# Public Breastfeeding



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

I think this is a pretty cut-and-dry case of property rights. I have no problem with public breastfeeding, but I have a HUGE problem with private businesses being forced by the government to allow public breastfeeding. Businesses have the same right to prohibit public breastfeeding as fancy restaurants do to require that male customers wear a jacket and tie.

PS: This is my 500th post. Hail Eris! Hail Discordia!


----------



## missaf (Mar 19, 2006)

"We reserve the right to reserve service to anyone."

While I agree businesses have the right to prohibit breastfeeding in their stores, it's bad taste and usually alienates a woman if she needs to BF while in say. Wal Mart, where kids are always welcome anyway, and moms shop, too.


----------



## Jane (Mar 19, 2006)

Go Ryan!!!! 500 Posts!!!! It's your birthday!!!! Well, maybe it's not, but congrats on 500 posts.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 19, 2006)

What's this about *ALLOWING * public breastfeeding in businesses. I'm sorry, if a baby is hungry, it needs to eat. It doesn't matter if the mom is in the middle of the mall or a 5 star restaurant. 

Granted, if I was the mother, I would cover myself with a blanket. It's been done without any breasts or nipplage showing. 

What pisses me off more than anything is when someone says that breast feeding mother should feed her baby in the bathroom. HELLO do YOU eat in the bathroom with all the germs and trash and grossness. No! So, why expect a mom to feed her baby in such filfth.

You would figure in today's society of open sexuality and nudity plastered all over tv and the internet that people wouldn't be appalled by a mother doing a natural act.

It really shouldn't be an issue of forcing anyone to allow breastfeeding. It should just happen. You can't deny a baby the right to eat. 

I agree with Missf. I'd really be bad practice for a business to ban breastfeeding on their premises. Although I'm not a mom yet, seeing something like that would make them lose my business and I'm sure a vast majority of my friends.


Ok Ryan, I do have a question for you. How can you equate a business prohibiting public breastfeeding with a restaurant requiring a suit and tie? Oh, and congrats on hitting 500


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> What's this about *ALLOWING * public breastfeeding. I'm sorry, if a baby is hungry, it needs to eat. It doesn't matter if the mom is in the middle of the mall or a 5 star restaurant.



It does matter. It's private property.

Two points:

1) If the baby is so underfed that it absolutely NEEDS to eat right then and there to avoid death, the parents should probably be charged with child abuse or neglect (or whatever law would apply).

2) Having children is inconvenient. It's foolish for parents (especially parents of an infant) to expect to never have to work around the needs and wants of their children. 

People who insist in being allowed to breastfeed on other people's private property are basically saying, "I refuse to accept the consequences of my life decisions. Therefore I will use the government to hijack the private property of others to shield myself from those consequences."



MisticalMisty said:


> What pisses me off more than anything is when someone says that breast feeding mother should feed her baby in the bathroom. HELLO do YOU eat in the bathroom with all the germs and trash and grossness. No! So, why expect a mom to feed her baby in such filfth.



I'm assuming the baby won't be licking its dinner off the bathroom floor, so I don't see how it would be any more dangerous than an adult eating a candy bar in a restroom, for example.



MisticalMisty said:


> You would figure in today's society of open sexuality and nudity plastered all over tv and the internet that people wouldn't be appalled by a mother doing a natural act.



I agree. I've never understood why so many people freak out over a mother discretely breastfeeding her child.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> It does matter. It's private property.


So using that logic, I should be able to kill someone in my living room and bury their body in my back yard. After all, it IS private property.......


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> It does matter. It's private property.
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1) If the baby is so underfed that it absolutely NEEDS to eat right then and there to avoid death, the parents should probably be charged with child abuse or neglect (or whatever law would apply).



It's not about being underfed. Have you ever dealt with a hungry infant Ryan? The blood curling screams of hunger? They aren't like us and can go hungry for hours at a time. When they are hungry, they cry and need to eat. It's that simple. Would you rather listening to a screaming baby for more than 5 mintues or just let the mother feed it and be done with it?




Ryan said:


> 2) Having children is inconvenient. It's foolish for parents (especially parents of an infant) to expect to never have to work around the needs and wants of their children.



Well, I'm not sure many parents plan their day around making sure they have to feed their baby in the middle of a crowded restaurant or the middle of a department store.  



Ryan said:


> People who insist in being allowed to breastfeed on other people's private property are basically saying, "I refuse to accept the consequences of my life decisions. Therefore I will use the government to hijack the private property of others to shield myself from those consequences."



Yes, it's private property meant for use by the public. So why, try to alienate the people who may frequent your business. Money's money. 





Ryan said:


> I'm assuming the baby won't be licking its dinner off the bathroom floor, so I don't see how it would be any more dangerous than an adult eating a candy bar in a restroom, for example.



Very true, but there are more germs on the handles of the doors in bathrooms than almost any other part. Restrooms are gross and believe it not, more women than men probably don't wash their hands after using the restroom. Trust me, I've seen it and gagged because of it. It doesn't matter if the baby is going to be on the floor or not. What matters is that you wouldn't want to eat your meal in a bathroom and a baby shouldn't be forced to do so either.

I realize your argument is that business shouldn't be forced to "allow" public breastfeeding. I would think that any business that wants to make money would be willing to allow it without the government being involved. If not, doesn't seem like a very clever business move to me.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> So using that logic, I should be able to kill someone in my living room and bury their body in my back yard. After all, it IS private property.......



Apples and oranges, dude. Killing for reasons other than defense of self, others, or property is a violation of individual rights.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1) If the baby is so underfed that it absolutely NEEDS to eat right then and there to avoid death, the parents should probably be charged with child abuse or neglect (or whatever law would apply).
> 
> 2) Having children is inconvenient. It's foolish for parents (especially parents of an infant) to expect to never have to work around the needs and wants of their children.


Speaking as the father of two, I can tell you that infants do not have the capability to adapt their schedule. Their stomachs can only hold a finite amount of food - when they're hungry, they're HUNGRY. Would you rather hear a screaming infant, or have a mother discreetly satisfy the infant's need for nourishment?


----------



## missaf (Mar 19, 2006)

I was nursing my son on a bench in the corner of Wal Mart, and a teenage MALE employee was grossed out and asked me to leave. I politely asked him to get his manager, and when he did, the manager apologized to me and I said "If you'd like to lose the business of all breastfeeding mothers for the ignorance of employees, feel free, but I'm not bothering anyone."

I never had a complaint again. 

Now, places like Disneyland have my vote!!! There's an entire baby area with rocking chairs, stools, high chairs, potty chairs, kid size toilets, changing tables, you name it! I spent an hour in there with my son in a rocking chair and we both took a nap. It was sheer heaven.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> It's not about being underfed. Have you ever dealt with a hungry infant Ryan? The blood curling screams of hunger? They aren't like us and can go hungry for hours at a time. When they are hungry, they cry and need to eat. It's that simple. Would you rather listening to a screaming baby for more than 5 mintues or just let the mother feed it and be done with it?



I'd rather the business owner be allowed to decide whether public breastfeeding is allowed on his/her/their private property. I've already said that I have no problem with public breastfeeding; only with businesses being forced to allow it. 



MisticalMisty said:


> Well, I'm not sure many parents plan their day around making sure they have to feed their baby in the middle of a crowded restaurant or the middle of a department store.



They should take such things into consideration and show some respect for the rights of whomever's property they are on.



MisticalMisty said:


> Yes, it's private property meant for use by the public. So why, try to alienate the people who may frequent your business. Money's money.



Just because the private property is open to the public doesn't mean that the property owner forfeits all rights to make and enforce rules. The property is still owned by somebody, and we use that property only because he/she/they allow(s) us to.

If somebody opens their property to the public by having a garage sale, it doesn't mean that everyone in the world can show up and do whatever they want.



MisticalMisty said:


> Very true, but there are more germs on the handles of the doors in bathrooms than almost any other part. Restrooms are gross and believe it not, more women than men probably don't wash their hands after using the restroom. Trust me, I've seen it and gagged because of it.



So property owners should be stripped of their rights because people don't wash their hands after using the bathroom?



MisticalMisty said:


> It doesn't matter if the baby is going to be on the floor or not. What matters is that you wouldn't want to eat your meal in a bathroom and a baby shouldn't be forced to do so either.



The only person who would be forcing a baby to be breastfed in a restroom is the woman who is breastfeeding it. She can choose to go elsewhere.



MisticalMisty said:


> I realize your argument is that business shouldn't be forced to "allow" public breastfeeding. I would think that any business that wants to make money would be willing to allow it without the government being involved. If not, doesn't seem like a very clever business move to me.



I agree.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Speaking as the father of two, I can tell you that infants do not have the capability to adapt their schedule. Their stomachs can only hold a finite amount of food - when they're hungry, they're HUNGRY. Would you rather hear a screaming infant, or have a mother discreetly satisfy the infant's need for nourishment?



I've already said I have no problem with public breastfeeding. I just don't think businesses should be forced to allow it.

And I'm not arguing that infants be forced to adapt their feeding schedule. I said that parents should be working around the needs and wants of their children, rather than being arrogant and demanding that the rest of the world accomodate them so they can avoid being inconvenienced.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 19, 2006)

demanding that the world accomodate them....hmmmmm..sounds familiar...where have I heard it....
If a place of business sees an increase in the number of very large people coming to sit and have a drink...food...etc..they should be allowed to refuse those people a chair...after awhile, chairs can get a lil rickety with all that weight on them..I know. 
It is feeding a child, for christs sake!!!


----------



## RedHead (Mar 19, 2006)

Why is breast feeding a child discreetly (blanket covering, no nip showing) any more offensive than two people exchanging deep throat kisses at the next table? Both actions can offend others; both actions could be done else where.

Breastfed babies cannot be left with a sitter; they eat more frequently and the crying triggers a natural occurrence of the mothers milk to start pouring. So a mother going to the store for groceries has a young infant...halfway through shopping, baby starts crying, milk starts flowing, grocery cart is half full...what is she supposed to do...you can't take the cart into the bathroom. Leaving the store seems somewhat improbable (you'd just have to start over again and likely have the same thing happen halfway through)...so the solution...if a "private" store doesn't want to allow it...well how private are they when they allow all sorts of other behaviour and actions on their property. While taking our money???

So in conclusion; it is ridiculous for a store that is a PUBLIC place of business to restrict this. Unless they post a HUGE sign on every door that states it is not allowed...along with no french kissing, no shirt, no shoes....etc.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

RedHead said:


> ...if a "private" store doesn't want to allow it...well how private are they when they allow all sorts of other behaviour and actions on their property. While taking our money???
> 
> So in conclusion; it is ridiculous for a store that is a PUBLIC place of business to restrict this. Unless they post a HUGE sign on every door that states it is not allowed...along with no french kissing, no shirt, no shoes....etc.



So you're basically saying that a business either has to ban everything that everyone does, or they can't ban anything?

And "public" places of business are still privately owned.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Apples and oranges, dude. Killing for reasons other than defense of self, others, or property is a violation of individual rights.


But you're advocating the violation of an individual mother's right to care for her infant.


----------



## Fuzzy (Mar 19, 2006)

I can't believe this is being questioned. I would think that we'd be having a discussion about whether the Gov't of New York City has the right to force all businesses (public and private) to prohibit smoking.

Breastfeeding is about as natural as it is for me to forget that I'm paying too much attention to the act. *blush*


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> I've already said I have no problem with public breastfeeding. I just don't think businesses should be forced to allow it.
> 
> And I'm not arguing that infants be forced to adapt their feeding schedule. I said that parents should be working around the needs and wants of their children, rather than being arrogant and demanding that the rest of the world accomodate them so they can avoid being inconvenienced.


As a place of public accommodation, there are a multitude of regulations to which they have to comply. Health regulations, fire safety, OSHA, etc.

The property owner does NOT have an absolute right to control each and every activity on their premises.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 19, 2006)

Yeah, I am thinking there is more at play here than wanting businesses to have the right to ban things they find offensive..etc.A little TOOOOO much energy.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> But you're advocating the violation of an individual mother's right to care for her infant.



How? Is the business owner holding the mother hostage; preventing her from leaving?


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Fuzzy said:


> I can't believe this is being questioned. I would think that we'd be having a discussion about whether the Gov't of New York City has the right to force all businesses (public and private) to prohibit smoking.
> 
> Breastfeeding is about as natural as it is for me to forget that I'm paying too much attention to the act. *blush*


The whole subject sounds like a talk radio talking point to me. Especially the "property rights" angle.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> As a place of public accommodation, there are a multitude of regulations to which they have to comply. Health regulations, fire safety, OSHA, etc.
> 
> The property owner does NOT have an absolute right to control each and every activity on their premises.



A property owner has the right to do or allow anything that is not a threat to the rights of others. The laws frequently don't recognize this right, however.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

This may surprise some of you, given my rep as a breastfeeding nazi, but no, I don't think businesses should be FORCED to accept breastfeeding women, anymore than they should be forced to allow people to bring in children, pets, etc. As the lady said, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone". 

That being said, they're fools if they don't allow it because a breastfed baby is more often than not a happy baby, and making a woman hold off on feeding her baby will make her, baby, and everyone within screaming distance miserable. Far more miserable than the sight of a little "nipplage".

Ryan, I have to say that feeding an infant in the bathroom is far different than an adult eating a candy bar in the same bathroom. First of all, the only seating in most bathrooms is the toilet which is a particularly dirty place. It's very difficult for a breastfeeding mom to stand and nurse (trust me, I've done it) so you're forcing her into the dirtiest part of an already dirty place to feed. Also, infants have notoriously immature immune systems. Even breastfed babies, whose immune systems are superior -- as a whole -- to bottle fed babies, are at higher risk for contracting and dying from a host of microbes. Do you really want someone with a compromised immune system eating in a very dirty place? Nuh uh.

Obviously there needs to be a lot more education about breastfeeding, given some of the remarks I've read here, and overheard elsewhere. While it's frustrating, it also means job security.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

mossystate said:


> Yeah, I am thinking there is more at play here than wanting businesses to have the right to ban things they find offensive..etc.A little TOOOOO much energy.



What else do you think is "at play here"? I have no motives other than respect for the rights of property owners.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> What else do you think is "at play here"? I have no motives other than respect for the rights of property owners.


And that seems to be your sole argument.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Fuzzy said:


> I can't believe this is being questioned. I would think that we'd be having a discussion about whether the Gov't of New York City has the right to force all businesses (public and private) to prohibit smoking.



