We're posting in a thread about Claridges, I kind of assumed he was talking about that type of restaurant which let's face it is hardly going to be child friendly anyway.
Breastfeeding in restaurants
- Thread starter Rich1988
- Start date
- Status
We're posting in a thread about Claridges, I kind of assumed he was talking about that type of restaurant which let's face it is hardly going to be child friendly anyway.
My apologies I could have sworn the title to this thread was 'Breastfeeding in restaurants ' , not 'Breastfeeding in Claridges'
My personal opinion is that I like breasts like most men but I don't want to see a baby being fed while I'm in a restaurant. Yeah it might be natural and all that but it's also a 'personal thing' that doesn't need to be shared with everyone around you.
In my view if a person goes out with a baby and has to feed them then they should consider the other people around them and try to find somewhere more private than in the middle of a restaurant with lots of other people around them.
Not that it makes any difference because the equality laws says breastfeeding can not be discriminated against... ignoring the equality of those who do not want to see it.
It's also kind of ironic that women can't go around topless (certain places allowed obviously) if they want but it's perfectly alright to show their breasts when they want to feed a baby...
Basically the issue is all about consideration of other people and it's not just in this one area where it needs to be used. Using the right language (ie swearing) in front of children, who could pick it up, is something I'd never do, I rarely do it in front of other people, but I know plenty of others that have no issue with it. Even those with issues about people on buses using their phone speakers instead of headphones are more about consideration of others than discrimination etc.
edit: and to those saying those of us who should leave a restaurant if we have an issue.... what if we were there first or were waiting on an order etc. That to me is lack of consideration coming from those who think it's ok to breast feed.
In my view if a person goes out with a baby and has to feed them then they should consider the other people around them and try to find somewhere more private than in the middle of a restaurant with lots of other people around them.
Not that it makes any difference because the equality laws says breastfeeding can not be discriminated against... ignoring the equality of those who do not want to see it.
It's also kind of ironic that women can't go around topless (certain places allowed obviously) if they want but it's perfectly alright to show their breasts when they want to feed a baby...
Basically the issue is all about consideration of other people and it's not just in this one area where it needs to be used. Using the right language (ie swearing) in front of children, who could pick it up, is something I'd never do, I rarely do it in front of other people, but I know plenty of others that have no issue with it. Even those with issues about people on buses using their phone speakers instead of headphones are more about consideration of others than discrimination etc.
edit: and to those saying those of us who should leave a restaurant if we have an issue.... what if we were there first or were waiting on an order etc. That to me is lack of consideration coming from those who think it's ok to breast feed.
Last edited:
I've explained this several times already, in detail. Other people have explained it too. I spelled it out clearly just using A, B, C and D in order to explain it without any reference to any real activity at all, so that people could think about the explanation rather than reacting to any particular activity.
I don't know how to explain it again in a different way and I don't think you'd respond any differently than you have done before. But I feel obliged to try one last time.
It's an argument against the idea that "natural" means "should not be subject to any restrictions".
"it's natural" is a claim to superhuman authority for whatever position a person holds. It's like saying "Everyone must obey me because god says so".
It's used on an entirely arbitrary basis, whether it's to support discrimination against homosexuals ("it's not natural"), to sell snake oil at a vast profit ("it's natural") or whatever.
This is the key point: Giving examples of natural things that almost everyone agrees should be subject to restrictions is a counter to the argument that "natural" means "should not be subject to any restrictions". It shows that even the people making the "it's natural" argument don't really believe it. It is not in any way, shape or form a statement that all natural things are comparable, which is what you're claiming it to be.
Your claim is as wrong as claiming that anyone who says that dogs have 4 legs and cats have 4 legs is saying that dogs are cats.
It's not ironic, briefly exposing a breast to feed is not the same as being consistently topless. Do you consider consider explosive diarrhea to be the same thing as a fart? I mean, both come from the same place, both smell, surely they are identical.
you already know what he meant - you don't need to ask him if he thinks murder is a good thing
In my view it is, considering in most cases you need to expose your breasts to both feed a baby and go topless.
It's perfectly natural for people to not wear clothes yet its socially unacceptable (by the masses) for a woman to walk around topless because some people find it uncomfortable, yet it's fine to feed a baby even though some find it uncomfortable.
maybe if you wanted to feed two babies at once
normally part of one breast is exposed, quite discretely
that really isn't the same as parading around completely topless
All the mothers I know who have breastfed (plenty - I'm at that age when everyone seems to have just had kids) when I've been present have not shown their breasts at all and, I'm sure, would be horrified if they had. It's perfectly possible for a baby to latch-on underneath a cloth of some kind. It's also a necessary thing in most cases - babies need the milk, of course, and expressing is difficult and time-consuming for some women.
It's bizarre that the nay-sayers in this thread seem to think breastfeeding always involves whopping your bazookas out for all and sundry.
I know what he wrote. I'm assuming that he meant something else.
