Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

osarusan · 09-12-2015 7:25pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm absolutely not assigning any motivations, at all.

Are you kidding? How many times have you said that she was motivated to expose her breast in that manner not by a desire to breastfeed but by a desire to get attention?

An assumption for which you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. None. And an assumption which you have already admitted making earlier in the thread. An assumption which contradicts an earlier post when you said getting into the stareoff was when she started her attention-seeking.

Your posts are hopelessly inconsistent.

eviltwin · 09-12-2015 7:27pm

41 pages on breastfeeding in public? Depressing

NachoBusiness · 09-12-2015 7:40pm

eviltwin wrote: »

41 pages on breastfeeding in public? Depressing

Oh please. You act as if the thread is full of people that want breastfeeding in public made illegal or something. It isn't.

What's really depressing here is that a mother has used her child to get herself a little attention and people have fallen for it.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 7:51pm

osarusan wrote: »

Are you kidding?

Read back on the last few posts, I was referring to the fact that other people were assigning motivations to this other woman who wasn't even pictured so we have no idea what way she was looking at the woman in the article, let alone what may have motivated her to look at the woman in disgust as this woman claims.

How many times have you said that she was motivated to expose her breast in that manner not by a desire to breastfeed but by a desire to get attention?

An assumption for which you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. None. And an assumption which you have already admitted making earlier in the thread.

Your posts are hopelessly inconsistent.

Now you're talking about the woman in the photo, abd there's plenty of evidence to suggest that this woman simply had a desire to get attention, perhaps you missed out on the fact that she uploaded the picture herself on social media, and her description of herself on social media shows how she craves attention and validation for her lifestyle choices.

There's no inconsistency there - for one point of view, there's plenty evidence. For the other point of view, there's none, not even so much as a photograph of this woman she was "staring down".

mynameis905 · 09-12-2015 7:54pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no inconsistency there - for one point of view, there's plenty evidence. For the other point of view, there's none, not even so much as a photograph of this woman she was "staring down".

There is 0 evidence jack, only your own half-baked claims, assumptions and your typical attempts to discredit the source.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 7:57pm

eviltwin wrote: »

41 pages on breastfeeding in public? Depressing

39 pages discussing one woman (apart from all the other attention she gets on other social media), about two pages discussing women breastfeeding in public.

I'd say she achieved what she set out to do.

eviltwin · 09-12-2015 7:57pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh please. You act as if the thread is full of people that want breastfeeding in public made illegal or something. It isn't.

What's really depressing here is that a mother has used her child to get herself a little attention and people have fallen for it.

And you're giving her exactly what she wants. If you don't see her as anything more than a desperate attention seeker why not just ignore her?

Any while no one has called for breast feeding in public to be banned it's glaringly obvious a lot of posters have an issue with it.

eviltwin · 09-12-2015 7:59pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

39 pages discussing one woman (apart from all the other attention she gets on other social media), about two pages discussing women breastfeeding in public.

I'd say she achieved what she set out to do.

As I said before your own comments have been directed at breastfeeding mothers in general not this woman specifically. At least be honest.

osarusan · 09-12-2015 8:03pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're talking about the woman in the photo, abd there's plenty of evidence to suggest that this woman simply had a desire to get attention,

I've asked you already what exactly about her breastfeeding did you consider to be attention-seeking, and you said that she started attention-seeking when she got into a stareoff.

But you have, many many times, said that the way she was breastfeeding was designed to attract attention. Now you say there is plenty of evidence - so let me ask you again: what evidence do you have to allow you to say that this woman breastfed in the way she did because she wanted attention? Specifically, what did she do which was designed to get somebody to stare at her? And what is your evidence for this?

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 8:11pm

eviltwin wrote: »

As I said before your own comments have been directed at breastfeeding mothers in general not this woman specifically. At least be honest.

I made a lot of comments in fairness, both about women breastfeeding in general (which I'm not bothered by one way or the other, I have no interest in becoming a breast is best advocate as I'd simply leave that up to a woman themselves to decide for themselves what they want to do rather than pressure them into breastfeeding), and then I made comments about this womans attention seeking efforts, and what I see as someone with a poor attitude who to me at least, comes across as a woeful self-promoter.