I'm questioning it because it's a violation of property rights.



Fuzzy said:


> Breastfeeding is about as natural as it is for me to forget that I'm paying too much attention to the act. *blush*



Breastfeeding is natural. I have no problem with it - even in public places.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> And that seems to be your sole argument.



Because it's the sole issue of individual rights, in this case.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> So you're basically saying that a business either has to ban everything that everyone does, or they can't ban anything?
> 
> And "public" places of business are still privately owned.



No, what I said was that there are a lot of behaviours that are offensive to others...and if a business owner finds one particularly offensive and does not want it on their property they need to have it posted VERY publically...that way the consumer can decide whether or not to spend their money at that establishment...which is THEIR RIGHT!


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Because it's the sole issue of individual rights, in this case.


What you have here is a conflict between the rights of the property owner, and the rights of his customers.

Any restaurant owner who was that hard-nosed about banning breastfeeding mothers would probably be out of business in very short order, through the negative publicity.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> What you have here is a conflict between the rights of the property owner, and the rights of his customers.
> 
> Any restaurant owner who was that hard-nosed about banning breastfeeding mothers would probably be out of business in very short order, through the negative publicity.



Not to mention the fact that a breastfed baby denied the breast is a miserable baby. (Been there, done that...) And a miserable baby makes everyone around it miserable as well.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 19, 2006)

What gets me are the ppl who are grossed out by breastfeeding BUT see nothing wrong with Playboy.

I have no problem with public BFing; I've done it. My problem is with women who do not do it discreetly/immodestly, or who make a big show of it as if to prove some sort of point.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

RedHead said:


> No, what I said was that there are a lot of behaviours that are offensive to others...and if a business owner finds one particularly offensive and does not want it on their property they need to have it posted VERY publically...that way the consumer can decide whether or not to spend their money at that establishment...which is THEIR RIGHT!



It seems silly to have to list of all the hundreds or even thousands of things that aren't acceptable while on somebody's property. How many people would bother reading such a long list? An easier solution would be for the mother or mothers to ask the owner or manager if there is a problem with them breastfeeding on the premises.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> What you have here is a conflict between the rights of the property owner, and the rights of his customers.



I really don't see how the rights of the customers are an issue here. Nobody is forcing them to shop at a certain store or eat at a certain restaurant.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 19, 2006)

Here is another angle: how do you folks feel about women who BF toddlers? I ask because I BFed my son till he was 7 months (he wanted to give it up)....my older daughter until she was 18 mos old, and my youngest till she was 3. I used to get weird stares from ppl the longer I did it, esp. when my youngest would say, "Mommy, gimme boobie!" (LOL)


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

FitChick said:


> What gets me are the ppl who are grossed out by breastfeeding BUT see nothing wrong with Playboy.
> 
> I have no problem with public BFing; I've done it. My problem is with women who do not do it discreetly/immodestly, or who make a big show of it as if to prove some sort of point.



I agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy around this issue. It's been my experience that many of the people who have a big problem with public breastfeeding are guys who don't have a problem with naked female bodies in other settings.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Here is another angle: how do you folks feel about women who BF toddlers? I ask because I BFed my son till he was 7 months (he wanted to give it up)....my older daughter until she was 18 mos old, and my youngest till she was 3. I used to get weird stares from ppl the longer I did it, esp. when my youngest would say, "Mommy, gimme boobie!" (LOL)



From the standpoint of doing it publically, I still think it should up to the property owners.

I have no idea on this, as far as the health of the child is concerned. If it isn't hurting the kid, I don't really see any problem with this.

Just out of curiousity, why did you choose to breastfeed each child for a longer period than the one before it?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> It seems silly to have to list of all the hundreds or even thousands of things that aren't acceptable while on somebody's property. How many people would bother reading such a long list? An easier solution would be for the mother or mothers to ask the owner or manager if there is a problem with them breastfeeding on the premises.



Yeah but then the assumption becomes that there is somehow something inherently wrong or shameful about breastfeeding. To me the onus should be on the management to discreetly tell someone if breastfeeding isn't allowed -- unless they have prominantly posted a sign to that effect. Sadly, the message given to many women is already that there is something wrong with breastfeeding. I mean look at FitChick's remarks -- it's okay IF it's done modestly, but if it's not, then the woman has some sort of point to make. The assumption is that women breastfeed AT those around her, rather than the more simpler truth -- they do it to give their babies the very best nutritional start. I nursed all three of my kids and tried to be discreet, but the combination of active, gymnastical babies and DD breasts made being truly discreet impossible. Do you know how many times my babies hurled off the blanket I used to cover us up? Eventually I just gave up, realizing I was showing far less skin than is shown on a beach (or even in the mall these days).


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan, what would you do if it was YOUR baby that was screaming from hunger and YOUR wife who was trying to feed your baby and you were asked to leave? Would you?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> Ryan, what would you do if it was YOUR baby that was screaming from hunger and YOUR wife who was trying to feed your baby and you were asked to leave? Would you?



Yes, I would leave. And I would never go back to that establishment, even after my child was past breastfeeding age. What I WOULDN'T do is use the government to force the business to allow my wife to breastfeed.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Yes, I would leave. And I would never go back to that establishment, even after my child was past breastfeeding age. What I WOULDN'T do is use the government to force the business to allow my wife to breastfeed.




Wow..I'm speechless


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> Wow..I'm speechless



Why?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 19, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Yeah but then the assumption becomes that there is somehow something inherently wrong or shameful about breastfeeding. To me the onus should be on the management to discreetly tell someone if breastfeeding isn't allowed -- unless they have prominantly posted a sign to that effect. Sadly, the message given to many women is already that there is something wrong with breastfeeding. I mean look at FitChick's remarks -- it's okay IF it's done modestly, but if it's not, then the woman has some sort of point to make. The assumption is that women breastfeed AT those around her, rather than the more simpler truth -- they do it to give their babies the very best nutritional start. I nursed all three of my kids and tried to be discreet, but the combination of active, gymnastical babies and DD breasts made being truly discreet impossible. Do you know how many times my babies hurled off the blanket I used to cover us up? Eventually I just gave up, realizing I was showing far less skin than is shown on a beach (or even in the mall these days).



I don't think you understood what I was saying. There are certain women who
are so heavily into making BFing a POLITICAL issue that the WAY they do it can be offensive to other people. I've known some of these women, have met them at playgroups, LLL meetings, etc.

Although I have BFed all my kids, I really don't think its necessary for me to have to see a woman's bare breast when she is nursing, you know? It CAN be done modestly, but some women (thankfully a minority) feel that even to do it modestly implies something shameful. No, nothing shameful about BFing but blatant nudity is never called for.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> From the standpoint of doing it publically, I still think it should up to the property owners.
> 
> I have no idea on this, as far as the health of the child is concerned. If it isn't hurting the kid, I don't really see any problem with this.
> 
> Just out of curiousity, why did you choose to breastfeed each child for a longer period than the one before it?




I did not choose how long to nurse my children. THEY chose. I simply let them nurse for as long as they wanted to....its called "baby-led weaning".


----------



## Ryan (Mar 19, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Yeah but then the assumption becomes that there is somehow something inherently wrong or shameful about breastfeeding. To me the onus should be on the management to discreetly tell someone if breastfeeding isn't allowed -- unless they have prominantly posted a sign to that effect.



If I had a wife who was breastfeeding, I would ask the business owner or manager ahead of time, simply because I know there are plenty of people do think it's wrong or shameful. I will respect their opinion, even if I think it's uptight or silly. If we were going to a restaurant or something, I would even call them ahead of time to make sure it was okay. 



Miss Vickie said:


> Sadly, the message given to many women is already that there is something wrong with breastfeeding. I mean look at FitChick's remarks -- it's okay IF it's done modestly, but if it's not, then the woman has some sort of point to make.



I actually agree with FitChick on this one. If a person chooses to do something flamboyantly when the same results could be achieved more modestly, it frequently *is* because they are trying to prove a point or be the center of attention. It's like the difference between discretely passing gas and running over to your friend and yelling, "Dude! Pull my finger!" and then trying to light the fart with a match. A fart is a fart, but there was a very obvious and conscious decision made regarding how the hypothetical fart was handled.

I still think that public breastfeeding, even when flamboyantly done, should be allowed with the consent of the property owner. If another customer doesn't like it, they can leave. But if somebody is clearly putting on a show for others, I'm not going to pretend that they aren't.



Miss Vickie said:


> The assumption is that women breastfeed AT those around her, rather than the more simpler truth -- they do it to give their babies the very best nutritional start. I nursed all three of my kids and tried to be discreet, but the combination of active, gymnastical babies and DD breasts made being truly discreet impossible. Do you know how many times my babies hurled off the blanket I used to cover us up? Eventually I just gave up, realizing I was showing far less skin than is shown on a beach (or even in the mall these days).



It sounds like you handled it in a mature manner. That's not the same thing as being flamboyant, in my opinion.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I don't think you understood what I was saying. There are certain women who
> are so heavily into making BFing a POLITICAL issue that the WAY they do it can be offensive to other people. I've known some of these women, have met them at playgroups, LLL meetings, etc.



Canyou tell me how someone can breastfeed in such a way that's offensive or even worse, political?? Is it the position of the nipple? Choosing cradle hold versus football? Breastfeeding is sticking a breast in a baby's mouth. Many women do it many times each day, in public and in private. How on earth can they do it in such a "way" that it's political unless they're wearing a particularly political t shirt or nursing bras. And if such things are available, kindly point me at them 'cause I want one.

Nursing on the steps of the state capital? Political. (Yes, I've done that). Nursing at a Starbucks while sipping a double tall latte? Feeding a baby while enjoying the finer things in life.



> Although I have BFed all my kids, I really don't think its necessary for me to have to see a woman's bare breast when she is nursing, you know? It CAN be done modestly, but some women (thankfully a minority) feel that even to do it modestly implies something shameful. No, nothing shameful about BFing but blatant nudity is never called for.



If you've breastfed babies, and particularly toddlers, then you know -- given how active they are -- how hard it is to keep them covered up. You've never had them throw off a carefully placed blanket? Pop off the nipple suddenly, leaving the breast bare? That kind of stuff just happens. It's not a statement -- it's the capriciousness of babies.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> If I had a wife who was breastfeeding, I would ask the business owner or manager ahead of time, simply because I know there are plenty of people do think it's wrong or shameful. I will respect their opinion, even if I think it's uptight or silly. If we were going to a restaurant or something, I would even call them ahead of time to make sure it was okay.



See, this is where we differ. I don't feel the need to validate or support people's stupid silly and uptight attitudes toward the human breast. The rest of the world thinks we're insane on this issue (and many others, truth be told). Public breastfeeding is a part of life in much of the industrialized world. It's only in the US, one of the most sexually freewheeling cultures on the planet, that the sight of a baby breastfeeding sends people into conniption fits. Why? Because the human breast, in our culture, is for men's enjoyment, not for feeding babies. And that's a pretty f'd up attitude, in my opinion, and given our skyrocketing rates of cancer, childhood diabetes and obesity, it's a DANGEROUS one. 

So anything I can do to encourage women to feed their babies in a healthy way, I'm going to do. And if someone in a restaurant has a problem with a nursing baby, they can just suck it up. Just like they can suck it up if they don't like looking at my fat body in shorts, spandex, or even short sleeves. I don't exist to be anyone's eye candy and if they don't like looking at a fat woman, a human breast, or whatever, I'm sure there are lots of other things to look at. The only way they are being forced to look is if I sit on their lap while breastfeeding, and I haven't done that in a really really long time. 



> I actually agree with FitChick on this one. If a person chooses to do something flamboyantly when the same results could be achieved more modestly, it frequently *is* because they are trying to prove a point or be the center of attention. It's like the difference between discretely passing gas and running over to your friend and yelling, "Dude! Pull my finger!" and then trying to light the fart with a match. A fart is a fart, but there was a very obvious and conscious decision made regarding how the hypothetical fart was handled.



I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in common with passing gas and breastfeeding and I'm more than a little irritated at the connection.



> But if somebody is clearly putting on a show for others, I'm not going to pretend that they aren't.



Damn, I knew I should have told those breastfeeding moms to leave their tassled nipple shields at home. I knew I was missing something. 

My point here is that a person's perception about whether someone is "flamboyantly" nursing, or "putting on a show" speaks more about their attitudes toward nursing than the poor woman who's trying to do nothing else but be a good parent. It's hard enough to be a good parent. Why make it harder by telling them they're breastfeeding wrong? I just think that sends the wrong message.



> It sounds like you handled it in a mature manner. That's not the same thing as being flamboyant, in my opinion.



Yeah but you weren't there, so you really don't know. According to some the thigns you and FitChick have said, by not covering up, I may be trying to "prove" something. See what I mean about perception?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 19, 2006)

Some people seem to forget there's this little invention called a bottle.  

Parents do have the ability to be prepared ahead of time in case of the unexpected. Having breast milk in a bottle in case of a baby getting hungry is no different from thinking a head and having extra diapers. 

Breast milk in a bottle means babies get fed and no one can be upset about public breast feeding. Everybody's happy.

Ah, well, nevermind. Don't mind me, I'm just a crazy Witch.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Some people seem to forget there's this little invention called a bottle.
> 
> Parents do have the ability to be prepared ahead of time in case of the unexpected. Having breast milk in a bottle in case of a baby getting hungry is no different from thinking a head and having extra diapers.
> 
> ...



That may be true and there are women who pump and try to use bottles in public. But, there will always be circumstances that arise where a mother must feed with her breast in public. Also, there are women who can't afford to purchase a pump and also do not qualify for assistance to help with the purchase of a pump. So, indeed the bottle is a choice, but not always the simple and easy solution


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Some people seem to forget there's this little invention called a bottle.
> 
> Parents do have the ability to be prepared ahead of time in case of the unexpected. Having breast milk in a bottle in case of a baby getting hungry is no different from thinking a head and having extra diapers.
> 
> ...



Um. Except. 1) Many breastfed babies won't take bottles. 2) Many women cannot pump sufficient quantities of milk to feed an infant. And 3) Giving a newly breastfeeding infant an artificial nipple of any kind can, and often does, end the breastfeeding relationship right then and there.

So yeah it's very very different than bringing diapers. But don't mind me, it's just my job to know these things.