It is probably a reasonable assumption that he doesn't think murder is OK, to the point where questioning whether he does might seem be bit silly.
It's not because you're missing the intent.
A woman parading around topless is doing it either to antagonise (SJWs et al.) or as a sexual display.
However, a sexual display is largely contextual: think nudist beaches.
However, being topless isn't always sexual in nature and can serve within a functional context: think of a clinical or educational setting.
A woman breastfeeding is doing it with the aim to feed their child. There is no sexual undertone there (unless you wanted to get Freudian) and it has a specific purpose to fulfil as it provides a basic couple of needs for a child: food and attachment/comfort.
Parading topless in a sexualised way is simply not comparable to serving a function.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue about semantics or you (not) reading the whole OP instead of just the title, especially when we seem to agree anyway.
"a cloth of some kind" is why Claridges is being criticised and campaigned against - they asked someone to use one while breastfeeding at the table.
I know of someone who mostly stripped to the waist in order to breastfeed as obviously as possible in a shop in the place that would physically block as many people as possible, in order to make a point and demonstrate her power, blah blah.
If no restrictions are allowed at all, there will be people who will use that to be as unpleasant as possible about it. Like the people who use the crappy quality speakers on their phones to squawk out tinny renditions of music as loudly as possible so they can annoy as many people as possible.
People clearly aren't getting my point about being naked as natural yet is unacceptable to social acceptabilities (you are all proving my point there by the way) yet something else that is 'natural' is fine because it is feeding a baby.
Whether it is all or part of the breast ,note all the breast feeding I have seen is 'over the top being pushed down' not coming from underneath where the t-shirt/top can be used as a cover, in this case it is still exposing a part of the anatomy that in any other 'public' scenario would be illegal to show... if you can't get the irony in this then I give up.
And for the record being naked does not need to be sexual, people go to nudist camps to be free of clothing, not because it's sexual. Not to mention art models.
Ok... seeing as my point seems to confuse a lot of people I'll do another analogy seeing as we're primarily male.
It's perfectly natural for women to have underarm/leg hair, do you want to see that on women? I bet most of you prefer there to be no underarm/leg hair on women, many even will find the idea of body hair on a woman repulsive.
Just because something is natural, doesn't mean everyone wants to see it.
Whether it is all or part of the breast ,note all the breast feeding I have seen is 'over the top being pushed down' not coming from underneath where the t-shirt/top can be used as a cover, in this case it is still exposing a part of the anatomy that in any other 'public' scenario would be illegal to show... if you can't get the irony in this then I give up.
And for the record being naked does not need to be sexual, people go to nudist camps to be free of clothing, not because it's sexual. Not to mention art models.
Ok... seeing as my point seems to confuse a lot of people I'll do another analogy seeing as we're primarily male.
It's perfectly natural for women to have underarm/leg hair, do you want to see that on women? I bet most of you prefer there to be no underarm/leg hair on women, many even will find the idea of body hair on a woman repulsive.
Just because something is natural, doesn't mean everyone wants to see it.
Last edited:
I think you've immediately contradicted yourself by giving an example of women walking around topless not as a sexual display and not with the intention of antagonising people. It also doesn't match the next category you give - a functional context for medicine or education.
Nudism seems to rebut your line of argument. It's also a rather bad example for arguing that no restrictions should be allowed on breastfeeding because nudity is extremely restricted in public, allowed only in a few places.
Well you better give up now son.
No, the point is that sexualisation and functionality are not comparable, yet it is largely down to context. Nudism serves neither, but it is removed from the sexualised context, and due to its unique context is acceptable. That too, for for some being nude is the function in itself.
Medicine and education are non-sexualised and acceptable.
"**** walking" is sexualised even though it's antagonistic in nature which is why it's unacceptable. In fact, it's antagonistic because it's sexual, but you know that.
A topless art-model is serving a function, even though it could also be considered somewhat sexual but its function helps keep the lid on it. But, it is largely down to the setting and the immediate company.
There isn't a complete black and white here.
Breastfeeding isn't sexualised and is -- or at least should be -- completely acceptable.
As we've been over, the problem stems from when it crosses that boundary between sexualisation and non-sexualisation. Completely removing a top in a public setting to that end crosses that threshold. Doing it discreetly however, does not. People have a valid right to object if a woman is making a spectacle of it. If it's being done tastefully, then the prudes and snobs are the ones which have the issue, not the mother.
You could point out that as the mother is breastfeeding, being completely topless or not shouldn't be an issue as she is still serving a function but the point is, she is able to do so without going to such an extreme. A topless art-model on the other hand is expected to be so even though given the context, it is also functional.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Private business have the right to tell people to stop doing certain behavior or leave. Breast feeding is not an exception to that, its not any more special than any other sort of behavior. Personally if i had a business i would not mind if someone breast feeds. If you don't like the business policy stop using the business, don't try and force them through government.
- Status