If anyone is likely being dishonest here about their motives, it sure as hell ain't me. This woman is not the poster girl for breastfeeding mothers IMO, and there are better ways to educate and inform people about breastfeeding rather than get confrontational with them and get into childish staring matches for a few "look at me, aren't I great?" likes on social media.

NachoBusiness · 09-12-2015 8:11pm

eviltwin wrote: »

And you're giving her exactly what she wants. If you don't see her as anything more than a desperate attention seeker why not just ignore her?

Well, I had stopped posting on the thread but your sanctimonious opinions made me come out of thread retirement.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 8:20pm

osarusan wrote: »

I've asked you already what exactly about breastfeeding did you consider to be attention-seeking, and you said that she started attention-seeking when she got into a stareoff.

But you have, many many times, said that the way she was breastfeeding was designed to attract attention. Now you say there is plenty of evidence - so let me ask you again: what evidence do you have to allow you to say that this woman breastfed in the way she did because she wanted attention? Specifically, what did she do which was designed to get somebody to stare at her? And what is your evidence for this?

She was breastfeeding in a public place with no attempt made to be discreet about it. That's as straightforward as I can make my interpretation of her posing in that photograph. People are going to interpret the photograph differently based upon their experience, and I understand that. I don't have to agree with it though.

namloc1980 · 09-12-2015 8:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She was breastfeeding in a public place with no attempt made to be discreet about it. That's as straightforward as I can make my interpretation of her posing in that photograph. People are going to interpret the photograph differently based upon their experience, and I understand that. I don't have to agree with it though.

Why should she be discreet as you put it? And what does that even mean?

osarusan · 09-12-2015 8:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She was breastfeeding in a public place with no attempt made to be discreet about it.

So, no attempt to be discreet = looking for attention? It's that simple for you?

mynameis905 · 09-12-2015 8:27pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no interest in becoming a breast is best advocate as I'd simply leave that up to a woman themselves to decide for themselves what they want to do rather than pressure them

You seem to have very little intention of leaving women decide how to feed their children.Your previous posts are full of your own bizarre ideas of how women should breastfeed 'properly' in public. There is something very ugly about your posts on this thread.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She had her breast exposed in public, that was indiscreet, she could have been more discreet by not having her breast exposed in public.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

generally no necessity to expose the whole breast in the manner in which this woman has done

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's not normal to see women breastfeeding in public

Osarusan was absolutely right about your posts being completely inconsistent. The longer the thread goes on the more you grasp at straws in an attempt to mask your inherent dislike of public breastfeeding.

How do you reconcile this:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there some necessity in Western society for women to breastfeed in public? I don't think there is

with this

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it's necessary to feed a baby in public

?

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 8:30pm

osarusan wrote: »

So, no attempt to be discreet = looking for attention? It's that simple for you?

Yes. If a person looks like they're going out of their way to draw attention to themselves, well, they're likely going to draw attention to themselves. If they then engage in a "stare-down" match, that's just making themselves look even more silly IMO. Most adults have no interest in drawing attention to themselves in the first place, and secomdly they would be able to ignore other people staring and carry on about their business.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 8:36pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why should she be discreet as you put it? And what does that even mean?

I never said she had to be discreet, what I'm saying is that people who don't want to draw attention to themselves usually make some attempt to be discreet about what they're doing, and most women who are breastfeeding in public are able to be discreet about it and don't draw attention to themselves, because they don't want the attention. This woman on the other hand appears IMO to crave the attention so she has something to get militant about.

If you can't judge for yourself what it means to be discreet, I'm afraid I can't be of any help to you tbh.

namloc1980 · 09-12-2015 8:38pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said she had to be discreet, what I'm saying is that people who don't want to draw attention to themselves usually make some attempt to be discreet about what they're doing, and most women who are breastfeeding in public are able to be discreet about it and don't draw attention to themselves, because they don't want the attention. This woman on the other hand appears IMO to crave the attention so she has something to get militant about.