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 19, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> It's only in the US, one of the most sexually freewheeling cultures on the planet, that the sight of a baby breastfeeding sends people into conniption fits. Why? Because the human breast, in our culture, is for men's enjoyment, not for feeding babies. And that's a pretty f'd up attitude,



I've been enjoying reading this thread. I don't have kids yet, but my sister BF'd all four of hers, and in fact, I sewed her some nursing tops. When that baby needs to eat, there is no waiting.....

And I think Miss Vickie hit the nail on the head with her post, quoted above. In this country, we have an odd mix of Victorian prudery and outright lasciviousness (sp?), often from the same people, depending on what they might get out of it at the time. 

I've never had a problem seeing someone BF her baby, even in church. It should be looked at no differently than a mom (or dad) pulling out a bottle and feeding their little one.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Some people seem to forget there's this little invention called a bottle.
> 
> Parents do have the ability to be prepared ahead of time in case of the unexpected. Having breast milk in a bottle in case of a baby getting hungry is no different from thinking a head and having extra diapers.
> 
> ...



There are several babies who will not under any circumstances take a bottle. The nipple isn't mommy and therefore will scream their head off until the real deal is given. Regardless of how hungry the baby gets; they will not feed off a latex/non-human nipple. So unfortunately your back to a mother in the grocery store.....


----------



## olivefun (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> If I had a wife who was breastfeeding, I would ask the business owner or manager ahead of time, simply because I know there are plenty of people do think it's wrong or shameful. .


 
* 
wrong or shameful?* 

There are few things that are more miraculous. 
The fact that my breasts could produce all the nourishment my child needed to live was bewildering and humbling. It was an honour to be able to feed my child in this way. One day, at about 24 months of age, that was enough and that was it. Up until that point, my job was to take care of the baby as best i could, still is, but now it isn't my breast that takes care and I am not often permitted to call my child a baby any more  
(but I do try). 

People who _might_ think this is wrong or shameful are idiots. 

I do not cater my behavior to these fools. 

Having naked breast sell everything from pizza to cars is unnatural use of breasts, being in a walmart is an unnatural thing, breastfeeding is necessary and natural. 


:shocked: 
(I put this smilie here, because the eyes sort of looked like breasts to me at this moment)


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 19, 2006)

olivefun said:


> breastfeeding is necessary and natural.



So is taking a whiz. But I don't want to see some guy urinating next to me while I'm in the electronics department looking at video games. 

No, I am not comparing the two, it was a joke.  

I don't care one way or the other on public breast feeding and there are of course polite discrete ways of doing it in public. But some people are bothered by it, for whatever reason, and stores and restaurants are within their rights to have policies for or against it.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I don't care one way or the other on public breast feeding and there are of course polite discrete ways of doing it in public. But some people are bothered by it, for whatever reason, and stores and restaurants are within their rights to have policies for or against it.



Since this is a fat acceptance site, I have to ask: What if a restaurant, store, or whatever posted a sign that said "No fat chicks allowed". Would that be okay? Would that be within their rights?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 19, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Since this is a fat acceptance site, I have to ask: What if a restaurant, store, or whatever posted a sign that said "No fat chicks allowed". Would that be okay? Would that be within their rights?



Not the same thing. Stores have rules on behavior, conduct and attire. 

Whether I personally agree with it or not, that's their right.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 19, 2006)

I just wanted to comment on the bottle thing. Its usually true that if a baby is given a bottle, it will mean the end of BFing or make it very hard to resume it.

Then again, I had my three kids by Csection, and with my older daughter, for some reason I was zonked out for hours afterward, and they didnt bring her to me till the next morning (!) I found out they'd been giving her a bottle which I'd not wanted them to do.

But with some work, she was able to begin BFing and she kept it up till 18 mos or so. But OFTEN using a bottle or pacifier is the kiss of death to BFing, its true.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I just wanted to comment on the bottle thing. Its usually true that if a baby is given a bottle, it will mean the end of BFing or make it very hard to resume it.
> 
> Then again, I had my three kids by Csection, and with my older daughter, for some reason I was zonked out for hours afterward, and they didnt bring her to me till the next morning (!) I found out they'd been giving her a bottle which I'd not wanted them to do.
> 
> But with some work, she was able to begin BFing and she kept it up till 18 mos or so. But OFTEN using a bottle or pacifier is the kiss of death to BFing, its true.



Yep. I spent over an hour last night with a patient on another floor who was trying to re-establish breastfeeding. She'd given her baby a bottle, and from that one bottle the baby refused to breastfeed. She has her work cut out for her over the next few days, re-establishing her milk supply and re-acclimating her baby to the nipple. Bottles are much easier for babies than breasts -- way less work -- and so some babies will naturally want to go that route, given the opportunity. OTOH, there are kids like mine who wouldn't take anything not "au naturele" -- not pacifiers, not bottles, nada, something which presents its own challenges. (I could never go out alone until they were eating solid foods).

I guess babies, like adults, have preferences about certain things.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 19, 2006)

Okay. I don't really want a business to have the "right" to call the police to have me removed from the property just for breastfeeding. I think that's the issue most people have. So I answered yes, not because I think another law needs to be made, but because one needs to be eliminated, or at least rewritten.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 19, 2006)

Ryan said:


> If I had a wife who was breastfeeding, I would ask the business owner or manager ahead of time, simply because I know there are plenty of people do think it's wrong or shameful. I will respect their opinion, even if I think it's uptight or silly. If we were going to a restaurant or something, I would even call them ahead of time to make sure it was okay.



Some people think that it's shameful to allow a black person in public. Some people think a woman having short hair is shameful. Some people think a woman wearing pants is shameful. If your wife was a black lady with short hair wearing a pair of slacks, would you call ahead to see if it's okay?



Ryan said:


> I actually agree with FitChick on this one. If a person chooses to do something flamboyantly when the same results could be achieved more modestly, it frequently *is* because they are trying to prove a point or be the center of attention. It's like the difference between discretely passing gas and running over to your friend and yelling, "Dude! Pull my finger!" and then trying to light the fart with a match. A fart is a fart, but there was a very obvious and conscious decision made regarding how the hypothetical fart was handled.



Have you seen someone breastfeed? Usually there's a blanket over the child and you see NO nipple or boob. Even when my sister-in-law does it without a blanket, you see nothing. It's quite a dull show.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Have you seen someone breastfeed? Usually there's a blanket over the child and you see NO nipple or boob. Even when my sister-in-law does it without a blanket, you see nothing. It's quite a dull show.



See what I mean? We need nipple shields with tassles, man. Just to amuse the masses.  But I agree completely. I've seen more skin on the beach (or at my daughter's high school! :shocked than watching women breastfeed.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 19, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Okay. I don't really want a business to have the "right" to call the police to have me removed from the property just for breastfeeding. I think that's the issue most people have. So I answered yes, not because I think another law needs to be made, but because one needs to be eliminated, or at least rewritten.



This is why I went to a Nurse In in Olympia when I lived in Seattle. It was about adding a law (or removing a law? I can't remember. I'm too old) which separated breastfeeding from public nudity, which is associated with lasciviousness.

Now THAT was some political nursing.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 19, 2006)

It's funny; I asked my brother who's a police officer how he'd treat this, as his wife breastfeeds. He said he wouldn't even think of issuing a citation. So, there are still some sane people in the world.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 19, 2006)

I personally think it would be in a store's best interest, financially and in PR, to have a lounge area set aside for breast feeding. That way women would have a safe, clean, private place to breast feed. 

But again, my point was, it's up to them to set their policies and not for me to force them. Just because I believe a private business has the right to set their own policies, doesn't necessarily mean I agree with those policies.


----------



## Isa (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I personally think it would be in a store's best interest, financially and in PR, to have a lounge area set aside for breast feeding. That way women would have a safe, clean, private place to breast feed.
> 
> But again, my point was, it's up to them to set their policies and not for me to force them. Just because I believe a private business has the right to set their own policies, doesn't necessarily mean I agree with those policies.



I have been in stores where the lounge area was set-up so well (changing stations, comfy seating and just about everything else) that it was a joy to visit. Of course if someone is trying to make a statement (which, let's be honest about it, some BFing women do) then there is nothing any establishment could do to satisfy her. It's her right and dammit screw everything and everyone else. 

Before the flames start, I support breast feeding but simply do not feel it should be forced on the public.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 19, 2006)

Not fanning flames any further, but is it forcing when anyone makes any other choice about their bodies that others can see? Say I had a tattoo where others could see? I mean, am I forcing my tastes on others if I let others see it?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 19, 2006)

I support breastfeeding as well. I do think that some places should be able to have strict rules though. If "Fi Fi's Shi Shi" restaurant serves a high end clientele at $100 a plate I'm sure they are going to want to serve within the best interests of their business. Nothing worse than going out for an expensive romantic dinner or trying to impress clients when there's someone there with a bunch of kids running around or with a screaming baby. I love families and think that all babies should eat but the government shouldn't be able to force all businesses to compromise the atmosphere they wish to cultivate on behalf of their clients.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 19, 2006)

I have a tongue piercing. When I audition/perform I have to take it out. I knew this would be the drill when I got it. If I had a tattoo I would have to cover it and I would be sure not to get a tattoo that couldn't be easily covered or camouflaged if I wanted to keep working in the theater business. I shouldn't be surprised if a theater company passes me over due to a 3 gauge plug in my ear where the hole can still be seen even if I remove the jewelry. I think there are rare occasions where discriminatory practice, as awful as it is, is what makes the business what it is.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 19, 2006)

Sure. But do you take your tongue ring out before going to a department store or restaurant? I don't think anyone should breastfeed during an audition for sure.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 19, 2006)

No, I wouldn't be inclined to take out my tongue piercing to go to a restaurant.  My contention though is that making a law might be too broad a brush to use. If they could do something that would allow for reasonable exceptions I would be all for it but it's hard to do that.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 19, 2006)

Sorry I kinda skimmed the last couple of pages, but I want to say this...

Ryan, you seem to be a pretty die-hard libertarian, to make such a big deal of this. Now, I come down on your side on this issue. The owner of private property can decide, within the bounds of law, what activities take place on his/her property. I can kick you out of my house for saying the word "potato." If you don't leave, you're trespassing. Sure, if I called the police over it, I'd be acting like a complete dick, but the point is that my freedom to make my own choices about those things which are my own is more important than you being able to do whatever the hell you want without being exposed to assholes here and there. 

But there is an essential problem of libertarianism: I do not live in a vacuum. Every one of my choices affects the options available to others--every one of my actions, therefore, curtails the freedoms of someone in some way. This question may seem ridiculous to many, but it is one that a libertarian must grapple with: what is the rational basis for the assertion that, if I have acquired something justly, I can prevent others from using it? What makes something 'mine?' And where is the line drawn between actions that I can do and actions that I can't because they constrain others too much? Why can I use my knife to cut my own bread, but not to cut you? In both instances, I am affecting your freedom: if I cut your arm off, you won't be able to do certain things, but if I spend my time using my knife to cut bread, you won't be able to do certain other things (use my knife). 

I've heard various talk of positive and negative rights regarding the state of nature... that certain things are exist ad infinitum in the s.o.n. (air to breathe, freedom of speech), but certain things exist only in finite quantities (health care, wealth, property). Since by using something that is infinite, you deprive nobody else of its use, everyone is obviously entitled to all positive rights. But nobody has a negative right--a right to something finite--because then you would be depriving someone else of that something, so some other procedure has to be used to divvy up the finite resources, and that procedure should maximize personal freedom. Libertarians say the best way to do this is (and these ideas are mostly Robert Nozick's... at least, that's where I got them from) to let the owners of resources, providing they do not monopolize them just for the purpose of being an asshole, decide where they go.

But back to breastfeeding, the free market, in theory, would take care of this problem (I'm not a big proponent of the market in general, but in this case, it makes sense, I think, as we are talking about stores and restaurants--smaller individual establishments (even if part of a larger chain)). If you don't like that a restaurant or store prohibits breastfeeding, take your business elsewhere. If enough other people do this, they will have no choice but to allow it or go out of business. That's why, as a person who sees nothing wrong with breastfeeding, I come down exactly like Ryan--I would respect a business's right (or a homeowner's right, for that matter) to prevent breastfeeding on his/her premises. But I would never have anything to do with that person/business again.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 19, 2006)

At least Ryan's cute. It's his saving grace.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> See, this is where we differ. I don't feel the need to validate or support people's stupid silly and uptight attitudes toward the human breast. The rest of the world thinks we're insane on this issue (and many others, truth be told). Public breastfeeding is a part of life in much of the industrialized world. It's only in the US, one of the most sexually freewheeling cultures on the planet, that the sight of a baby breastfeeding sends people into conniption fits. Why? Because the human breast, in our culture, is for men's enjoyment, not for feeding babies. And that's a pretty f'd up attitude, in my opinion, and given our skyrocketing rates of cancer, childhood diabetes and obesity, it's a DANGEROUS one.
> 
> So anything I can do to encourage women to feed their babies in a healthy way, I'm going to do. And if someone in a restaurant has a problem with a nursing baby, they can just suck it up. Just like they can suck it up if they don't like looking at my fat body in shorts, spandex, or even short sleeves. I don't exist to be anyone's eye candy and if they don't like looking at a fat woman, a human breast, or whatever, I'm sure there are lots of other things to look at. The only way they are being forced to look is if I sit on their lap while breastfeeding, and I haven't done that in a really really long time.



I don't feel the need to validate the attitudes of the general public. I'm talking about finding out if public breastfeeding is okay with the owner of the store or restaurant. I couldn't care less what other customers think.



Miss Vickie said:


> I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in common with passing gas and breastfeeding and I'm more than a little irritated at the connection.



My point wasn't that breastfeeding was the same thing as farting. My point was that there are discrete and flamboyant ways to handle things. When people unnecessarily choose the flamboyant way, it's frequently because they either want attention or because they want to prove a point.



Miss Vickie said:


> My point here is that a person's perception about whether someone is "flamboyantly" nursing, or "putting on a show" speaks more about their attitudes toward nursing than the poor woman who's trying to do nothing else but be a good parent.



I disagree. I have no problem with public breastfeeding. But there are certain types of behavior that I would classify as flamboyant.



Miss Vickie said:


> It's hard enough to be a good parent. Why make it harder by telling them they're breastfeeding wrong? I just think that sends the wrong message.



