a woman's nipples are stimulated during breast-feeding, the neurochemical oxytocin, otherwise known as the "love drug," floods her brain, helping to focus her attention and affection on her baby. But research over the past few years has shown that in humans, this circuitry isn't reserved for exclusive use by infants.

Recent studies have found that nipple stimulation enhances sexual arousal in the great majority of women, and it activates the same brain areas as vaginal and clitoral stimulation. When a sexual partner touches, massages or nibbles a woman's breasts, Young said, this triggers the release of oxytocin in the woman's brain, just like what happens when a baby nurses. But in this context, the oxytocin focuses the woman's attention on her sexual partner, strengthening her desire to bond with this person.

In other words, men can make themselves more desirable by stimulating a woman's breasts during foreplay and sex. Evolution has, in a sense, made men want to do this.

Attraction to breasts "is a brain organization effect that occurs in straight males when they go through puberty," Young told Life's Little Mysteries. "Evolution has selected for this brain organization in men that makes them attracted to the breasts in a sexual context, because the outcome is that it activates the female bonding circuit, making women feel more bonded with him. It's a behavior that males have evolved in order to stimulate the female's maternal bonding circuitry."

So, why did this evolutionary change happen in humans, and not in other breast-feeding mammals? Young thinks it's because we form monogamous relationships, whereas 97 percent of mammals do not. "Secondly, it might have to do with the fact that we are upright and have face-to-face sex, which provides more opportunity for nipple stimulation during sex. In monogamous voles, for example, the nipples are hanging toward the ground and the voles mate from behind, so this didn't evolve," he said. "So, maybe the nature of our sexuality has allowed greater access to the breasts."Attraction to breasts "is a brain organization effect that occurs in straight males when they go through puberty," Young told Life's Little Mysteries. "Evolution has selected for this brain organization in men that makes them attracted to the breasts in a sexual context, because the outcome is that it activates the female bonding circuit, making women feel more bonded with him. It's a behavior that males have evolved in order to stimulate the female's maternal bonding circuitry."

Young said competing theories of men's breast fixation don't stand up to scrutiny. For example, the argument that men tend to select full-breasted women because they think these women's breast fat will make them better at nourishing babies falls short when one considers that "sperm is cheap" compared with eggs, and men don't need to be choosy.

But Young's new theory will face scrutiny of its own. Commenting on the theory, Rutgers University anthropologist Fran Mascia-Lees, who has written extensively about the evolutionary role of breasts, said one concern is that not all men are attracted to them. "Always important whenever evolutionary biologists suggest a universal reason for a behavior and emotion: how about the cultural differences?" Mascia-Lees wrote in an email. In some African cultures, for example, women don't cover their breasts, and men don't seem to find them so, shall we say, titillating.

Young says that just because breasts aren't covered in these cultures "doesn't mean that massaging them and stimulating them is not part of the foreplay in these cultures. As of yet, there are not very many studies that look at [breast stimulation during foreplay] in an anthropological context," he said.

Young elaborates on his theory of breast love, and other neurological aspects of human sexuality, in a new book, "The Chemistry Between Us" (Current Hardcover, 2012), co-authored by Brian Alexander.

Source: "New Theory on Why Men Love Breasts", LiveScience Article

And -

Hypothesis for the Evolution of Human Breasts and Buttocks

Note that I said they are alternative theories (meaning I don't necessarily wholly agree that they provide a complete explanation either), cricumstantial, but they present a compelling argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose people evolved with breasts.

Ave Sodalis · 11-12-2015 10:47am

One eyed Jack wrote:

seamus gave a good run down of the history of it here -

Seamus gave a run down of the history. It still doesn't answer my question.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Note that I said they are alternative theories (meaning I don't necessarily wholly agree that they provide a complete explanation either), cricumstantial, but they present a compelling argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose people evolved with breasts.

They don't present any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose of breasts.

11-12-2015 10:48am

Well to be fair, the child's need for breasts outweigh a mans need for breasts.

Kev W · 11-12-2015 10:53am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would you take it as a 'no'? You asked me -

And I pointed out to you that men have evolved with breasts too, so the argument that breastfeeding is the primary purpose as to why people evolved with breasts just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Here's an alternative theory -

Source: "New Theory on Why Men Love Breasts", LiveScience Article

And -

Hypothesis for the Evolution of Human Breasts and Buttocks

Note that I said they are alternative theories, cricumstantial, but they present a compelling argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose people evolved with breasts.

Your quote refers only to theories about why men are attracted to breasts, not why breasts evolved, and so is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

The linked article is interesting but to my doesn't contain any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose for the evolution of human breasts. It only theorises other purposes.

In fact it hypothesises that male attraction to breasts is down to a signaling of "...the female's nutritional state to males", which would indicate that male attraction to breasts is itself due to their primary function of feeding.

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 11:20am

sup_dude wrote: »

Seamus gave a run down of the history. It still doesn't answer my question.

I hadn't accounted for the fact that you needed to be so literal about it. My point in re-posting seamus' post was that it showed that formula milk is just a trend, but it's a trend that has gained widespread acceptance across the western world over a century.

sup_dude wrote: »

They don't present any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose of breasts.

Kev W wrote: »

Your quote refers only to theories about why men are attracted to breasts, not why breasts evolved, and so is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

The linked article is interesting but to my doesn't contain any argument against the idea that breastfeeding is the primary purpose for the evolution of human breasts. It only theorises other purposes.