If you can't judge for yourself what it means to be discreet, I'm afraid I can't be of any help to you tbh.

You're the one taking about being discreet yet you can't tell us what that means?

osarusan · 09-12-2015 8:47pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes. If a person looks like they're going out of their way to draw attention to themselves, well, they're likely going to draw attention to themselves.

Again the ludicrous notion that somebody not attempting to be discreet equates to the going out of the way to draw attention to themselves.

And you also point out (repeatedly) that she didn't actually draw any attention to herself - you'e highlighted that nobody in the photo cares, and you question whether the other angry and disgusted customer even existed or was staring at her for the reason she says.

So, considering you question whether anybody at all actually paid any attention to her as she breastfed, it's baffling as to why you also think she was attention seeking while doing it.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 8:48pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

You're the one taking about being discreet yet you can't tell us what that means?

Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary, or google even, because if you don't understand what it means by now, I'm unlikely to be able to help you.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 8:52pm

osarusan wrote: »

Again the ludicrous notion that somebody not attempting to be discreet equates to the going out of the way to draw attention to themselves.

And you also point out (repeatedly) that she didn't actually draw any attention to herself - you'e highlighted that nobody in the photo cares, and you question whether the other angry and disgusted customer even existed or was staring at her for the reason she says.

So, considering you question whether anybody at all actually paid any attention to her as she breastfed, it's baffling as to why you also think she was attention seeking while doing it.

If someone is not attempting to be discreet, it's not a ludicrous or unreasonable assumption that they are attempting to draw attention to themselves. Whether they actually succeed in doing so, does not negate the fact that they appear to be trying to do so. I don't see what's baffling about that concept.

osarusan · 09-12-2015 8:59pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If someone is not attempting to be discreet, it's not a ludicrous or unreasonable assumption that they are attempting to draw attention to themselves.

It absolutely is unreasonable.

Some examples - a couple of lads talking loudly in a cafe....a boyfriend and girlfriend arguing in public...somebody complaining to a shop staff....it's a 'safe assumption' (your words about this woman) that they are all consciously looking for attention from other people?

But I think we've come to the root of your argument really, that you see a failure to be discreet as constituting an attempt to draw attention to themself.

I can't describe how silly I think that is. I doubt if you even believe it yourself, rather than it the corner your argument has backed you into.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2015 9:15pm

osarusan wrote: »

It absolutely is unreasonable.

Some examples - a couple of lads talking loudly in a cafe....a boyfriend and girlfriend arguing in public...somebody complaining to a shop staff....it's a 'safe assumption' (your words about this woman) that they are all consciously looking for attention from other people?

But I think we've come to the root of your argument really, that you see a failure to be discreet as constituting an attempt to draw attention to themself.

I can't describe how silly I think that is. I doubt if you even believe it yourself, rather than it the corner your argument has backed you into.

I understand why you think my position regarding my interpretation of this particular woman's behaviour is unreasonable and silly (without the need for examples of completely different scenarios which would be judged on their own merits), but I don't feel I have been backed into a corner at all. From my very first post in this thread where I said "attention seeker seeks attention and gets it, nothing more to that story", I have steadfastly maintained that position specifically with regard to the woman in question, and the photograph and article alone was enough for me to make that deduction before how she describes herself on her Facebook page ever was introduced to the thread. Suffice to say it provided evidence that confirmed my earlier deduction.

I am also of the opinion that this woman is in no way representative of any woman I've ever known who chose to breastfeed her children, let alone any woman who had to do so in public.

wattlebird · 10-12-2015 12:29am

What a ridiculous clickbait story. To even call it a "story" is pushing it - absolutely no evidence apart from an attention seeker's word that the staring woman did in fact stare, or even exist. I hate that people immediately jump on these things and get blindly outraged without considering the source and likelihood of it actually being true.

Women should of course have the right to breastfeed in public whenever and however they want without hassle. But the minute you make outrageous unsubstantiated claims with the hope of "going viral" or "breaking the internet", I've lost all interest and respect for the point you're trying to make.