I wasn't planning on telling them anything. That's an issue to be dealt with between the breastfeeding mom and the business owner. Anyway; I wouldn't be bothered by a woman who I thought was being flamboyant. I would just recognize the behavior as something I considered flamboyant.



Miss Vickie said:


> Yeah but you weren't there, so you really don't know. According to some the thigns you and FitChick have said, by not covering up, I may be trying to "prove" something. See what I mean about perception?



You're right. I wasn't there, so I had to take your word for it. Anyway, my perception doesn't change my view as to whether or not it should be allowed. So why would it matter to you?


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

olivefun said:


> I do not cater my behavior to these fools.



I don't change my behavior to please the general public, but when on private property I respect the rules and wishes of the property owner.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Some people think that it's shameful to allow a black person in public. Some people think a woman having short hair is shameful. Some people think a woman wearing pants is shameful. If your wife was a black lady with short hair wearing a pair of slacks, would you call ahead to see if it's okay?



No, I wouldn't call ahead. I've never seen anyone be asked to leave a store or restaurant because of their race. Rules regarding behavior are to be expected. Rules regarding the identity of the customers aren't exactly common these days.



TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Have you seen someone breastfeed? Usually there's a blanket over the child and you see NO nipple or boob. Even when my sister-in-law does it without a blanket, you see nothing. It's quite a dull show.



I've seen children be breastfed. Like I said before, I don't have a problem with it. I don't find it dirty or embarrassing. It simply isn't a big deal to me.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 20, 2006)

Ryan said:


> No, I wouldn't call ahead. I've never seen anyone be asked to leave a store or restaurant because of their race. Rules regarding behavior are to be expected. Rules regarding the identity of the customers aren't exactly common these days.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen children be breastfed. Like I said before, I don't have a problem with it. I don't find it dirty or embarrassing. It simply isn't a big deal to me.



No no no no no! You didn't answer the short hair OR pants part!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> But I agree completely. I've seen more skin on the beach (or at my daughter's high school! :shocked than watching women breastfeed.



I agree. I see more skin on TV, the beach and on the internet than I have with the few women I've seen breastfeeding their kids. I will mention again that my problem is with forcing businesses to allow breastfeeding, not the breastfeeding itself.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> At least Ryan's cute. It's his saving grace.



Thanks. Sort of.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> No no no no no! You didn't answer the short hair OR pants part!



Some fancy restaurants expect men to wear a jacket and tie, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to expect a woman to wear a dress. But any restaurant that complained about the length of my or my date's hair wouldn't be getting my business. That's just too damned picky.


----------



## rainyday (Mar 20, 2006)

Is it common for breast-feeding women to be ejected from businesses? Serious question.

Breastfeeding's a natural act to me, and the friends I've been out in public with who breastfed did it amazingly discreetly. Occasionally I've seen women making no attempt to cover anything, but it's a rare thing.


----------



## maxoutfa (Mar 20, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> I support breastfeeding as well. I do think that some places should be able to have strict rules though. If "Fi Fi's Shi Shi" restaurant serves a high end clientele at $100 a plate I'm sure they are going to want to serve within the best interests of their business. Nothing worse than going out for an expensive romantic dinner or trying to impress clients when there's someone there with a bunch of kids running around or with a screaming baby. I love families and think that all babies should eat but the government shouldn't be able to force all businesses to compromise the atmosphere they wish to cultivate on behalf of their clients.



I was wondering when someone would bring this up - thanks Lilly.

Yes, certainly a woman does not choose when her child is hungry - but why create the situation in the first place? It's one thing to head to the local grocery, infant in tow, but quite another to decide that you are in the mood for some fine dining, and gee golly, a sitter is just out of the question (as it should be for an infant). So it comes down to your right as an individual to do what you want when you want, regardless of how it may effect those around you (and no, I'm not against the concept of public breast feeding, but being discreet is just common curtesy - it is not making a statement one way or the other).

I've seen children have screaming hissy fits that have ruined the dining experience for 50 or more other patrons, and watched the parents react like it was no big deal. To me the issue is not whether you should be showing a breast (no big deal) but whether you should be out with your infant in the first place (again, some places yes, some no).

It is your right to smoke wherever you want (so what if you are potentially causing cancer to others), to talk through a movie or theatre performance (after all, you paid your money just like everyone else), and your right to take your children (of any age) wherever you want, because after all, you love them and everyone else should too.

But at the same time - what about MY right to enjoy a meal or a show without getting a sinus infection (due to smoke allergies), MY right to immerse myself in a film without interuption (I've actually had people in back of me make cell phone calls DURING the movie - calling to tell a friend about a joke they just heard during the film - couldn't it wait until after - or were you afraid you'd forget?). And what about MY right to enjoy any public place without having misbehaved children running around and shrieking at the top of their lungs (really makes museums a ton of fun - kind of hard to appreciate the arts with banshees screaming and running into you).

Funny thing - I haven't seen as much of this kind of thing in Europe - I was on a crowded Alitalia flight to Milan where there were several Italian families returning to Italy - all of their children were well behaved for the entire 10 hour flight - while the american children were loud, rude and unruly - no wonder why so many people abroad have a dislike for us.

Finally - yes, you see much public breast feeding in Europe, from what I've seen it is treated as a natural occurence, no-one cares one way or the other - it certainly isn't some kind of badge where you're saying "look at me, I have the right to do this". That women think that such a statement is necessary is sad in its own right, but that still doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least turn towards the back of a building instead of whipping it out towards a store front window - you're just showing a curtesy for others who may not be comfortable with what you're doing - and whether you agree with them or not - issuing them the curtesy takes no effort on your part, only a little consideration.

I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## missaf (Mar 20, 2006)

Let me put it this way, and maybe this thread will be resolved and fall off the front page.

If a mother is being discreet with her child and her boobies hanging out, you don't even notice what the hell the baby's sucking on unless you're a pervert and you stare. I bet you 9 times out of ten you don't even notice a women's breastfeeding unless oyu make it a point to look for it, so do yourselves a favor-- if you don't like it, then don't look for it.

For those that are political about it and don't cover up, flop their tits right out in the open, express milk all over the sidewalk to make a point-- they give the decent mothers a bad name.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

missaf said:


> For those that are political about it and don't cover up, flop their tits right out in the open, express milk all over the sidewalk to make a point-- they give the decent mothers a bad name.



Aaah. Okay. I wasn't sure what was meant by that whole flamboyant breastfeeding thing that everybody was talking about. Now I know.  I thought maybe if I wasn't wearing a head to toe veil or something I'd be considered indecent. 

And I agree completely with the whole irritation at people who bring unruly children to inappropriate venus. We've always been really careful to a) gauge the child-friendliness of where we're going, and b) teach our kids from a young age to behave like civilized creatures. As a result, it became a common occurrence for people to stop at our table and remark on the way out how well behaved the kids were. As it is now, I have zero tolerance for people who let their little monsters run wild in public because I KNOW it just takes a little effort as a parent to teach a kid how to behave and perhaps more importantly, to EXPECT them to behave. My kids always knew that we'd leave if they acted out (and we did. Only once. That was all it took). I think kids don't take their parents seriously, because many parents don't take *themselves* seriously.

But as for the breastfeeding thing, I always tried to do it as I did all things in public -- minding my own business and trying not to ruin someone's day. Hearing a screaming, starving baby would most certainly have ruined the day of anyone within earshot.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 20, 2006)

It's always just a handful of people who spoil it for everyone else. If you have common sense about such things and have taught your kids how to behave in public you probably can't imagine what makes people so fussy about children in public places.

A while ago I was at BJ's Wholesale Club. It's where you buy the HUGE economy sizes of everyday items and the whole time I was there I kept running into these two little ruffians. They were running, cat calling and horse playing all over the place unsupervised by any adults that I could see. I later found that the mother was always an aisle or two away paying them no mind while she casually perused the shelves. This is a place where the wrong move could topple a 30 pound box of sugar off of a shelf and kill one of those boys or some innocent bystander. 

People should reasonably expect to be able to take their kids with them while shopping for groceries and we all know that kids will be kids. But those two were out of control. Unfortunately it's things like this that make it an issue.


----------



## Tina (Mar 20, 2006)

missaf said:


> Let me put it this way, and maybe this thread will be resolved and fall off the front page.
> 
> If a mother is being discreet with her child and her boobies hanging out, you don't even notice what the hell the baby's sucking on unless you're a pervert and you stare. I bet you 9 times out of ten you don't even notice a women's breastfeeding unless oyu make it a point to look for it, so do yourselves a favor-- if you don't like it, then don't look for it.
> 
> For those that are political about it and don't cover up, flop their tits right out in the open, express milk all over the sidewalk to make a point-- they give the decent mothers a bad name.



Wow. This must be a rather rare occurance, only done by a few whacked out extremists, as I've not only never seen such a thing, but never heard of such a thing, either, and I've posted on many women's boards, feminist boards, and mamma's boards.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

Tina said:


> Wow. This must be a rather rare occurance, only done by a few whacked out extremists, as I've not only never seen such a thing, but never heard of such a thing, either, and I've posted on many women's boards, feminist boards, and mamma's boards.



I have, however, squirted people in the eyes who gave me the evil stare. KIDDING! I'm KIDDING!!!! Hee.

Seriously, I've never seen anything resembling flamboyant breastfeeding, and the only political nursing I've seen is at a Nurse In which was a political event. What I have seen is lots of women discreetly nursing their babies and the smiley, milk drunk, droolie babies they nurse looking healthy, happy and strong.

But what do I know. I'm just a boob nazi. 

And Lilly, dear, I agree completely. My kids were expected to ride in the cart until they were old enough to walk, at my side, without making a fuss, running off, or being a pain. I'm appalled by parents who let toddlers and preschoolers run wild in stores. I can't count the number of times I've nearly run over a small child allowed to zigzag among the carts. And yes, I do say something to the parents, like "Wow I almost ran over your child. Does he not like to ride in the cart? I'd hate for him to get hurt."


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 20, 2006)

Tina said:


> Wow. This must be a rather rare occurance, only done by a few whacked out extremists, as I've not only never seen such a thing, but never heard of such a thing, either, and I've posted on many women's boards, feminist boards, and mamma's boards.



Tina I'm sad to report that I've seen this too, and known people personally who have done it. A friend of mine nursed her little boy to an age where he was long past the point of weaning in my opinion. When he felt fussy, insecure, hungry, whatever he would run over to mommy, lift her shirt and go to town. It's not *so* common that you have to be careful where you look. But I've seen it happen enough to where it is sure to make a lot of people feel very uncomfortable and even wonder if it qualifies as a form of abuse.


----------



## maxoutfa (Mar 20, 2006)

some very well thought out posts here, kudos to all.

It's sad to me that the governement feels it has to step in and make all these mandates that are only necessary because so many people refuse to show a single iota of restraint in their behaviour. To me it is a loss of civilization when the individual perceives that his rights are above those of everyone else. The net result being that issues that would normally not even be issues become so inflamatory that the government feels that it has to step up and dicate that everyone be PC - which in the end takes away the very freedoms that those individuals think are their rights. The paradigm is this: by asserting your individual freedom at the cost of the masses nets a loss of freedom for all.


----------



## rainyday (Mar 20, 2006)

Nobody answered my question about whether breastfeeding moms are regularly asked to leave businesses. I was serious. 

The reason I asked was I'm wondering if there really is a need for laws like this or if this is all hypothetical. Anyone?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

rainyday said:


> Nobody answered my question about whether breastfeeding moms are regularly asked to leave businesses. I was serious.
> 
> The reason I asked was I'm wondering if there really is a need for laws like this or if this is all hypothetical. Anyone?



I'm sorry honey. Yes, I have had friends -- even in crunchy, Birkenstock-y Seattle -- who have been asked to leave restaurants. I had a mother at a Dairy Queen playland say to me, disgusted "I didn't think people DID that anymore." All this while smoking around her children, mind you. (You can imagine, I'm sure, the double barrels she got from me).

I think it probably depends on where you live. The worry is that breastfeeding can be construed as "lascivious" behavior, and as such -- if charged with it -- a woman can be tossed out, arrested, and the like. I'm not sure how common that is, but I suppose when it happens to an individual it's gotta be mortifying.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 20, 2006)

OK so there are people out there who think a mother nursing her child is sexual?

Now I've seen it all.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> OK so there are people out there who think a mother nursing her child is sexual?
> 
> Now I've seen it all.



Kind of remarkable, isn't it? Women have been investigated by child protective services for breastfeeding. Only woman, to my knowledge, has had her child taken from her because of breastfeeding (though the state claims there's more to the case than just her nursing a toddler). But still, we have a lot of work to do to educate the general public -- and even the so called family experts -- about this issue.

Here's a website with a summary of breastfeeding legislation broken down on a state by state basis. http://www.lalecheleague.org/LawBills.html


----------



## Tad (Mar 20, 2006)

Ryan said:


> And I'm not arguing that infants be forced to adapt their feeding schedule. I said that parents should be working around the needs and wants of their children, rather than being arrogant and demanding that the rest of the world accomodate them so they can avoid being inconvenienced.



I mean, I agree with you in general here--as a parent you need to plan out your day as best you can, and you cannot expect everyone else to go out of their way to meet your needs.

At the same time, some kids are looking to fee every three hours or so, and sleep a good chunk of the time in-between. If you are lucky you have access to mobility to take care of everything you need in those two hour or so intervals between feedings. But for a lot of people that is not possible--they cannot get all 'public' activities done within 2 hours, for whatever reason.

I think that it is reasonable for businesses to ask people not to loiter there, for any purpose. However at the same time, if the kid has to be fed, I think any business would be an idiot to kick the woman out onto the street.

As to rights, I suppose businesses do have some leeway on who they allow access to their premises. I think it is reasonable to enforce loitering rules, for example, if they want to. But I can't quite imagine banning breastfeeding unless there was really a related health or safety reason.

-Ed


----------



## MaxiG (Mar 20, 2006)

Ryan said:


> I think this is a pretty cut-and-dry case of property rights. I have no problem with public breastfeeding, but I have a HUGE problem with private businesses being forced by the government to allow public breastfeeding. Businesses have the same right to prohibit public breastfeeding as fancy restaurants do to require that male customers wear a jacket and tie.
> 
> PS: This is my 500th post. Hail Eris! Hail Discordia!


Ryan, you said it perfectly. The primacy or private property has been quite diluted since the "public accomodations" portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act turned private property into de-facto "public property".

