Poll: Breastfeeding in public

[TornadoADV]

If they do it, I reserve the right to call my boys in and we can have a school circle pow-wow around her and watch intently. If she makes a fuss, it becomes indecent exposure and she goes to jail and we get a free show.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but I do think it should be covered up as much as possible. It's like when you go into a urninal: you don't pull your pants all the way down so everyone gets a shot of your ass do you?

 

[The Coop]

If a woman I find to be nice looking walks up and wants to breast feed me in public, I'm all for it.

To all those opposed, well... haters be hatin'.





...

OK. In all seriousness? I don't care. Let the baby eat. The mother's not being gang-banged by a bus load of handicapped first graders on your mother's grave while she announces each orgasm she has with a "HEIL HITLER!" as U.S. flags all around her burst into flames. It's a mother's breast being bared to some level so she can feed her child. I know some were horrified and scarred for life by Janet Jackson's funbag popping out, but I say the majority of us can handle a bared boob... no pun intended.

 

[Zaik]

Boobs are already plastered all over everything in the world as it is, I don't really care.

What can I say, I guess I'm desensitized to boobs by the internet. When they're only a click away, it loses the magic.

 

[The Stonker]

I am a supporter of boobs so I really don't mind seeing them in public.
Now, if you're considering the arguement, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" then common! They see worse stuff in James Bond movies.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Funnily enough most people seem to using the "think of the children" argument to be in support of breastfeeding.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

I am a supporter of boobs so I really don't mind seeing them in public.
Now, if you're considering the arguement, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" then common! They see worse stuff in James Bond movies.

 

[Cheesus333]

How dare, how dare I say, that woman drag herself out of the house where she might inconvenience you with the sight of a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Come on, boyo, she went through nine months of relative hell and then squeezed a baby out of a hole severely undersized for the job. Now you want her to stay at home, too? Post-natal depression gets so many women in part because of the isolation you'd see mothers go through to prevent you seeing a nipple. You're perfectly justified in not wanting to see it, but she's also perfectly justified in wanting to go out on occasion. Babies get hungry at all hours, man, she's just got to go with the very literal flow.

And this is what a win looks like.

In spite of how much I agree with this point, my answer to the poll was 'I don't care'. Because I don't. I am neither the baby nor the mother in this little exchange of nutrients, so as far as I'm concerned it's nothing to do with me.

Umm how do you embed youtube videos?

I did it for you there, but for future reference you put youtube= (all the letters and numbers after the '=' sign), and put it in square brackets. Quote this post to see it.

 

[Rottweiler]

"That's a pretty terrible analogy. A better analogy would be changing your shirt, which would be considered tactless but not obscene (or illegal). That is the double standard. I mean have you seen a fat guy without a shirt? May as well be breasts."

I disagree. It's a good analogy because, while some may feel it's unfair, there are Two portions of the female anatomy which are directly related to Eroticism and on men there is One. That has been in the Male conscious for a very long time. Examples: 'Titty Bars'.

Very rare are the establishments where Women pay Men to take off their shirt. Rare are the 'Wet T-Shirt' contests for Men. I would but point out 'Girls Gone Wild' videos.

"I'm pretty sure if it made it to the Supreme Court women would be given chest equality, but they keep winning at local levels and can't appeal to the SCOTUS."

Well, let me ask you this. When was the last court case where a Male was able to win a harassment case because a Woman refused to stop staring at his chest?

You'll have a long time convincing me that, after centuries of promoting Breasts as Sex Objects, that a court case will magically change the preconceptions of millions- nay, hundreds of millions- of Men. That being the case, defending naked breastfeeding as somehow different falls very very flat.

 

[Dags90]

I disagree. It's a good analogy because, while some may feel it's unfair, there are Two portions of the female anatomy which are directly related to Eroticism and on men there is One. That has been in the Male conscious for a very long time. Examples: 'Titty Bars'.

So beefcake calendars and this trope [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShirtlessScene] don't exist?

A court case doesn't have to magically change preconceptions. This is an issue of legal equality. Women should be allowed under the law to be shirtless in any place where men are.

 

[Rottweiler]

And there should be no consequences for Men to stare at them. But there are.

Because 'equality' means exactly that- not 'equal but we can also set the standard for everyone else'.

And 'beefcake calendars' aren't considered Naked. However, a woman without a shirt *is* considered Naked.

Change that first.

 

[theriddlen]

I don't like it, for exactly the same reason as OP. It just makes it awkward to everyone near, not to mention how unpleasant it is, when it happens in your direct line of sight and you are forced to look at your own lap or something. Also, why can't you use a bottle in public?

Don't get me wrong, i LOVE boobs, but only when I'm allowed to see them... or not openly disallowed

 

[Dags90]

And there should be no consequences for Men to stare at them. But there are.

Because 'equality' means exactly that- not 'equal but we can also set the standard for everyone else'.

And 'beefcake calendars' aren't considered Naked. However, a woman without a shirt *is* considered Naked.

Change that first.

There aren't any legal ramifications to staring, certainly not harassment. Here's a slice of California's harassment statute:

527.6. Harassment; temporary restraining order and injunction; procedure; domestic violence; support person; costs and attorney fees; punishment
(a) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.

As used in this subdivision:

(1) "Unlawful violence" is any assault or battery, or stalking as prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, but shall not include lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others.

(2) "Credible threat of violence" is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(3) "Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

Staring at someone couldn't possibly be construed as harassment under these statutes. And a woman without a shirt on is topless, not naked. A man without a shirt on is equally topless, not naked.

 

[Zanderinfal]

I think if a kid need s food, alright.
But really, could they go somewhere... I don't know...
...
secluded???

 

[Comma-Kazie]

If a woman needs to feed her baby, then by all means, she should do so. If anyone has a problem with that, they need to grow up and get over it.

 

[Rottweiler]

(b) For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.

"His staring at my breasts was very threatening and seriously harassed me!"

 

[Kimarous]

As long as the person is being discreet, I don't have a problem with it. However, for the sake of public consciousness, I'd prefer if they reserved such instances of public feeding for more necessary circumstances, like when the baby actually wants to be fed.

 

[Dags90]

(b) For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.

"His staring at my breasts was very threatening and seriously harassed me!"

Cherry pick more please, it also includes:

"Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

You have to communicate with someone (or stalk them) in order for it to qualify as harassment. So just staring doesn't count. Period.

And frankly I don't think staring would cause a "reasonable person 'substantial emotional distress'"

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Honestly.