That's enough internet for one day :mad:

osarusan · 10-12-2015 12:40am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand why you think my position regarding my interpretation of this particular woman's behaviour is unreasonable and silly (without the need for examples of completely different scenarios which would be judged on their own merits),

No I'm afraid not. This is just more inconsistency.

Earlier, we had this exchange:

osarusan wrote: »

So, no attempt to be discreet = looking for attention? It's that simple for you?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes.

So, either no attempt to be discreet = looking for attention is your true argument, or it's not.

If it is, then there is no need to look at each example case on its merits, because simply by virtue of not being discreet, they are attention-seeking. This is exactly what you agreed with earlier, quoted above.

If it's not, then it's not enough of an argument in the case of this woman either - so what was it about the merits of this instance that makes you come to the conclusion you did?

One eyed Jack · 10-12-2015 10:48am

osarusan wrote: »

No I'm afraid not. This is just more inconsistency.

Earlier, we had this exchange:

So, either no attempt to be discreet = looking for attention is your true argument, or it's not.

If it is, then there is no need to look at each example case on its merits, because simply by virtue of not being discreet, they are attention-seeking. This is exactly what you agreed with earlier, quoted above.

If it's not, then it's not enough of an argument in the case of this woman either - so what was it about the merits of this instance that makes you come to the conclusion you did?

I had to read it a couple of times because I wasn't sure what you were asking or what point you were trying to make, but yes, the bit in bold there where you say there's no attempt to be discreet, I admit that if a person is making no attempt to be discreet, then it's not unreasonable to assume they're looking for attention. I don't understand why you say I shouldn't look at each case on it's merits because if I didn't then that to me at least, would be inconsistent. I do look at each case on it's merits to determine if the person was being discreet about it, and if not, why not, and in the case of Ashley Kaidel, it's easy enough to determine why she wasn't being discreet about it - because she wanted to make a point about women breastfeeding in public -

Earlier today I posted this picture of my son and I breastfeeding uncovered in a public restaurant. In the picture, it appears I'm staring off into the distance. In reality, I'm staring into the eyes of a woman staring at me. She is looking at me with disgust and shaking her head with judgement in an attempt to shame me and indirectly tell me without words that I am wrong and need to cover myself.

Let me make my reasoning clear on why I post pictures of my son and I publicly breastfeeding uncovered.

I don't mean to say "Everyone should breast feed without a cover. Show the world your boobs!" If a mother is more comfortable covering herself because SHE feels better doing so, then I totally support that.

With that being said, the reason I post these types pictures is for the mother that tried breastfeeding uncovered once and she got shamed, she got stared and pointed at, she got nasty comments, she got asked to leave the room, she got asked to cover up.

Number one, breast feeding mothers are protected under federal law to breast feed any way, any how and any where they're allowed to be in all circumstances otherwise. Number two, you should not ever feel shamed, belittled, embarrassed or wrong for feeding your baby the way nature intended. I do this for the person that has the mentality "Boobs are to be covered. They're for your husbands eyes only. They're intimate. It's a personal/private thing to feed your baby. Cover up out of respect. My kids don't need to see that. Walk out of the room." and any other derogatory, close minded comments and sentiments alike.

Again, breasts were made to sustain your baby's life before they were made to bring pleasure to any other man, woman, partner or spouse. Their sole purpose is to make food and dispense it straight into a baby's mouth. There is nothing weird about this and there's no difference in me feeding my baby with my breast than you feeding yourself with a spoon.

Secondly, it is exponentially unfair and selfish to ask a mother and baby to exclude themselves from a table or event or gathering because you're for some reason uncomfortable with how she feeds her child. No person should be isolated and shunned because they're eating, especially when you yourself are eating while ridiculing how someone else is eating. Is it not certainly easier to avert your eyes from a displeasing sight rather than suggest or demand a mother and child remove themselves from your presence? How pompous and selfish is this? Just look away. It's simple to do so. No harm done at all.