With this has risen a concurrent tendency to apply group preferences and desires for particular noble "ends" without regard to individual liberty and private property, which are the means by which we support our own lives. Without getting too into it (I'm a libertarian/anarchist), the key is choice, and, just like smoking bans over private business, this stifles the choice of the property owner.

We have a bill that will be heard tomorrow in NH, regarding a government ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars. It ostensibly is being done to protect the employees from second-hand smoke. However, it buys into the Marxist concept that employees have no choice, that the owners of the means of production exploit employees, because employees need jobs.

But just as employees need jobs, *employers* need employees. They both compete with other employees and employers to get what they want. We never hear people saying we need to "protect" employers from exploitative employees; yet ask any business owner if he has to compete in the market to get good employees and he will tell you, HELL YA!

And they all have to answer to the consumer.

Breastfeeding at the workplace? If the policy attracts great employees, the business owner will have an incentive to allow it. If not, no one has the right to make him do it in order to be "fair".


----------



## rainyday (Mar 20, 2006)

Lascivious behavior? Ridiculous.

Thanks for the answer, Vick.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

rainyday said:


> Lascivious behavior? Ridiculous.
> 
> Thanks for the answer, Vick.



You're welcome, chickie. And yeah, it's ridiculous, although I have heard of lactation porn, so with a certain twisted mindset I suppose you can make anything sexual...


----------



## Krazykhat (Mar 20, 2006)

Peeing is all is natural and personally I hate public restrooms. I bought one of the first prototypes of the "Bladder Buddy" (The one on American Inventor is a rip-off.) Lets say I'm at the store and in the frozen food isle and have to go. I pull this big black tarp over me (kinda looks like a mumu) and pee in a plastic ziplock bag , then when I'm done I go and drop it in the nearest waste basket. Sometimes I don't really feel like covering up and just pee in the bag and toss it in the waste basket. Sometimes people stare or give me dirty loves, like it should be "THEIR right" not to be subjected to seeing that, but they are selfish and that is their problem, not mine. I should not be forced to go to some sort of "designated area" to do this, as like I said, I hate public restrooms. It is MY RIGHT to do this and I will not bow down to societies hang ups.


----------



## olivefun (Mar 20, 2006)

Krazykhat said:


> Peeing is all is natural and personally I hate public restrooms. ........... I hate public restrooms. It is MY RIGHT to do this and I will not bow down to societies hang ups.



yawn.

Yeah right.
Point taken.

Thank you Khat, I now have the perfect person to test out the_ ignore_ function on this board with.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 20, 2006)

Krazykhat said:


> Peeing is all is natural and personally I hate public restrooms. I bought one of the first prototypes of the "Bladder Buddy" (The one on American Inventor is a rip-off.) Lets say I'm at the store and in the frozen food isle and have to go. I pull this big black tarp over me (kinda looks like a mumu) and pee in a plastic ziplock bag , then when I'm done I go and drop it in the nearest waste basket. Sometimes I don't really feel like covering up and just pee in the bag and toss it in the waste basket. Sometimes people stare or give me dirty loves, like it should be "THEIR right" not to be subjected to seeing that, but they are selfish and that is their problem, not mine. I should not be forced to go to some sort of "designated area" to do this, as like I said, I hate public restrooms. It is MY RIGHT to do this and I will not bow down to societies hang ups.



Haw haw haw. You're so witty, because urination and breast-feeding are the exact same thing. Breast milk is equally as dirty as urine; that's why so many parents urine-feed. Yes, because a woman feeding her child is equally as disgusting as watching someone take a piss. Breastfeeding is obviously disposing of waste and is a private, dirty function that is never shared between people. It's very much a solo activity. Obviously, we're supposed to be ashamed of nourishing babies. How disgusting and vile. You're so right.


----------



## Mini (Mar 20, 2006)

Haven't read the whole thread, but no, businesses should not be forced to allow mothers to breastfeed. It's a business owner's right to enforce what he or she deems to be acceptable behaviour in their establishment.

That said, I don't really care either way. There are worse things to be seen than breasts.


----------



## MaxiG (Mar 20, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Haw haw haw. You're so witty, because urination and breast-feeding are the exact same thing. Breast milk is equally as dirty as urine; that's why so many parents urine-feed. Yes, because a woman feeding her child is equally as disgusting as watching someone take a piss. Breastfeeding is obviously disposing of waste and is a private, dirty function that is never shared between people. It's very much a solo activity. Obviously, we're supposed to be ashamed of nourishing babies. How disgusting and vile. You're so right.



Yeah... I'm with you. And I dig the sarcasm.

Knowing a woman is breastfeeding doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. And it certainly can't be equated to the disposal of waste! Jeeeeesh!

I can understand that some people might feel a little bizarro-world if their sexual radar, or a hint of it, is set off by a glimpse of a woman's breast in public, but that's just something one has to get over in many cases. I think it's the change from the typically intimate to the public that makes the senses turn for some people, but I could be wrong. 

Or, as they said in the ads for "Westworld", I could be wrogn...

-- Maxi


----------



## Aliena (Mar 20, 2006)

Krazykhat said:


> Peeing is all is natural and personally I hate public restrooms. I bought one of the first prototypes of the "Bladder Buddy" (The one on American Inventor is a rip-off.) Lets say I'm at the store and in the frozen food isle and have to go. I pull this big black tarp over me (kinda looks like a mumu) and pee in a plastic ziplock bag , then when I'm done I go and drop it in the nearest waste basket. Sometimes I don't really feel like covering up and just pee in the bag and toss it in the waste basket. Sometimes people stare or give me dirty loves, like it should be "THEIR right" not to be subjected to seeing that, but they are selfish and that is their problem, not mine. I should not be forced to go to some sort of "designated area" to do this, as like I said, I hate public restrooms. It is MY RIGHT to do this and I will not bow down to societies hang ups.



You're obvioulsy a peson that didn't get breast fed. 
How absolutely dumb!


----------



## olivefun (Mar 20, 2006)

When a baby cries, milk drips from the mother's nipples and it can be dreadfully embarrassing. She is not thinking of thrilling any young man who might see a glimpse of her breast. I can assure you, *she is thinking of getting milk to baby and that is it.* 

Really, we see way more breast action any place else. 

I cannot believe there are any people who don't understand this point and think there is something wrong with a woman feeding her child this way. 

We see naked women's breasts in any direction we look. On fabric designs, on the sides of buses, book covers and every place we look. If we don't allow women to breastfeed in public places because of the remote possibility that it *may* offend someone, do we allow t shirts and hot sauce labels and whatever else with a sexy picture on it because it may turn someone on? 


What nonsense!


----------



## bigsexy920 (Mar 20, 2006)

Im not sure where I stand on breastfeeding in private business. But Im for removing the poles they have up their asses. I mean that in the most loving way. I mean it has to really hurt, that would be the only reson I could imagine why you would rather have a crying hungry baby or a happy content feed baby. They must want everyone around them miserable.


----------



## missaf (Mar 20, 2006)

In my son's case, the doctors all said it was of major importance for him to breastfeed because of an auto immune disorder in his dad's family. By me passing on antibodies from my own body, it would improve his odds of it not developing at all, or lessen the symptoms. Also because he was born six weeks early, he would be prone to many health issues and viruses like RSV, more colds, more lung problems had we not breastfed.

Because he was premature, it was VERY hard to get him to latch on, as I'm sure Vickie will attest to, because he was on glucose IVs, born with low blood sugar, and he was struggling with premature apnea-- he just couldn't stay awake and would forget to breathe. Eating was the last thing on his mind. The nurses were dilligent and did not let me give up my goal. They saw me through the rough spots, taught me a personal lesson in breastfeeding every 2 hours, and it was like a customized training plan for each mom on the floor. Simply incredible. They never once put a bottle in his mouth, they cup fed him when I wasn' there or too ill at the time to nurse him. My premie little boy drank out of a cup before he could even smile! Amazing. 

Breastfeeding means life. It's natural. Because most of you men haven't seen it, and don't realize how incredible it is, and because you sexualize the breast more than realize it's important purpose, you think it's provocative and should be done behind closed doors. Technology and science and "progress" will do what ever it takes to remove the beauty of human nature for the sake of advancement. Nothing will ever be more beautiful to me than nursing a child. I never thought that until I had my own and through the entire 13 months, I learned that life is so simple, and people wish to destroy that.

And what else makes me sick about breastfeeding? Ther was a report done by someone (can't remember who), that said it was BAD for your children, as it exposed them to whatever toxins the mom had been exposed to.

Sure, let me think about that while you shove mutated hGH cow's milk protein down the mouths of your kids without thinking about that too much.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

MissAF, reading your post makes me love, even more, the work I do. It's so nice to hear from a mom, after the fact, that what we do MATTERS. I mean, we know it does, at least on an intellectual level, but hearing it from a mom just makes all warm and gooey inside. Thank you so much for sharing your perspective. I'll remember it next time I'm cup feeding a baby for a tired mom and my colleages good naturedly (I think) call me a "Tittie Nazi". 

Thank you. For your words, and for most importantly taking the extra step and giving your the very best he can have.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 20, 2006)

Krazykhat said:


> Peeing is all is natural and personally I hate public restrooms.



But you'd want a baby to eat in one, because the sight of a nursing infant might offend someone? Ohhhkaaayyyyy...


----------



## RedHead (Mar 21, 2006)

What cracks me up; is how many MEN have compared breastfeeding with peeing in public....hmmm penis, breast.

I think there is a fixation problem here! 

Besides...you want to whip it out and pee; seen it...what do you think we do when we go snowmachining? It's not like we can hide behind a bush!


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 21, 2006)

RedHead said:


> What cracks me up; is how many MEN have compared breastfeeding with peeing in public....hmmm penis, breast.
> 
> I think there is a fixation problem here!



I can't speak for anyone else, But I was clearly making a joke and said so and did not compare the two. I also said taking a whiz because I thought saying taking a shit would be too gross. Yes, that was also a joke. 

Ah, the heck with it. My Mom's right, Muggles have no sense of humor.


----------



## Tina (Mar 21, 2006)

Jack, I think your post was clearly humor. But it is true that often men will make that comparison, and usually in a serious manner, not joking like you did. I've seen this several times, on different boards and I find it odd.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 21, 2006)

Tina said:


> But it is true that often men will make that comparison, and usually in a serious manner, not joking like you did.



I honestly had no idea. 

To any one offended by my humor I apologize. I've had a migraine for several straight days and I am starting to get a little daft.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 21, 2006)

RedHead said:


> What cracks me up; is how many MEN have compared breastfeeding with peeing in public....hmmm penis, breast.
> 
> I think there is a fixation problem here!
> 
> Besides...you want to whip it out and pee; seen it...what do you think we do when we go snowmachining? It's not like we can hide behind a bush!



I think it's because in our society we have sexualized the breast to the point where it is not even a thought to most men that breasts are NOT all about their pleasure but are functioning parts of a woman's body!

(rant over)


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 21, 2006)

bigsexy920 said:


> But I'm for removing the poles they have up their asses. I mean that in the most loving way. I mean it has to really hurt



You mean removing the pole or letting the baby cry?


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 21, 2006)

No one has mentioned the "silent epidemic" of men who attempt to breastfeed their baby in public. That has got to really hurt and I bet the baby gets mad too.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

That doesn't mean I want to see someone breastfeeding a toddler at Fi Fi's Restaurant. Why must it mean that I'm a pervert? Maybe I just find it unpleasant to watch Henrietta whip out her boobs to feed a two year old at Maison Robert. Natural Shmatural. Raise your kids the way you see fit but why must I or a private owned businesses be *forced* to endure or facilitate you if we don't want to? Providing toilets, fire exits, handicapped access, things of that nature should be mandatory but a place for mothers to breastfeed at Jose McIntyre's Disco House? It's rediculous. 




olivefun said:


> When a baby cries, milk drips from the mother's nipples and it can be dreadfully embarrassing. She is not thinking of thrilling any young man who might see a glimpse of her breast. I can assure you, *she is thinking of getting milk to baby and that is it.*
> 
> Really, we see way more breast action any place else.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 21, 2006)

Here's my thing: What's so HORRIBLE about it? What disgusts all the anti-breastfeeding people SO much? Are these mothers screaming, "Hey, look here at my tits! I'm breastfeeding!"?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

Here's my thing: why is it wrong that I am uncomfortable with something? Scratching my ass is natural but some people don't want to see me do it. The smell of musk and fresh cut flowers bothers some people. Why must they explain or give account of themselves as if they are doing something wrong? In this instance no one is doing ANYTHING wrong. It's just a matter of courtesy and trying to find a fair way of doing things rather than saying, "You are *never* welcome," or "You *must* watch us."


----------



## missaf (Mar 21, 2006)

So if the smell of roses bothers you, then don't smell the roses. I think it's simple enough. If you don't like a restaurant letting women breastfeed while at their establishment, write them a letter, complain, and let them know you won't go back. The business owner can make a decision based upon complaints if they get enough. That's your right. Until then, just don't smell the roses.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

That's the silliest thing I ever heard. "Don't smell roses." Maybe I shouldn't smell second hand smoke either. Just pretend you don't see/smell them. As funny as that statement is, it isn't really relevant to the point I'm trying to make anyway. This isn't about a restaurant 'Letting' people breast feed in their establishment. It's about making a law that forces ALL businesses to allow it if they don't want to. Most family friendly places aren't chasing nursing mothers out into the street. I'd be annoyed if Applebee's gave a nursing mother a hard time but do I think it's worth making a law? No. Essentially we're saying the same thing.


----------



## Zandoz (Mar 21, 2006)

Truly private businesses, no, they should not be forced to allow it...it's their property to do with as they see fit. 

"Public facilities"...government owned or operated (and including any business that receives special tax breaks, grants or other funding from the public) Should be required to allow....but not prohibited from supplying and encouraging the use of convenient yet discreet facilities.
 
And the same goes for requirements for handicapped accessibility, discrimination, supplying public restrooms, etc. If it's a truly privately owned/funded facility, it's up to the private owner. If the facility is on the public dole, then it should be open and operated so that no segment of the general (you can never cover everyone's special needs) public is excluded or restricted.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 21, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> That's the silliest thing I ever heard. "Don't smell roses." Maybe I shouldn't smell second hand smoke either. Just pretend you don't see/smell them. As funny as that statement is, it isn't really relevant to the point I'm trying to make anyway. This isn't about a restaurant 'Letting' people breast feed in their establishment. It's about making a law that forces ALL businesses to allow it if they don't want to. Most family friendly places aren't chasing nursing mothers out into the street. I'd be annoyed if Applebee's gave a nursing mother a hard time but do I think it's worth making a law? No. Essentially we're saying the same thing.



