Breastfeeding in restaurants

Dis86 · 6 Dec 2014 at 17:23

Edrof said:
It's bizarre that the nay-sayers in this thread seem to think breastfeeding always involves whopping your bazookas out for all and sundry.

Perhaps that's what they experienced though?

Soundood · 6 Dec 2014 at 17:34

I am all for it, only if they don't mind me watching, and maybe having a munch too lol

Gogl · 6 Dec 2014 at 17:55

soundood said:
I am all for it, only if they don't mind me watching, and maybe having a munch too lol

I go to a restaurant to eat - no one takes offence
Mother goes to a restaurant to eat - no one takes offence
Child goes to a restaurant to eat - no one takes offence
Soundood eats in a restaurant - mother takes offence

HAz · 6 Dec 2014 at 18:28

Some right odd balls on this forum. How can breastfeeding offend you?

Midlife Crisis · 6 Dec 2014 at 18:39

Boobies are fine in restaurants but not screaming babies, or noisy children for that matter

Nix · 6 Dec 2014 at 18:45

Midlife Crisis said:
Boobies are fine in restaurants but not screaming babies, or noisy children for that matter

I think what you want, is actually a meal at Hooters.

Stretch · 6 Dec 2014 at 18:50

Do the same rules also apply to penis's.. stupid?

Yes breast-feeding is natural, but there are a whole host of "natural" acts people would want to see in public. Taking a dump, taking a wizz, having sex, picking your nose, spanking the monkey, creaming you piles, cutting your toe nails etc etc

I don't have a problem with breast-feeding but clearly some people do. Where do you draw the line? The only answer is to let people/shops/restaurants etc decide for themselves, and others should respect their decision.

Minstadave · 6 Dec 2014 at 18:55

If they're allowed to decide for themselves who can frequent their establishment can you have restaurants that don't let black people in then?

Nix · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:00

Minstadave said:
If they're allowed to decide for themselves who can frequent their establishment can you have restaurants that don't let black people in then?

Faulty logic herp derp.

Kamwah · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:04

** Any image wider then 1280 pixels should be linked or placed in spoiler tags **
http://i58.tinypic.com/2sb1thy.jpg

Surprised people are offended by breastfeeding, they need to get a grip on reality.

Kenai · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:05

Nix said:
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.

As I'm reading that, you're saying nudism is acceptable, however it is only deemed to be acceptable in specific circumstances not universally as highlighted by the case of the naked rambler who is repeatedly arrested and jailed simply for being nude and refusing to dress in public.

Yet a large scale nude bike ride through a city centre seems to fly well under the radar.

If we were to take nudism as some sort of parallel it would imply breastfeeding can be ok but only in certain circumstances. The trouble is defining those circumstances as this thread so aptly demonstrates, as no one seems to operate anywhere near a common ground of opinion.

Skidder · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:07

Storm in a d cup.

grumpysculler · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:12

Stretch said:
I don't have a problem with breast-feeding but clearly some people do. Where do you draw the line? The only answer is to let people/shops/restaurants etc decide for themselves, and others should respect their decision.

We'd be better as a society if people/shops/restaurants banned formula feeding.

Breastfeeding *should* be normal. It isn't. A statutory right to breastfeed goes a limited way towards making it normal.

We need to encourage breastfeeding, if someone takes offence at a baby eating their lunch then I refer them to Stephen Fry's comments on being offended.

If the direct benefits of breastfeeding aren't persuasive enough, then the savings the NHS would make if breastfeeding were more common should be.

Minstadave · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:12

Nix said:
Faulty logic herp derp.

Why is the logic faulty? If a restaurant can refuse to have breast-feeding woman what else are they allowed to refuse? It wasn't long ago that people would have felt it morally repugnant to share a restaurant with a dark skinned person.

Nix · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:16

Kenai said:
As I'm reading that, you're saying nudism is acceptable, however it is only deemed to be acceptable in specific circumstances not universally as highlighted by the case of the naked rambler who is repeatedly arrested and jailed simply for being nude and refusing to dress in public.

Yet a large scale nude bike ride through a city centre seems to fly well under the radar.

If we were to take nudism as some sort of parallel it would imply breastfeeding can be ok but only in certain circumstances. The trouble is defining those circumstances as this thread so aptly demonstrates, as no one seems to operate anywhere near a common ground of opinion.

Which comes back around to the point that everything is contextual. People (or rather the staff) kicked up a fuss in Claridges. No surprise there.

It's not just about a specific behaviour but the personal intent and social context surrounding it. Hence there cannot be a straight forward black and white.

FARGO · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:21

Your house, your rules.
Their house, their rules.

Nix · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:21

Minstadave said:
Why is the logic faulty? If a restaurant can refuse to have breast-feeding woman what else are they allowed to refuse? It wasn't long ago that people would have felt it morally repugnant to share a restaurant with a dark skinned person.

You're comparing black people to breastfeeding. Think it through.

Where have breastfeeders been refused service simply for being breastfeeders? Who's being morally outraged or espousing non-breastfeeding superiority?

EDIT:

Skidder said:
Storm in a d cup.

This needs more recognition.

jamief · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:26

lsg1r said:
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.

You could be considerate to the mother by, you know, not looking if it offends you so much. If you are offended by someone breastfeeding you should maybe consider why this is, rather than expecting them to go somewhere else.

Minstadave · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:26

Nix said:
Where have breastfeeders been refused service simply for being breastfeeders? Who's being morally outraged or espousing non-breastfeeding superiority?

This is exactly what the chap I was replying to was suggesting, letting restaurants decide whether they would allow breast feeding or not.

We've spent years trying to encourage more breast feeding, allowing discrimination against breast feeding mothers would be a backwards step. It should be encouraged and be something to be proud of. This should be enshrined in law if necessary.

Angilion · 6 Dec 2014 at 19:34

Nix said:
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.

And nudity is extremely restricted in public. It's a serious sex offense for men and a minor public order offence for women. Which is another issue. The point is that it's not allowed in public despite not being sexual and having a function, so it can't serve as as example of asexual and functional nudity being allowed in an unrestricted way in public.

Medicine and education are non-sexualised and acceptable.

Not in an unrestricted way in public. Hardly ever in public at all, to any extent.

"**** 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.

The only "**** walking" I know of isn't sexual. It's purely aggressive and antagonistic and that's the point of it. It's also not nudity, although I suppose it could be.

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.

And it's not allowed in an unrestricted way in public. If I stripped off in a public place for someone to paint me, I'd be arrested. I'd probably become a registered sex offender because I'm a man, but even a woman would probably get arrested. She'd certainly be asked to leave if she did it in a restaurant without consent.

There isn't a complete black and white here.

That's true, but you're not providing examples of public nudity that's considered acceptable without any restrictions.

Breastfeeding isn't sexualised and is -- or at least should be -- completely acceptable.

The issue isn't breastfeeding. It's breastfeeding in public without any restrictions. Nobody has said that breastfeeding shouldn't be acceptable. Some people have said that it shouldn't be acceptable in public without any restrictions.

As we've been over, the problem stems from when it crosses that boundary between sexualisation and non-sexualisation.

If that was the case, then asexual (to the nude person) nudity would be acceptable in public without restrictions.

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.

What is discretion? Bear in mind that Claridges didn't ask her to not breastfeed at the table. They asked her to not do it as openly as she was. They would regard that as doing it discreetly, at least in the context of a formal restaurant.

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.

And not allowed in an unrestricted way in public. Most certainly not in a formal restaurant. Functionality isn't the only issue.