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.

So again, I don't post this for attention. I don't post this because I think everyone should nurse uncovered. I post this to give mamas encouragement. And to encourage others to make breastfeeding mothers feel accepted and supported; not alienated, ridiculed and judged.

Signed,
a badass breastfeeding (uncovered) mama.

Source: Ashley Kaidel's Facebook post that was linked to in the article.

She could easily have taken her own advice -

Just look away. It's simple to do so. No harm done at all.

That's enough evidence for me to make what I think is a reasonable assumption that she wanted to get attention for breastfeeding in public, to make a point about breastfeeding in public, and I just don't have any time for that sort of attention seeking behaviour. I don't think it does anything to educate or inform people about breastfeeding, I think it's simply self-serving attention seeking. I learned nothing new about breastfeeding from anything she said in the above statement, but I learned plenty from posters in this thread who talked about their experiences of breastfeeding.

Which do you think was the more effective strategy in educating and informing people about breastfeeding? Which method do you think is likely to lead to more people showing understanding towards women who need to feed their baby in public - the confrontational approach, or the cooperative approach?

I'm gonna go with the cooperative approach myself.

steddyeddy · 10-12-2015 11:03am

wattlebird wrote: »

What a ridiculous clickbait story. To even call it a "story" is pushing it - absolutely no evidence apart from an attention seeker's word that the staring woman did in fact stare, or even exist. I hate that people immediately jump on these things and get blindly outraged without considering the source and likelihood of it actually being true.

Women should of course have the right to breastfeed in public whenever and however they want without hassle. But the minute you make outrageous unsubstantiated claims with the hope of "going viral" or "breaking the internet", I've lost all interest and respect for the point you're trying to make.

That's enough internet for one day :mad:

Indeed. I can't believe people are buying into this. The only evidence of staring we have is of the woman who's breastfeeding staring into the distance. It's all getting a bit stupid.

mynameis905 · 10-12-2015 7:56pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Which do you think was the more effective strategy in educating and informing people about breastfeeding? Which method do you think is likely to lead to more people showing understanding towards women who need to feed their baby in public - the confrontational approach, or the cooperative approach?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there some necessity in Western society for women to breastfeed in public? I don't think there is

Which is it jack? Do you not see the glaring inconsistency of your posting on this thread?

You don't think it's neccessary for women to feed their children in public but you want to 'educate and inform' people about women who need to feed in public? Which is it?

One eyed Jack · 11-12-2015 3:48am

mynameis905 wrote: »

Which is it jack? Do you not see the glaring inconsistency of your posting on this thread?

You don't think it's neccessary for women to feed their children in public but you want to 'educate and inform' people about women who need to feed in public? Which is it?

I don't see any glaring inconsistency, no, all I see is you constantly trying to point out an inconsistency that doesn't exist, and trying to suggest that I'm somehow bothered by women breastfeeding in public.

I don't think it's necessary for women to breastfeed in public, but I'll leave that up to the individual woman to breastfeed in public if she wants to, and unlike the woman in the opening post, I'm not going to pressure any woman into breastfeeding.

I'd rather simply see people given the information, and when the opportunity presents itself, to educate people, to look for cooperation from people, rather than confrontation with people. I said already in the thread I have no interest in becoming some "badass" breastfeeding advocate, but that doesn't mean I have anything against the idea.

I don't believe in putting pressure on anyone to do something just because I see it as a good thing. I believe in giving people the information if they are interested, and letting them make a decision for themselves. It's no different to the way the woman in the OP has chosen not to vaccinate her children and chooses to co-sleep with them, in spite of the mountains of scientific and medical evidence which suggests this is not a good idea - what are you gonna do? She makes that decision for herself (I don't know how well she is or isn't informed about those issues), and she should understand that other women will make the decision to breastfeed or not, for themselves, in public or not, for themselves.

Tommy Dillon · 11-12-2015 4:17am

She should have been asked to leave the restaurant to be fair. Its no place to feed a baby, its off putting. 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.

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.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 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.

Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Comments