Okay. Here's my thing: The business has NO RIGHT to be able to issue a citation from a police officer because a mom breastfeeds. That's my problem. We've given businesses entirely too much power.

The fact is breastfeeding isn't harming you, unlike secondhand smoke. This is no different than saying, "I don't want this person in my business because he's a young black male." Discrimination like this is absolutely sickening.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

But they do have the right. You might not like it, but a restaurant has the right to ask you to leave if you are doing something that they don't want you to do on their premises. Being black, Jewish, old is protected under the law. Breast feeding, smoking, talking loud on a cell phone, carrying a boom box is not protected behavior under the law. Just because you don't consider the previous things to be on the same level doesn't change the law. If a restaurant says no, you have to comply. Don't like it? Complain. Write to the parent company. Take your business elsewhere. Open an "I Hate ___________" website. But making it illegal for a restaurant to ask you not to breast feed on their property is taking things too far in my opinion.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 21, 2006)

One more point and I'll stop: You honestly can believe a business has a right to issue call the police to issue a citation and allow the city or county to FINE a mom for feeding her kid? That's what bugs me.


----------



## Jes (Mar 21, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Kind of remarkable, isn't it? Women have been investigated by child protective services for breastfeeding. Only woman, to my knowledge, has had her child taken from her because of breastfeeding (though the state claims there's more to the case than just her nursing a toddler). But still, we have a lot of work to do to educate the general public -- and even the so called family experts -- about this issue.
> 
> Here's a website with a summary of breastfeeding legislation broken down on a state by state basis. http://www.lalecheleague.org/LawBills.html




I remember hearing a case where a woman called a help line. She said she was breastfeeding, and did feel some sexual stirrings (unbidden) and felt HORRIBLE about it. She was trying to get some feedback, trying to find out if that's a normal part of the process for some women, etc. I mean, she knew it wasn't sexual, she knew she didn't want it to be sexual, and yet, there were shades of something sexual for her, and she was very upset. And the next thing she knows, after the call to the help line, is she's getting arrested for child molestation, or whatever. It might seem odd to those who haven't experienced, but remember, even during rapes, the victim's body can become involuntarily aroused. We are bodies with sexual parts, after all, and we can't control all of them. At least this woman was trying to address the issue in an honest, constructive way, and get help from a professional.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

I threw a party at a Billiards Club a while ago and the people who run the place started to turn away some of my friends because they have a policy: No jeans or sneakers. I didn't know this and hadn't warned anyone. I informed the management so they let us slide. They didn't have to. Had they asked my friends to leave I would have been pissed and would have wanted my money refunded, but they would still have to leave. The owners of a private establishment have the right to ask you to leave for any reason. If you refuse to leave, become belligerent or violent then they have no recourse but to call the police. You should not be able to do whatever you feel like it just because you have a baby on your hip. In this case the law is on the side of the property owner just as it would be if you were trying to throw someone out of your place that you didn't want there.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

Clarification: I am not advocating for random tickets handed out to nursing moms. What I'm talking about is non compliance with the wishes of the owners of an establishment. If you've been asked politely not to do something you have no choice but to find a safer place to do what you're doing. But you have to be asked or informed of the policy, not just slapped with a fine without warning.


----------



## olivefun (Mar 21, 2006)

Jes said:


> I remember hearing a case where a woman called a help line.............................At least this woman was trying to address the issue in an honest, constructive way, and get help from a professional.



I thought Help Lines were supposed to be confidential and not using call display.

What a sad thing.


----------



## Tina (Mar 21, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I honestly had no idea.
> 
> To any one offended by my humor I apologize. I've had a migraine for several straight days and I am starting to get a little daft.



I have three people in my life who get those with varying degrees of regularity and it can be disabling. I'm sorry to hear you suffer from them, Jack. 

And Santa -- men can actually breastfeed:






I agree that there are some places where children and infants are just not meant to go. Expensive restaurants are one. Get a sitter. Beyond that, there are idiots who will take their children wherever they go and have no concept of manners or respect for others. I remember being at the movie theatre and having a family sit near me with a bunch of kids who were running up and down the aisle, making noise and the parents were calling to the kids and yelling at them. I swear, I thought for a minute there that the next time I looked over the guy would be holding a remote control, because it seemed, for all intents and purposes, that those ignorant yahoos thought they were at home on their living room couch. Anyway, that's veering away from the subject a bit, but still related, in a way.

Ultimately, I believe a business has the right to exclude whomever they like. And they also have a right to go out of business because of pissing people off with their exclusionary policies. I believe the non-breastfeeding policy is more to prevent people from bringing babies and children and disturbing customers than anything else. I think they have the right to do it. Were I a breastfeeding mom with a child in tow I wouldn't want to go there anyway, were it a fancy restaurant, and would wait until I had a sitter.


----------



## missaf (Mar 21, 2006)

So just because something offends you, you want to outlaw it? Breastfeeding an infant in public does nothing but upset your sensiblities, and for that, I pity you. Second hand smoke you can prevent exposure to because it is harmful, you can control what enters your body. How is breastfeeding harming you and causing cancerous cells to grow??

I nursed my son where ever he needed to be fed. I did not let my choice of providing him the very best to disturb his nutritional cycle. I, unlike many mothers, choose to teach him to eat when he needs to eat in order to maintain a healthy metabolism unlike mothers who plug up their children with a bottle when ever they feel like shutting their kid up, or appeasing the masses. I had one complaint in the entire thirteen months, and I had over TWENTY compliments at how well mannered and NOT fussy my child was in public. *Compliments.* I took my son until he was seven months old to the movies with me twice a week and when we left the theater, everyone would say "OMG, I had no idea there was a baby in here!" Because I would nurse him, he would sleep happily, then wake up and nurse after his nap. 

Yes, a business may request a mother leave, but they have no right to cite her for breastfeeding. They can cite her for removal for failure to follow a restaurant policy, but keep in mind every time you do something like that you further the movement against raising children in the most natural way possible. 

I hold much disdain for people who insist that raising your children should be behind closed doors. Teaching your children how to act in public is a skill that is taught from birth, by the example of the parents. If a parent has the right to stuff a bottle down their kid's throat and ignore them in a restaurant, I have every right to nurture my child and care for them in public and include them in a family activity.


----------



## missaf (Mar 21, 2006)

Tina said:


> Were I a breastfeeding mom with a child in tow I wouldn't want to go there anyway, were it a fancy restaurant, and would wait until I had a sitter.



Something like Applebees or Chili's I would always bring my son to, and I would nurse him right there in the booth. Everyone always assumed he was a sleeping happy baby, and nothing was ever said. WalMart asked me to leave because of a teen age boy who worked there thought it was disgusting, there's a difference in outlook because of the attitude of the people, and that's evident here. 

If I was going on a date, somewhere nicer, that wasn't as family friendly, I'd wait until five or six months when he could be fed cereal with expressed milk for a few hours, and then go home right after.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

Once again, this has nothing to do with outlawing or demonizing breast feeding. But those bottle shoving kid plugging parents don't deserve to sit in the shadow of a paragon like yourself. I think restaurants instead of stopping mothers from breast feeding should create a whole new pen for those dastardly parents who feed their babies with those wretched bottles. They don't love or care for their children nearly as well as you do. All the people in the movie theater said so, so it must be true. 




missaf said:


> So just because something offends you, you want to outlaw it? Breastfeeding an infant in public does nothing but upset your sensiblities, and for that, I pity you. Second hand smoke you can prevent exposure to because it is harmful, you can control what enters your body. How is breastfeeding harming you and causing cancerous cells to grow??
> 
> I nursed my son where ever he needed to be fed. I did not let my choice of providing him the very best to disturb his nutritional cycle. I, unlike many mothers, choose to teach him to eat when he needs to eat in order to maintain a healthy metabolism unlike mothers who plug up their children with a bottle when ever they feel like shutting their kid up, or appeasing the masses. I had one complaint in the entire thirteen months, and I had over TWENTY compliments at how well mannered and NOT fussy my child was in public. *Compliments.* I took my son until he was seven months old to the movies with me twice a week and when we left the theater, everyone would say "OMG, I had no idea there was a baby in here!" Because I would nurse him, he would sleep happily, then wake up and nurse after his nap.
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 21, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> But they do have the right. You might not like it, but a restaurant has the right to ask you to leave if you are doing something that they don't want you to do on their premises. Being black, Jewish, old is protected under the law. Breast feeding, smoking, talking loud on a cell phone, carrying a boom box is not protected behavior under the law.



Actually if you look at the link I posted earlier, you'll see that breastfeeding is protected by the law in many states. Something I have to say that gladdens my heart. 

That being said, I'm not sure I think businesses should be forced to allow breastfeeding, if they truly have the right to refuse service to "anyone". OTOH, I think they're pretty dumb to do so, since breastfeeding moms have friends, and huge networks of other breastfeeding moms who like to go out for lunches and buy LOTS of books.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 21, 2006)

Jes said:


> I remember hearing a case where a woman called a help line. She said she was breastfeeding, and did feel some sexual stirrings (unbidden) and felt HORRIBLE about it. She was trying to get some feedback, trying to find out if that's a normal part of the process for some women, etc. I mean, she knew it wasn't sexual, she knew she didn't want it to be sexual, and yet, there were shades of something sexual for her, and she was very upset. And the next thing she knows, after the call to the help line, is she's getting arrested for child molestation, or whatever. It might seem odd to those who haven't experienced, but remember, even during rapes, the victim's body can become involuntarily aroused. We are bodies with sexual parts, after all, and we can't control all of them. At least this woman was trying to address the issue in an honest, constructive way, and get help from a professional.



Yep. That's the lady in question. I believe it was in the state of NY and she called somebody because she was having sexual feelings while nursing. Now the state says there was more to it than that and that they wouldn't take a child away from a mom because of that sole issue. They also say that due to confidentiality laws, they can't say more about the case (handy that). I don't know the family so I can't speak to the issues at hand, but it was handled very poorly and from what I've read, traumatized that toddler big time.

And while it's unusual to have sexual feelings during breastfeeding, given the hormones released it's not surprising. Oxytocin is the hormone released during orgasm, and is stimulated by breastfeeding. Prolactin is a "happy hormone" that increases a sense of closeness, peacefulness and intimacy, and it too is stimulated during nursing. 

The whole thing was incredibly sad.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Actually if you look at the link I posted earlier, you'll see that breastfeeding is protected by the law in many states. Something I have to say that gladdens my heart.
> 
> That being said, I'm not sure I think businesses should be forced to allow breastfeeding, if they truly have the right to refuse service to "anyone". OTOH, I think they're pretty dumb to do so, since breastfeeding moms have friends, and huge networks of other breastfeeding moms who like to go out for lunches and buy LOTS of books.


 
I agree. I think that there are some restaurants who would benefit from a policy that descriminatory due to the types of people that patronize the business but most mothers wouldn't take their kids to a place like that anyway. I've heard stories from my friends of rude people they've had to stare down while out and about with their kids in a place as kid friendly as a public park even. At a bridal shower my friend called the restaurant in aadvance to tell them that she was nursing and wanted to know if there were places within the establishment where she could go and nurse her child in private. (she's not comfortable nursing in front of people. A lot of people aren't) The restaurant was great and went out of their way to make her as comfortable as possible even though they have no policy against breast feeding anywhere on the premises. 

I just want to make clear that I'm not advocating against mothers breastfeeding their kids. Yeah, when my friend's two year old latched on to her while we were in the lobby of a hotel I was a little uncomfortable. A lot of people were, it's not discreet. A good thing about it was that the hotel got our rooms ready and rushed us out of the lobby a lot faster than their previously stated wait time. I think it shoud be up to a mother to determine at what age it's appropriate for her child to be weaned according to what she feels his/her needs are but if some establishment gave her a hard time I would not be surprised.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 21, 2006)

missaf said:


> WalMart asked me to leave because of a teen age boy who worked there thought it was disgusting, there's a difference in outlook because of the attitude of the people, and that's evident here.
> 
> If I was going on a date, somewhere nicer, that wasn't as family friendly, I'd wait until five or six months when he could be fed cereal with expressed milk for a few hours, and then go home right after.



Yet one more reason not to go to Wal*Mart. Or Sam's Club, since they're owned by the same family. And yeah, I can't imagine anyone taking an infant to an adults-only restaurant, regardless of how it needed to feed, because it would be difficult to enjoy your meal. And a disco would be wrong, because dance clubs are bars, and as such don't allow ANYONE under drinking age.

But a Barnes and Noble? Starbucks? Applebees? Why not? I remember being supremely unimpressed with stories I'd heard about people being hassled at Disney for breastfeeding. They were expected to take it to one of their "lounges". Well that's great but if you have older child on a ride, and your baby starts to fuss, what should you do? Leave the kid? Or feed the baby, thus being the better parent by a) handling one child's needs while b) keeping security for your other kid in mind. I wish babies were predictable critters who'd only want to eat when home (and that goes double for crapping, since they always seem to do their most impressive dumps in the places with the WORST possible changing facilities). But alas, they have their own minds, and as parents we have to address those needs.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Yet one more reason not to go to Wal*Mart. Or Sam's Club, since they're owned by the same family. And yeah, I can't imagine anyone taking an infant to an adults-only restaurant, regardless of how it needed to feed, because it would be difficult to enjoy your meal. And a disco would be wrong, because dance clubs are bars, and as such don't allow ANYONE under drinking age.
> 
> But a Barnes and Noble? Starbucks? Applebees? Why not? I remember being supremely unimpressed with stories I'd heard about people being hassled at Disney for breastfeeding. They were expected to take it to one of their "lounges". Well that's great but if you have older child on a ride, and your baby starts to fuss, what should you do? Leave the kid? Or feed the baby, thus being the better parent by a) handling one child's needs while b) keeping security for your other kid in mind. I wish babies were predictable critters who'd only want to eat when home (and that goes double for crapping, since they always seem to do their most impressive dumps in the places with the WORST possible changing facilities). But alas, they have their own minds, and as parents we have to address those needs.