In fact it hypothesises that male attraction to breasts is down to a signaling of "...the female's nutritional state to males", which would indicate that male attraction to breasts is itself due to their primary function of feeding.

Of course it only theorises other purposes, as does your assertion about the primary purpose for the evolution of breasts in humans is only a theory, because women only start to produce milk during pregnancy. Women do not produce milk if they do not become pregnant, their breasts are no more functional than male breasts.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-12-2015 11:23am

AdolfHeidler wrote: »

A Michelin starred restaurant is not place to feed your baby? People pay for premium for a particular experience there, to bring a baby and breastfeed there is highly selfish and ignorant.

Nice of you to invent your own standards and project them on to the world like they are some kind of default when they are not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have breasts Kev, can you milk me?

Probably could actually, depending on what cocktail of drugs you would be willing to take on board at my behest.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I pointed out to you that men have evolved with breasts too, so the argument that breastfeeding is the primary purpose as to why people evolved with breasts just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That does not follow at all. Note I am not arguing for OR against the notion that the primary purpose we evolved them is for breastfeeding, an argument I will stay out of for now. I am just pointing out that the fact males have them to says little about that argument. Certainly not what you just tried to use it for.

kylith · 11-12-2015 11:29am

Men have nipples because all embryos start as female before the Y chromosome is expressed. You have nipples before you have a penis.

Yeah_Right · 11-12-2015 11:37am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Seriously? Are you that offended by the human body that you'd be put off your food catching a glimpse of a bit of side boob? You'd rather a defenceless baby go hungry so you can stuff your cake hole with over priced dead animal? And you're talking about offensive?? Jesus give me strength

Personally I love seeing a bit of side boob while eating my steak. Thankfully my girlfriend is happy to help me with this

Hammer89 · 11-12-2015 11:39am

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Personally I love seeing a bit of side boob while eating my steak. Thankfully my girlfriend is happy to help me with this

Why are you sitting beside her and not in front of her at dinner?

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 11:51am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably could actually, depending on what cocktail of drugs you would be willing to take on board at my behest.

Yep, and I acknowledged as much earlier on in the thread here -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Breasts aren't for feeding children, that's what mammary glands are for. Men have breasts too, and under certain circumstances can lactate too. I'm not projecting my feelings about breastfeeding on this one, on this occasion I'm suggesting that not everyone shares your reductionist thinking that breasts are solely for feeding children (which they aren't, at all). There are many people in Western society who attach far more value to women's breasts than simply serving a functional, biological purpose.

Another theory is that breasts are merely the by-products of fat deposition, according to Frances Mascia-Lees, an anthropologist and author of the book "Why Women Have Breasts" -

The ability to nurse is, of course, a defining characteristic of mammals, one that female humans share with distaff monkeys, rodents, and tenrecs. But only humans have breasts as we know them -- "pleasant orbs," as Williams puts it, that stick around (and also out) "regardless of our reproductive status." The first question Williams takes up is: Why? The quest takes her all the way to New Zealand, where she interviews Alan and Barnaby Dixson, a father-and-son academic team whose research consists of showing men pictures of naked women. The Dixsons belong to what might be called the "how to marry a caveman" school. They believe that human breasts evolved to signal sexual fitness. Opposed to them are researchers like the anthropologist Frances Mascia-Lees, of Rutgers University, who argue that human breasts serve the far less titillating purpose of energy storage. According to Mascia-Lees, breasts are merely the "by-products of fat deposition."

Source: The Nature of Breasts

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That does not follow at all. Note I am not arguing for OR against the notion that the primary purpose we evolved them is for breastfeeding, an argument I will stay out of for now. I am just pointing out that the fact males have them to says little about that argument. Certainly not what you just tried to use it for.

To be perfectly honest, the idea that breasts at all have a "primary" function, is one that doesn't sit well with me, because it implies an element of design, or purpose, which I don't think can logically be assigned to evolution. It smacks of biological determinism. My point in pointing out that males have breasts too, is simply that men also evolved with breasts, as did women, so the idea that the "primary function" of breasts is simply breastfeeding, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ave Sodalis · 11-12-2015 12:44pm

One eyed Jack wrote:

I hadn't accounted for the fact that you needed to be so literal about it. My point in re-posting seamus' post was that it showed that formula milk is just a trend, but it's a trend that has gained widespread acceptance across the western world over a century.

But your reply wasn't even close to the mark, nevermind literal. I asked where the "lots" posts are that say that bottle is a trend. Not for the history. Who uses wet nurses anymore? When was the last time bottle milk produced an under developed child? Bottle feeding isn't a trend.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Of course it only theorises other purposes, as does your assertion about the primary purpose for the evolution of breasts in humans is only a theory, because women only start to produce milk during pregnancy. Women do not produce milk if they do not become pregnant, their breasts are no more functional than male breasts.

I assume by theory you mean guess, as opposed to scientific theory. It's not a guess and it's not my opinion. Feeding is the primary use for boobs, whether they are used for that all the time or not. This isn't disputable, this isn't matter of opinion or guessing. This is straight forward fact. You might think it's cold but it doesn't change it. I happen to not think it's cold at all.
Male breasts, unless something goes wrong hormonally in development, don't develop mammery glands. They cannot produce milk so even though nipples exist, they are useless. They exist purely because, as mentioned above, we are all originally female until the x chromosome kicks in and flood the fetus with testosterone.

Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Comments