I'd never heard of that. At Disney? Shees. You could spend a whole day there and still not see everything, yet they want mothers to run back and fourth across the vast expanse of their park just to feed the baby.


----------



## Rosie (Mar 21, 2006)

Should business owners be allowed to refuse to let guide dogs in? blacks? After all, it *is* their private business .....


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 21, 2006)

Rosie said:


> Should business owners be allowed to refuse to let guide dogs in? blacks? After all, it *is* their private business .....



Of course not. It's illegal to do that.


----------



## missaf (Mar 21, 2006)

Over thirty states have changed their laws to include a mother's right to feed her child in any place she normally has access to, and it becomes a discriminatory act to attempt to force her to desist that behavior. Some states where people were claiming indecent behavior went back and changed their laws to state a breast exposed for the purpose of feeding a child is not indecent so people couldn't force a mother to stop feeding her child.

It's illegal in a majority of states now to discriminate against a breastfeeding in public mother, and I'm sure legislation will be coming to other states, like Massachusetts, too. So while you may live in a state that doesn't protect the rights of a mother to feed her child anywhere she wants, other states do, just like bringing a guide dog or ethnic person in.


----------



## Vince (Mar 21, 2006)

This is an interesting debate because it seems to be a moral issue. Let me go back 50 or 60 years to Alabama and look at how black people were treated. There were toilets for black people and ones for white people. Blacks had to sit at the back of the buses and only whites could sit at the front. I imagine whites could not use the toilets designated for blacks only. I imagine restaurants kept the races separated, too. Owners then had an obligation not to mix the races because people would be offended and upset. These were serious issues. So, even if you believed you thought it fine for blacks to mix with whites and vice versa you were not allowed to do that. Today we look back and wonder about the people who lived there who did that.

If you go to countries like Iraq you will not see women allowed to wear mini skirts. I rather doubt any Muslim woman would be allowed to go swimming in a costume if men are present. There are restaurants where women are not allowed in. That is just the way it is. If women disobey these rules they can be dealt with quite seriously by the law. So you wouldn't see women breastfeeding in public in those countries. 

Okay, let us get back to present day America. Should breastfeeding be allowed in public? Well, we have read the various issues and essentially there are two. One is that babies and infants need to be fed and if a mother is still nursing them then the children should be allowed to have milk and the mothers have an obligation to feed hungry children. The other issue is whether people should have the right not to view or be present where mothers are breastfeeding. Ryan and a few others champion the rights of private premises and feel that owners should be able to control the activities that occur on their premises. 

So how are we going to resolve this dilemma? Well, it is a tricky one because it is clear there are laws about exposing the breasts in most states. It is an offense to expose ones breasts in public or at least in not-nude designated areas that some places allow such as nudist beaches or clubs. We are free to do what we like in our homes as long as people cannot see us from outside. So, how are we going to allow beastfeeding without also allowing breast exposure? That is the problem. There are many people who disapprove of seeing a woman breastfeeding. It makes them feel uncomfortable and they feel it should not be allowed. Some have mentioned that it does matter how breastfeeding is done and as long as it is discreet then it is okay. By discreet we mean not exposing the breast. If women can do this without causing offense then it is okay but if not then those mothers should not be allowed to breastfeed. It becomes very difficult to determine just who is being discreet and who is not. If a covering falls or is kicked away by the feeding baby is the mother responsible and therefore causing an offense? Those are issues that will have to be decided. 

I wonder how so many women notice whether breastfeeding women are discreet or not? I take it women can look but men should not look? Breastfeeding is considered a taboo in public especially if watched by men. So if a man wanted to watch breastfeeding then he would be considered a pervert. Breastmilk is for babies and there is no question about that. However, breasts can also be part of a woman's sexual allure because in our society they have to be covered and therefore are mysterious and taboo. 

We then have a very natural activity, breastfeeding, becoming involved with a sexual taboo and this is why the whole thing is controversial. I mean, I have never seen a nursing mother's breast and I have noticed quite a few women breastfeeding in public. Everyone knows you are supposed to not stare and must pretend it is not even happening. That is just the way our society is regarding this activity. It becomes rather difficult to ignor if a woman is doing that at the next table in a restaurant. That is why some places have designated areas for this purpose. 

Should women be allowed to breastfeed in public? As far as I am personally concerned I would say yes. Should restaurants be required to allow breastfeeding at tables? Well, that is a tricky one. I personally would say yes but I also have to respect that many people might not approve of that happening. So we have the issue of what people have to tolerate in public places. A business open to the public is a public place in a way even though it is privately owned. Do individuals have the right to NOT have to witness public breastfeeding? Humm? Well, that is what it comes down to. I guess restaurants can solve this problem by not allowing babies or infants under 6 in their establishments. Then you don't have that contingency. 

I must say that a lot of people are very hung up about the body. America is a very conservative country and each state makes its own laws about all manner of things like breastfeeding and nudity. Why, our own discussion board has determined that showing nipples and areala is not allowed on this site. Neither is revealing pubic hair and genitals. We surely don't want to offend anyone. There are lots of issues involved and often morality is not about harming others but about what is disapproved of. It is clear that what is disapproved of can change depending on the culture and times.


----------



## Pink (Mar 21, 2006)

ok this was to much reading for me tonight but I did feel a need to chime in.
I breastfed my kids and you would not believe some of the dirty looks and comments I recieved. It felt very close to discrimination to me at the time.
And alot of this was from family and friends. lol 
Fact- alot of people can't seperate breasts from sex in their little pea brains
I fed my kids when they were hungry and needed it. One of them was a preemie who needed feed often and it was very important that I breastfed her according to her doc.She also had breathing problems and could not have a blanket or anything covering her while feeding. Now she is a human being right? So you are going to say she can't eat when hungry because someone might catch a glimpse of boob?  
I don't think women who breastfeed should have to hide in a bathroom or never go out in public just so people who do have a problem won't feel uncomfortable. And as far as private business goes yep I guess they have the right to ban breastfeeding just like the women who do would have the right to sue them for discrimination.* end rant


----------



## TheNowhereMan (Mar 21, 2006)

it is an iffy subject, all establishments are required to have a public restroom, so really there is nothing stopping a motherfrom escorting her child to a restroom and feeding it.


----------



## Stormy (Mar 21, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> I have heard of lactation porn, so with a certain twisted mindset I suppose you can make anything sexual...


It can be tied in with the feeder/feedee thing. I read a story about a man feeding/encouraging a woman to become huge, and then somehow she started lactating and feeding him. I found it somewhat exciting, and I'm weird but not completely twisted I don't think. Anything involving a baby or child is a turn-off though.

No, I do not think private businesses should be forced to allow public breastfeeding, but it doesn't bother me to see it. I also don't think businesses should be prohibited from allowing smoking as they are in so many places, even though I don't like to be around tobacco smoke. The owners should have the right to make the rules though.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 21, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> One more point and I'll stop: You honestly can believe a business has a right to issue call the police to issue a citation and allow the city or county to FINE a mom for feeding her kid? That's what bugs me.



No, the woman shouldn't be fined for feeding her child. She should be fined for trespassing if the owner/manager of the business asks her to leave and she refuses.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 21, 2006)

Stormy said:


> No, I do not think private businesses should be forced to allow public breastfeeding, but it doesn't bother me to see it. I also don't think businesses should be prohibited from allowing smoking as they are in so many places, even though I don't like to be around tobacco smoke. The owners should have the right to make the rules though.



I agree with everything you said. It all comes down to one simple question for me: 

Who owns our property; us or the government?


----------



## TheNowhereMan (Mar 22, 2006)

most resteraunts offer areas in restrooms for a woman to sit and breast feed a child. I alays thought that coverd the whole issue right there.


----------



## Vince (Mar 22, 2006)

Ryan, you are not talking about ethics but property rights. Do you believe those property rights take precedence over the common good? You really are confusing many issues here. In your home you are pretty much free to do as you wish and have friends breastfeed their kids if you like. However, in public places that businesses mostly are then different rules apply and people can not do whatever they like. However, if certain rights are allowed then businesses open to the public do not have the right to prevent certain behaviour from happening. 

If you have a private club then you can exclude some and have private rules. If you have a public club then you have to abide by the rules and laws of society. 

Goodness me, Ryan, you are coming across as a rigid sort of guy. You sound like a lawyer or an accountant! All black and white. When it comes to people getting along all sorts of differences have to be allowed for. With the breastfeeding issue we have to forget about the possible breast exposure and allow the baby to feed. Issues about appropriateness are then not relevant unless a mother was carrying on in some objectionable fashion having nothing to do with the feeding. 

By the way, people, it has been found that some women do experience orgasm through breastfeeding and many find the experience pleasurable.


----------



## missaf (Mar 22, 2006)

If there was an anteroom or lobby to a woman's restroom with couches or chairs, I might consider using it to nurse on. It depends on how clean it is.

And there's a whole community of people out there into adult nursing-- men or women choosing to make a woman lactate through pumping and nursing and medication and herbs for the purpose of an adult getting satisfaction, comfort, pleasure, what have you from it. Our world is a weird one at that.


----------



## jack (Mar 22, 2006)

As i don't think the question applies to the restroom...

I think it's ridiculous for a buisness not to allow that. I would take my buisness elsewhere, actually. It's a totally normal part of being a human being. As long as she's covered modestly, there's no reason to not allow a mother to breastfeed.

However, a privately owned buisness is just that: PRIAVTELY OWNED. That means it's the owners prerogative. And, as with smoking bans, rather than forcing a private buisness owner to run his buisness this way, we ought to exercise our rights and responsibilities as customers and consumers: if we object to the way a buisness is run, we ought to take our buisness elsewhere. Private buisness owners ought still to have the power to run their buisnesses the way they choose.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 22, 2006)

Vince said:


> Ryan, you are not talking about ethics but property rights.



I believe that I'm talking about both, as there is a moral/ethical aspect to the concept of rights.



Vince said:


> Do you believe those property rights take precedence over the common good?



As a general rule, I believe that individual rights (which includes property rights) take priority over the common good.



Vince said:


> You really are confusing many issues here. In your home you are pretty much free to do as you wish and have friends breastfeed their kids if you like. However, in public places that businesses mostly are then different rules apply and people can not do whatever they like.



Would you consider both to be private property? 



Vince said:


> However, if certain rights are allowed then businesses open to the public do not have the right to prevent certain behaviour from happening.



At what point is intervention acceptable? When can a business owner step in and say, "No. That is not allowed."? 



Vince said:


> If you have a private club then you can exclude some and have private rules. If you have a public club then you have to abide by the rules and laws of society.



Some clubs have more lenient membership policies than others. That doesn't make them any less private.



Vince said:


> Goodness me, Ryan, you are coming across as a rigid sort of guy. You sound like a lawyer or an accountant!



I'm actually pretty laid back about most things. 



Vince said:


> All black and white.



Many things _are_ black and white. 



Vince said:


> When it comes to people getting along all sorts of differences have to be allowed for.



True, but this debate isn't about people getting along. It's about property rights. 



Vince said:


> With the breastfeeding issue we have to forget about the possible breast exposure and allow the baby to feed. Issues about appropriateness are then not relevant unless a mother was carrying on in some objectionable fashion having nothing to do with the feeding.



I'm not worried about breast exposure. I've said a number of times that I have no personal objection to public breastfeeding. I just don't think businesses should be forced to allow it. I would also be opposed to a law banning public breastfeeding in businesses.


----------



## jack (Mar 22, 2006)

There shouldn't be a law regulating it. A PRIVATE buisness ought to be allowed to choose one way or the other. Unfortunately, rather than being responsible consumers, most people are more inclined to sue to create precedent law or inspire a law to be passed if they disagree with the way a private buisness runs itself.


----------



## Vince (Mar 22, 2006)

A private business still deals with the public. In Australia you cannot smoke where they serve food. Simple as that. No can do. Soon you won't be able to smoke in clubs unless they have some outside ventilation. It wasn't long ago that people could smoke on airplanes. Qantas doesn't allow smoking any more. About time, too. 

So, if a state decides that something is discrimination then even private businesses are not allowed to interfere. For example, if a state makes a law deeming breastfeeding lawful then clubs and businesses cannot prevent women from doing that. There might be some smaller issues to sort out but that is the way it would work. 

This idea that a privately owned business can do what they like is absurd. 

I like that city in America where everyone can wear guns. Even if you go to the bank! They say there is hardly any crime in that city! Ah, the wild west. Wonder if women can breastfeed there in public. Maybe if they carry guns that might help!


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 22, 2006)

Tina said:


> And Santa -- men can actually breastfeed.



Geez, I just googled it and you weren't kidding. I like this one 'cos the guy looks kinda New Age.

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/nursingfather.html 

View attachment davidandjohnshanley1.jpg


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 22, 2006)

Pink said:


> ok this was to much reading for me tonight but I did feel a need to chime in.
> I breastfed my kids and you would not believe some of the dirty looks and comments I recieved. It felt very close to discrimination to me at the time.
> And alot of this was from family and friends. lol
> Fact- alot of people can't seperate breasts from sex in their little pea brains
> ...



Ignorant people exist. You can't fix 'em or change 'em or "raise awareness" them to death. On any given day I can go somewhere and get a dirty look. Just pick a reason, there are plenty to choose from.

I ignore them. Fact is, they are not breaking any laws. They're ignorant and annoying but there isn't anything I can do about it but just continue to live my life and do whatever it is that I am doing within the confines of the law. If they're hitting me, harassing me, impeding me or some such thing I can call the cops, complain to the manager, contact the Attorney General's office or the Better Business Bureau. 

These are simple solutions that suffice 98% of the time. But crying RACISM in a crowded theater only serves to annoy people. People don't want to be made aware. They want you to live your life the way you see fit, take advantage of the tools available to protect you and leave them alone - they have their own battles. Why would I waste a drop of sweat trying to raise awareness about the antics of a person that no one gives a shit about anyway? As much as I would love to make it illegal for people not to like me or give me dirty looks it can't be done. 

Go ahead and feed your baby. It's not illegal. There are real things going on out there like kids being kidnapped and exploited, homeless people being beaten and set fire to in the streets, people being physically abused, etc. Everyone gets sick and tired of others who claim victim status because of a dirty look or a stupid employee. We all get them. Ignore the bastards. Complain if someone is bothering you. But trying to make laws that force places to give you preferential treatment is absurd.


----------



## missaf (Mar 22, 2006)

How is it absurd to want to have the same amount of freedom for my child, who is also a citizen of this country? I guess after this exchange that's a rhetorical question.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 22, 2006)

Because in this case you are not asking for the same, you are asking for more. You are asking for the right to take your baby anyplace. For a sane parent with common sense this seems simple enough but you don't take into account the parent with ill behaved children who wants to take them into a $100 a plate restaurant or the idiot who wants to take their child on a roller coaster or into a construction site or the person who wants to plop down and nurse her baby in a location that compromises the safety of either themselves or the employees of the establishment. No one likes hearing stories of mothers being harassed but making a law creates more problems and barely solves the originals.


----------



## Pink (Mar 22, 2006)

Well I never think I can change anyone's mind about anything. But I do think unless there are people willing to fight for what they believe in there would never be any changes made in society. I was taught to stand up for myself and I'm proud of that. Breastfeeding a child isnt putting anyone in danger, it may not be something you like looking at but then why look? If I see someone talking with their mouth full or see them picking their nose at the dinner table I don't walk up and demand they leave. Which is more offensive?


----------



## Pink (Mar 22, 2006)

and for everyone saying use a public bathroom to breastfeed YUCK!
lol If places of business want to supply a clean sitting room for breastfeeding mothers then that would be a lovely solution to the problem.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 22, 2006)

Has someone ever come over to your table in a restaurant and demand that you leave? If so, did you tell them to get lost? Did you complain to the manager about the harassment? If the manager didn't handle things to your satisfaction did you write to the parent company? Contact the attorney general's office? Goodness, if you have all this energy to stand up for what you believe in but you won't take advantage of the tools made available to you _right now_, I'm not sure what more can be done.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't like the idea of a designated room for mothers to be hurried off to for nursing. Why should you have to leave your family and children behind to go nurse? However, I do feel it is okay for someone to ask you to move if you are in a high traffic area where an accident can occur or the restaurant feels that they can not assure the safety of their customers or their staff as long as you are sitting in that spot.


----------



## Pink (Mar 22, 2006)

Not at all but I have had an experience where an employee at a store (wal-mart again)did walk up to me when I was sitting on a bench outside the women's dressing room and ask me not to feed my child in the store because someone complained.I was a little younger very embarrassed, didnt know how to react and left the store. And I did write a letter to their home office which went unanswered btw. As for breaking laws I don't think women who breastfeed are breaking any either. There is no such animal IMO as a "private" business anymore. They all have rules and regs like health,safety,smoking and discrimination federal and local laws that they have to follow. So to say that they can ban breastfeeding mothers is like saying they can ban volkswagon driving hippies. Kind of silly.
I am failing to see how breastfeeding a child in any place of business could cause an accident or safety issues unless someone was blocking an aisle with their boob. 
And I would much rather have a clean area to go feed my child in than be refused service or forced to go in a nasty bathroom stall but that is just me.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 22, 2006)

TheNowhereMan said:


> most resteraunts offer areas in restrooms for a woman to sit and breast feed a child. I alays thought that coverd the whole issue right there.



No they don't. How many women's restrooms have *you* been in? As a woman, I've been in many, and I can tell you that I can count on one hand the number of couches/chairs or benches for women to nurse. Unless you mean those pull out diaper changee things? Please tell me you're not talking about those...


----------



## missaf (Mar 22, 2006)

Some women have problems letting their milk down if they can't relax, and the noise and hustle and bustle of a public place might slow them down if they're not used to letting down in public. That was an issue for me when I first started, mostly because I was nervous about my son's health and that I did everything right, but once he was out of the woods, it was much easier.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 22, 2006)

Pink said:


> Not at all but I have had an experience where an employee at a store (wal-mart again)did walk up to me when I was sitting on a bench outside the women's dressing room and ask me not to feed my child in the store because someone complained.I was a little younger very embarrassed, didnt know how to react and left the store. And I did write a letter to their home office which went unanswered btw. As for breaking laws I don't think women who breastfeed are breaking any either. There is no such animal IMO as a "private" business anymore. They all have rules and regs like health,safety,smoking and discrimination federal and local laws that they have to follow. So to say that they can ban breastfeeding mothers is like saying they can ban volkswagon driving hippies. Kind of silly.
> I am failing to see how breastfeeding a child in any place of business could cause an accident or safety issues unless someone was blocking an aisle with their boob.
> And I would much rather have a clean area to go feed my child in than be refused service or forced to go in a nasty bathroom stall but that is just me.



That IS awful. That's the kind of story I hate to hear because we've all been there. Someone gives you lip and because you're young and don't know any better you just sit there and take it. No way should you have been put out of a store, especially a WalMart.

There are some tables in a restaurant that are more dangerous than others. someone with a baby or an infant for example would not be placed near the kitchen door entrance. The noise, the smells, the waitstaff coming in and out. Accidents do happen and if there's a crash between workers and someone should fall or hot food should go flying, it's just not a good place to put a family with a baby. The manager sees that some new person who knows no better has seated you there they may imedialtely try to get you out of that table to another. 

Depending on the layout of the place a manager may see you sitting someplace quietly nursing and be aware of things that you may not, and they may not be willing to divulge that there are problems/repairs needed in that area because they are coasting till they can get it fixed. They may ask you to move and give no explanation at all. Given the climate of the whole breastfeeding controversy a mother may get testy about it. Unless they are forcintg you out into the street, if the manager asks you to move you should move even if you don't see any danger present.

As for not being allowed in a restaurant at all, I was referring to the ritzy fancy schmantzy establishments. Ones where it costs you 50 bucks just to walk in and hang up your coat. They want to preserve an ambiance that gives their regular patrons the assurance that they are going to enjoy an excellent meal with superb service, privacy and no drama. The fact that your baby/kids are the quietest most well behaved kids on the planet is of no consequence to this kind of place. If they let you in they gotta let Henrietta come in with all her kids too. Better to say no off the bat than have to ask someone to leave because they are disturbing other patrons. Places like this know which side their bread is buttered. They are more interested in keeping regular clients happy than pleasing a few people who only come there on special occasions. I don't support breastfeeding descrimination in general but I do have support for the rights of a place like this to stay in business. If you have night off from the kids and your sweetie takes you to this restaurant for a romantic dinner, you don't want Henrietta's kids screetching and kicking the back of your chair. Not for a meal that cost $500.00. 

One more thing and I don't know if it's true. Some places have insurance that covers their patrons in the event of an accident, fire or emergency. Most policies only cover adults though, to include children costs extra. I know it's like that in my building, I can bring my neices to some places in the office building but not to others though no one observes the rules there anyway. If the same thing applies to a restaurant in regards to insurance and so fourth they may have all the more reason to quake in their boots when they see someone bringing kids to a table near the fireplace or wanting to climb the stairs to the dance hall level. Yes, there are evil places out there who have it in for famileis but I think for the most part these places are just trying to run a business without getting sued.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

I think there are two ways to solve this problem.

1 - the nursing mother goes into the bathroom to nurse.

2 - People who see a woman nursing remember that she is feeding her child - not waving her tittie at you.

I find this whole discussion astounding. Are the people who are against breast feeding in public as offended by a dog nursing her pups?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 22, 2006)

I am against dogs nursing their pups in a restaurant. I draw the line there.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 22, 2006)

I actually went back to the original post on this subject.I was expecting to find a horror story...how some nursing mother's boobie came flying out of her shirt and a man was sprayed in the eye with her baby food.But...no....nothing so titilating..heh.If a woman is sitting in a restaurant, and she has on a VERY tight and low cut shirt, and you can see her nipples showing through..etc..etc..Bet some of the men so disturbed by a nursing mother..would lick their chops and not make a peep.........coming full circle..back to boobies.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

mossystate said:


> I actually went back to the original post on this subject.I was expecting to find a horror story...how some nursing mother's boobie came flying out of her shirt and a man was sprayed in the eye with her baby food.But...no....nothing so titilating..heh.If a woman is sitting in a restaurant, and she has on a VERY tight and low cut shirt, and you can see her nipples showing through..etc..etc..Bet some of the men so disturbed by a nursing mother..would lick their chops and not make a peep.........coming full circle..back to boobies.


 
EXACTLY!!! 

It's how our society has sexualized women to the point where the breast is not a functioning part of our bodies specifically there to feed children. NO! Our breasts are there strictly for the pleasure of men. :doh: 

Don't go getting me on my feminist soapbox now!! LOL


----------



## Tina (Mar 22, 2006)

No nursing mother should be forced to nurse in the average woman's bathroom. 

Let's think about the mechanics of it for a moment, shall we?

First, ew.

Most bathrooms, the only place to sit is on the toilet. Oh, look, the toilet is wet, because some thoughtless asshole decided she'd hover rather than sit her ass on a toilet seat that was probably dry before she got to it. So, let's try to dry the seat while juggling a baby. Wheee! Even if it's dry, do you want peoples' bare-ass cooties on your clothes? 

Now let's think about trying to feed the baby while sitting on the toilet. The woman next to you is taking a crap, grunting and plopping and stinking up the place. Lovely. Even without anyone else in there, it smells and it is often dirty. There is also no support anywhere for the mother's weight-bearing arm, which is an important consideration. 

I will now raise the question that has been raised here, and that has been raised in every single discussion of this kind: would you want to eat sitting on a toilet in a public restroom? I don't even want to eat while sitting on my *own* toilet, let alone a public one.

It's a disgusting scenario and should be removed automatically from any sort of discussion of breastfeeding options.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

Of course you're right Tina - but I was trying to think of a solution for the mom. I couldn't care less if a nursing mom wants to sit next to me and take her shirt off to nurse. It wouldn't bother me a whit. But for some reason some people find it offensive. I don't get it. I say if you don't like it - don't look.



Tina said:


> No nursing mother should be forced to nurse in the average woman's bathroom.
> 
> Let's think about the mechanics of it for a moment, shall we?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jes (Mar 22, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Yep. That's the lady in question. I believe it was in the state of NY and she called somebody because she was having sexual feelings while nursing. Now the state says there was more to it than that and that they wouldn't take a child away from a mom because of that sole issue. They also say that due to confidentiality laws, they can't say more about the case (handy that). I don't know the family so I can't speak to the issues at hand, but it was handled very poorly and from what I've read, traumatized that toddler big time.
> 
> And while it's unusual to have sexual feelings during breastfeeding, given the hormones released it's not surprising. Oxytocin is the hormone released during orgasm, and is stimulated by breastfeeding. Prolactin is a "happy hormone" that increases a sense of closeness, peacefulness and intimacy, and it too is stimulated during nursing.
> 
> The whole thing was incredibly sad.


I think the upshot of this was that the woman was nabbed, the kid put into (or potentially put into foster care) and then after everyone thought it through (and saw how the educated public reacted) they dropped things. Duh.

WHat about (and I know this is off topic a bit) that scandinavian woman (I think) who put her baby carriage right outside the giant glass window of a coffee shop and then got a coffee and sat inside for a bit, right on the other side of the glass? She was visiting NY and this practice is popular at home as it keeps sleeping babies out of the noise and the smoke of coffeeshops (and keeps patrons from hearing a crying baby). She got arrested for negligence or somesuch. 
there are always 2 sides to everything, but it just seems so silly. She wasn't insane, she was a good mother who was clearly taking care of her child in a way that, while unusual for a NYer, was normal for her. It's a shame when we have to assume that b/c we fear everyone is going to run off with our kids, we can't just let them sit in the sunshine for 10 minutes while we sit on the opposite side of the window. Sure, someone could've run off with the kid, but did anyone? no.


----------



## olivefun (Mar 22, 2006)

Pink said:


> If I see someone talking with their mouth full or see them picking their nose at the dinner table I don't walk up and demand they leave. Which is more offensive?



That is the best reply here!!!

wow. haha
i love that!


I still don't know how anyone could find any aspect of breasfeeding unpleasant to look at. Whether it is exposing extra flesh or not, I cannot see anything offensive about a woman breastfeeding. Even if a woman is exposing herself.. whatever. I am a bit amazed that this thread still has enough steam to continue along here.


----------



## Jes (Mar 22, 2006)

you guys are missing the point--we are such puritans in this country. so while most of us would agree picking a nose and eatin' it is grosser than boobeatin' (which isn't gross, but whatever), the mere fact that it's a boob has most of us in a tizzy. 

oh, i could go on and on and on.


----------



## missaf (Mar 22, 2006)

Boobs are for sex... A child latched on to one ruins the appeal of the sexual act of doing the same thing. Sandie has said it much better than I ever could, LOL.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

I was nursing my son once, in a rockingchair at our former house....our cat Sapphire (may she rest in peace) kept trying to jump into my lap while I had my son in a football hold (I'd had a Csection), and suddenly he pulled off and she got squirted in the face, LOL! She sat there and licked it off her face, then got excited and REALLY tried to jump up on my lap for more....weird cat!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 22, 2006)

mossystate said:


> I actually went back to the original post on this subject.I was expecting to find a horror story...how some nursing mother's boobie came flying out of her shirt and a man was sprayed in the eye with her baby food.But...no....nothing so titilating..heh.If a woman is sitting in a restaurant, and she has on a VERY tight and low cut shirt, and you can see her nipples showing through..etc..etc..Bet some of the men so disturbed by a nursing mother..would lick their chops and not make a peep.........coming full circle..back to boobies.



There was no horror story and I'm not bothered by public breastfeeding. I made a point to approach the issue from the standpoint of property rights, because that is my sole concern here.


----------



## EvilPrincess (Mar 22, 2006)

Ryan said:


> There was no horror story and I'm not bothered by public breastfeeding. I made a point to approach the issue from the standpoint of property rights, because that is my sole concern here.


 
A clearly posted "no food-drink-eating" type sign would clear up most situations. lol


----------



## Ryan (Mar 22, 2006)

Vince said:


> A private business still deals with the public. In Australia you cannot smoke where they serve food. Simple as that. No can do. Soon you won't be able to smoke in clubs unless they have some outside ventilation. It wasn't long ago that people could smoke on airplanes. Qantas doesn't allow smoking any more. About time, too.
> 
> So, if a state decides that something is discrimination then even private businesses are not allowed to interfere. For example, if a state makes a law deeming breastfeeding lawful then clubs and businesses cannot prevent women from doing that. There might be some smaller issues to sort out but that is the way it would work.
> 
> ...



Laws frequently uphold violations of individual rights.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 22, 2006)

I've said it before..I'll say it again..everyone roll up their boobies and call this thread done! LOL


----------

